It's a non partisan job, dude. Shit.

Do you think voters put away their partisan leanings when they vote just because the ballot says "non-partisan" on the SC choices?

I guess it's OK with you that Jim Johnson is practically on the payroll of these right wing groups and wouldn't know a fair decision if it bit his ass? Or that the BIAW can openly claim that they’re going to buy the Court? It didn’t work here this time but it has in other states.

A major reason that people have lost faith in the judiciary and government in general is that it seems politicians only care about getting reelected and doing favors for campaign contributors. No one has the motive to actually, you know, govern.

Just this past summer, many were lamenting the fact that there are so many uncontested races here in Washington and nationally, and the only way to solve that problem is to level the playing field. All campaigns will have to be publicly financed, as in other countries, in order to restore integrity to the political process. Until then, it's only going to get worse as our state and federal capitols become revolving door whorehouses.

A judge's political leanings can be seen by who endorses that judge. Even with piles of money dumped into the races, the candidates themselves will simply sputter out the "I'll follow the Constitution" line over and over. So the $2M spent last year doesn't really do anything except give the appearance that the justices are puppets of huge contributors.

your current "stop trying to fix the problem & screw the people who are at least coming up with ideas" isn't much of a winner.

Yes, judges are partisan, to the degree that nobody is honestly completely non-partisan. But Judges, more than anyone else, are supposed to at least attempt to put personal views aside, and interpret the law when it is unclear, without bias. No, it doesn't always work out that way, but that is the ideal, and whatever we do to "fix" judicial campaigns, it should encourage that ideal, not discourage it. I'm not sure if publicly financed campaigns is the right solution or not, but your suggestion of openly encouraging partisan battles seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Politicians can, and should, be partisan. They are the body that creates new laws. It is important that voters know their views as much as possible, so we can elect people who will hopefully create laws that we agree with. The city council and mayor being supposedly non-partisan is a joke, and that fiction should be abandoned.

But the judiciary is not supposed to create new law, but rather interpret existing law where it is unclear. They should be non-partisan. They should not be biassed, at least as much as possible. I'm all for gay marriage. But I wouldn't want the judiciary to force the issue if that isn't the way the law is written. I would only want them to rule in our favor if there is solid legal basis to do so. If they rule against it (which they did), then it is up to the legislature to re-write the law, not the judiciary.

Also, one of the purposes of the constitution (whether state or federal) is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. We all know that if gay marriage was put up to a popular vote right now, it would go down in flames. Most civil rights issues would die by public vote. The civil rights of minorities should never be put to a public vote. Yet the result of completely partisan judges would be that people could simply vote for judges who agree with their anti-gay views (or whatever policy issue is their gripe).

I'm not really sure what we can do to encourage truly non-partisan judges. Some people favor appointing judges, rather than electing them. But if you have one party or the other controlling the house, senate, and governor's mansion, which the Dems currently do, then you just as high a risk of totally partisan judges as if you elected them. I might view that favorably right now, but it wouldn't be so good if the Repubs had control of all three, and could do the same thing.

That being the case, I'm much more in favor of appointed judges that can be vetted for their legal expertise. It's only been in the past decade or so that on the federal level judges were examined for the political bent.

SDA, I agree with a lot of what you say. I do think that appointments (which should be for a long term, or life) are a better way to go. I agree there is a risk of partisan judges because of the political bent of the day, but that being said things change over time. The D's will not always be in power in Olympia- the R's will someday control affairs down there. That means that there are opportunities on both ends if you look at this from a long range perspective.

A major reason that people have lost faith in the judiciary and government in general is that it seems politicians only care about getting reelected and doing favors for campaign contributors. No one has the motive to actually, you know, govern.

Just this past summer, many were lamenting the fact that there are so many uncontested races here in Washington and nationally, and the only way to solve that problem is to level the playing field. All campaigns will have to be publicly financed, as in other countries, in order to restore integrity to the political process. Until then, it's only going to get worse as our state and federal capitols become revolving door whorehouses.

Good points.

I think all the discussion of who's partisan, who's not, and whether they should admit to it is obscuring a much more important issue: As long as our elected officials are required to either be independently wealthy or almost constantly focused on attracting the affection of large-scale financial backers (whose interests are often very narrow), our self-government is a joke. Other things will also need to change in order for it to discontinue being a joke (e.g., our elections need to be transparent, the public needs to pay attention, our news media need similar "campaign finance reform"), but campaign financing has to change.

We can guess about how much influence large donors have over our elected officials, but surely we agree that all of that influence should instead be shared among the public.