The Livingston County Republican Party still wants to know the party affiliation and political activity of local judicial candidates, even though the races are designated nonpartisan by the state.
Who issued the survey? Republicans. Of course we want to know the party affiliation and political activity of the candidates. That's our job. I don't even see where this is even controversial. We are a political party in a 63% GOP county, where judicial activism is a major issue.
As for "nonpartisan", judges are human. They have their biases as lawyers and bring them to their court. Theresa Brennan is still the Emily's List pro-abortion democrat. She's still the war protestor. She's still the individual who gave thousands to extremist and incompetent Stabenow who fillibusters Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans will be republicans after they become judges. Democrats will be democrats after they become judges. That's just how it is, and we're just pouring sunlight on what is usually an overlooked race.
The difference is that we're honest about being political in this. Others aren't. You can't tell me that gubenatorial appointments are not political. Not when there's $3400 checks involved, as well as more checks to state, local, and federal democrats at the same period. Theresa Brennan bought the seat. If that's not partisan, I don't know what is. Our partisanship is grass roots based however, not good ole boys and good ole girls clubs. The old boys clubs and old ways are threatened by our decisions as a party. Too bad.
I caused a bit of controversey with my comment here on the old questionaire.
....candidates should ignore the questionaires. All I have to say is that candidates do so at their own peril
That was due to some of the political dynamics at the time. I have no regrets about that statement. At that time, it needed to be made. I had a private answer and a public answer on the situation. My public answer is that I supported the questionaires. Publicly, I'll always stand behind the volunteers on the committee. Privately, I'll just say that I made a lot of phone calls to a lot of people on this matter, as my cell phone bill will show in a week. My private stance was that the questionaire shouldn't be tossed but changed slightly due to three questions there that I did not support because of what was implied by them. I'll now say that three of the questions were unacceptable and needed to be taken care of. That should have never been admitted to the press however. I had a quote to the Argus saying that I expect we'd come to an acceptable solution. We did.
The new questionaire passed easily among the committee. This one counts and will be a major factor in determining the decisions our committee makes in these races. My advice. Turn it in quickly, since the decisions will be made soon.
To tip off the candidates who read this blog, these two questions are my favorite and count the most to me. I'll warn everyone that I've very good at reading between the lines and deciphering "politicalspeak".
What is your opinion regarding the role of the judge when it comes to interpreting the law?
Which judges do you admire personally or professionally, and why? Moreover, what have you learned from them and how will that knowledge impact your role on the bench?
Those two questions count the most to this executive committee member's vote.