We got a "2006 Nonpartisan Judicial Voter Guide" booklet in the mail. Each candidate for state-level judge gets a half-page to state their credentials and make a personal statement. Being a nonpartisan race, none of the candidates state their political party affiliations. And since judges aren't supposed to have "hidden agendas," none of them state positions on anything.
It's kind of interesting, though, how some of the candidates make their politics as obvious as possible. For instance Rusty Duke's statement starts off "I am a Conservative." And Rachel Lea Hunter (who, if not a total nut job herself, seems to be married to one) mentions progressive issues like the erosion of constitutional rights, and double standards for the rich and the poor. On the other hand, some candidates seem to take that "nonpartisan" thing more seriously. I wasn't able to figure out Mark Martin or Sarah Parker's political affiliation from the booklet. Now that I think about it, the incumbents in general seem to be less blatant about their politics.
That said, here's my Somewhat Accurate Guide to Decoding the Politics of Judicial Candidates:
Conservative:
endorsed by Elizabeth Dole and/or Richard Burr
deny being activist judge
use words "crime," "guilty" or "rule of law"
Progressive:
endorsed by organizations with "women" in name
deny having agenda
use words "rights" or "justice"
I must say, while I appreciate the sentiment about not having an agenda or being an activist judge or whatnot, I think it's a bit disingenuous. They're human. They have opinions and beliefs, and when they interpret the law, their opinions and beliefs are necessarily going to be some kind of a factor. Not to say they should decide against the law to suit their beliefs. But if there was no human element, we could just replace judges with robots and be done with it.
We'd be much better off if we could replace judges with robots. Unfortunately, we're still a LONG way from the level of AI which ould make this a feasible option. And even then, you'd hear the privileged screaming bloody blue murder; they want their perks, indeed they do, including the right to have their golfing buddy be the judge on their corruption trial.
I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that slavish application of the law, with zero flexibility, is how we end up with things like a kid who takes Tylenol at school getting expelled for drug use.
We need judges who can be thoughtful and consider context when making decisions. A future in which computers could handle that is so far distant that I can't speculate on what the court system would look like. Of course this assumes that today we have human judges who are thoughtful, compassionate, and unbiased. A big if!
I know Rachel Hunter personally and yes she is a nut job. A very nice and intelligent lady, fun to talk to, and even quite correct (in my view) on most political issues, but totally unfit for the bench at any level. I also know Mark Martin personally. He is less close to me politically (he is a Democrat, btw) but also a very nice fellow and much much MUCH better suited to the position. I'll be voting for him with pleasure.
I ususally vote Republican in Judicial races, all things being equal, precisely because of the judicial activism/agenda thing you mention (although I see it as a liklihood-to-adhere-to-the-constitution thing), but this time the quality of their candidates is pretty thin. Still haven't sorted out who to vote for in many of these races. The one other candidate I know personally is Ann Marie Calabria, whom I would vote for in a heartbeat.
Are you sure Mark Martin is a Democrat? His N&O questionnaire says Republican.
The one that really threw me was Sarah Parker: couldn't tell at all from the booklet. Found a page (either ask.com or wikipedia) that described her as a moderate conservative. But her N&O questionnaire says Democrat.
I was looking for information on Rachel Hunter and found a Greensboro blog where her husband was attacking the author in the comments. He sounded like such a lunatic that I'm still not sure whether it was really him, or someone posing as him as a joke.
Well dang, you're right - I guess it speaks well of Martin that I even know the guy and am unclear about his party affiliation. Yes, Rachel's husband is that crazy. I've been on the campaign email list since the beginning and I can't tell you just how entertaining it is, in a Francis E Dec sort of way. She has full conversations with dogs and people who aren't there, totally unafraid to compare someone to Hitler one moment and hurl a racist epithet the next, and of course she is the most persecuted woman in the world. Really classic stuff. Probably the best moment was when she posted a pic of herself with Dean Smith and claimed he had endorsed her when he was just being nice. I remember Sarah Parker was appointed into that job, so she must be a Democrat as Easley wouldn't appoint a non-Democrat to anything, but I don't know much else about her.
Personally I'm most comfortable with judges of moderate politics, not so concerned about democrat vs. republican. I was impressed that Mark Martin has the endorsement of all living ex-chief-justices, regardless of their political parties.
I think the idea (which you didn't say, but many do) that only liberal judges ever "legislate from the bench" is total bullshit. It happens on both sides, and a conservative activist judge is more likely to make decisions that I disagree with than a liberal activist judge. For instance I think there's merit to the idea that Roe v. Wade was overreaching at the time, but I'm very happy that decision was made.
I absolutely do not want someone whose personal statement begins with "I am a Conservative" (Rusty Duke) or uses right-wing catch phrases like "protect the institution of marriage" (Kris Bailey). There are plenty of things supreme court justices need to protect, but the institution of marriage isn't one of them.
Well, that's exactly what I meant by calling the quality of Republican nominees this time "pretty thin." I was being too polite there. I do think it's possible for an open conservative (or liberal, for that matter) to also be a fair-minded jurist, and for awhile there that was mostly the kind of candidate the GOP would nominate. The kind of person where it really doesn't matter if they are personally, say, against abortion or for universal health care, because you can trust they will follow the law and the Constitution before attempting to impose their views from the bench. To cite some more famous conservative examples (and you may laugh but that's ok), that's why given the chance I would vote for Clarence Thomas and against Antonin Scalia. On the SC, Stephen Breyer is the one who best embodies this good quality and he's a liberal.
Maybe one of the reasons why I haven't looked into the races that closely is because one of the first things I determined is that I would vote for the corpse of Francis the Talking Mule over Duke or Bailey. What a couple of doofii. I don't care who their opponents are, they have my vote.