Most judicial races are hard to get hold of. Political campaigning would be improper given the nonpartisan nature of the office. We don’t really want to elect judges based on platforms and agendas.
I’ve been a temporary judge for L.A. Superior Court for nearly twenty years, and as political as I am in real life I take some pride that when I’m wearing a robe I make all decisions based on the law and the facts, and do not try to abuse my position to implement any sort of political agenda.
In the Carillo vs. Marsh judicial race on my Huntington Beach ballot, I’m voting for Carillo. I know nothing from any personal experience about either candidate. Just what’s in the statements and on the internet. What really outraged me about Marsh was in his candidate statement where he listed the things he is “for” like the death penalty and three strikes and the thing he is “against” being eminent domain. When you’re a judge you have taken an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution. You don’t get to be “for” or “against” anything. How can you be “against” eminent domain when it is clearly allowed in the state and federal Constitution, and facilitated by statute? If you get an eminent domain case you have to decide it in a predictable way based on the law. When you go into court as a lawyer or a party, you should only need to know the law as set out in the Constitution, statutes, and reported appellate cases — you should not need to know if the judge personally approves of the law.
Of course Carillo is only a little better on this nitpick as on her website she boasts about how she is ‘strongly for’ victims rights, and all you’re ever going to get in an Orange County judicial race is candidates tripping over each other about their implied bias in favor of the prosecutor in criminal cases. But its not out there to the extreme that Marsh as taken positions on laws, including opposition to laws that are on the books and need to be enforced.
A second tip on this election is that Carillo got the OC Bar’s highest rating for qualification, and Marsh declined to participate in the process. Marsh has lined up all the local Republican partycrats for support, and Carillo only has renegade Judge James Gray (the retiring judge who has made pitches for decriminalizing drugs) and some prosecutor groups.
Vote for Carillo.
Actually, Debra Carrillo is endorsed by more than 50 current and retired Orange County Judges. She is also endorsed by the Hispanic Bar Association, the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and virtually every Police Officer Association in Orange County outside the city of Westminster.
Carrillo seems incomparably better than political hack Kermit in many ways. Thanks for this latest input, St John.
Having known Kermit Marsh for a few years and had several long conversations with him, I can tell you he has libertarian underpinnings that are hard to find these days. He is well educated and deliberate in his nature. He isn’t nearly as partisan as you might think from simply reading the candidate statements or his political associations. I believe that one of the reasons Kermit placed the statement about eminent domain there, is that as we know it, eminent domain, is not within the guidelines of the Constitution as applied these days in most situations. While he may be in the inner circle of the local Republican party, he has always been the very reasonable when I have spoken to him about any issue. As most readers here know, I am very constructionist in my political beliefs, almost to the point of making Libertarians blush. Kermit has always been very understanding about my constructionist concerns.
I believe that his lack of participation with the OC Bar says more about their liberal nature than anything else.
After our conversation the other day, I have absolutely no qualms about recommending his election as a judge. He is in my mind the very type of judge we need. He is fair and I believe will impart true justice with an eye towards upholding the Constitution fairly and impartially.
Since I have no personal knowledge of Debra Carrillo, I cannot say what qualifications she has, nor how reasonable she is. If as you say, she has the support of Judge Gray then we are well served, for a change, in having two such fine examples to choose from. That opportunity seldom happens.
I will say that having been blessed to know both Judge Gray and Kermit Marsh, I can’t see that they would disagree on too many basic issues. They are both very good people with good hearts and very reasonable and logical minds. That said, I will be voting for and recommending Kermit Marsh.
I am supporting Carillo. This is not a year to reward Republicans with ANY offices. Marsh is a good guy, but I heard he is a big backer of Prop. 8. That is a no se puede for me.
Strange Art, Kermit had some pretty nice things to say about you during that last conversation I had with him. To bad you seem to be so prejudiced against ALL Republicans since we both know that you have several that are supporting your election…
I’ll remind you once again that prejudice is ugly no matter who wears it.
Carl,
My friend you are assuming too much. I am not prejudiced against all Republicans. In fact I am voting for Cam Mangels in the 69th Assembly District. I even wrote a post encouraging my readers to vote for him. Not sure how you missed that one.
I also endorsed both George Collins and Michele Martinez for Mayor of Santa Ana. Collins is a Republican.
I could not in good faith vote for Mimi Walters after her anti-Mexican primary campaign. I am supporting her Democrat opponent, Gary Pritchard.
And I am not voting for Obama. I am voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. Barr is a former Republican.
I also have endorsed Republican Art Lomeli for the Rancho Santiago Community College District’s Board of Education.
That is quite a few Republicans, isn’t it?
I like Kermit. I said as much. But he appears to be a Prop. 8 backer. That is a no go for me. So I am supporting Carrillo, who is also backed by my good friend Jim Gray, who is a Libertarian.
So no Carl, I am not as skewed as you appear to think I am. You just haven’t been following my picks very closely, apparently.
Funny that’s not what you said in comment 4, I was just taking you at your word here and now.
Carl,
Have another look at comment 4, where I said “Marsh is a good guy.” As for the rest of that comment, consider that two of the Republicans I am backing are running for non-partisan offices. I take that seriously. Partisan membership should not count for such offices. In fact I have been advising Janet Nguyen to stop acting so partisan as she is ostensibly in a non-partisan office.
I am supporting Mangels primarily because Jose Solorio is a disappointment. Mangels is a reasonable guy. He is a far better option than Solorio at this time.
Overall, I do think this is a year to vote no on most GOP legislative candidates. Most of them voted for the bailout, for one, and the party needs to be punished for eight years of Bush. Not to mention the giant disappointment that is the McCain/Palin ticket. We should not reward failure. This is the ONLY way the GOP will learn its lesson.
“This is not a year to reward Republicans with ANY offices.” Your words not mine!
We can both edit the comments. Want to?
It shouldn’t be about rewarding failure. It should be about positive change for the future. Putting the best candidates in offices no matter what party they are in.
Carl,
As I explained, I was referring to partisan offices. And as I explained, Mangels is my choice in the 69th primarily because Solorio has been a complete wretch.
And I do believe that most GOP legislative candidates should be rebuffed this year. As I stated, I believe that the GOP needs to pay a price for eight years of Bush and for picking an awful candidate in McCain. Not to mention Palin.
And, I think I have made it clear that my issue with Marsh is his support of Prop. 8.
Hope that is clear enough. But by all means please advise if you need further clarification.
Carl,
If we don’t teach the GOP a lesson the party leaders will not learn or change their ways. Remember that they had to lose to Clinton before Gingrich led a comeback in the Congress.
From the ashes of the pending defeat of this party on Nov. 4 will arise, perhaps, the next Reagan, to lead the charge in two years to take back Congress. But they won’t get anywhere if they don’t change their ways.
I suspect that what will really happen is that religious conservatives will end up starting a new party at some point. And what is left of the GOP will either implode and die or evolve into something else.
Think about it. In a few weeks the Congress and the White House will be in Democrat hands, most likely. This is a total disaster for the GOP. One can only hope that it will be a lesson learned the hard way.
Go Debra! You have my endorsement.
SMS
uh Art??
Most Republicans voted for the BAILOUT?? I am confused.
These are the stats.
Democratic yes(140) no (95 )
Republican yes(65) no(133)
That does not look like most to me.
ooppps my bad
I posted the wrong ones.
That is what I get for having 3 windows open at the same time.
Democratic yes(172) no(63)
Republican yes(91) no (108)
Yes the number is higher but to me that is still not MOST.
For a most the yes number would be higher.
Look at the Democratics and look at the Republicans.
Democratics..MOST.
Danielle,
Thanks for clarifying the bailout vote issue. My congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez, voted against the bailout. She has my endorsement in her race against Rosie Avila.
Oh hey look Ed Royce voted no as well and he is an evil dirty Republican.
Your endorsement I’m sure means a lot to Loretta but I don’t see your name on her endorsement list. Did she endorse you?
There were good arguments for and against the bailout, and bipartisan support for and opposition to it. It is a very complicated issue. Nobody really wanted to vote for it, it was very imperfect but the consensus was SOMETHING had to be done. You can count on one thing – whichever way an incumbent voted, their challenger went the other way.
So I would not vote for or against anyone just because of this one vote.