Lawyer's Opinions --- Judicial Elections

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

No worries, I wasn't responding directly to you. I looked at that site the last time it was posted and if I remember correctly it didn't explain how they came to their conclusions.

I think this page is supposed to be the explanation: Judicial Vote 2009 - Judicial ratings definitions (http://www.judicialvote09.org/Definitions.html - broken link)

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

If someone is totally unqualified it shouldn't take much convincing to explain why.

True. This is all we get:

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

The candidate does not now possess and is not likely to acquire the ability, reputation, or temperament necessary for a judicial position.

Ability? Reputation? Temperment? Those are some vague terms that could simply mean she's unpopular among the legal community for whatever reason.

[ferraris]

Yeah I did see that, and I agree that it is very subjective and vague.

As an aside, I don't think that reputation is something necessary for a judicial position.

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

Yeah I did see that, and I agree that it is very subjective and vague.

As an aside, I don't think that reputation is something necessary for a judicial position.

I would comment that a reputation as a "push over" or as being overly lenient (especially as pertains to handling attorneys' actions) could be a very important attribute. Something of that sort would dictate how a lawyer prepares his/her case.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by onepoint

I would comment that a reputation as a "push over" or as being overly lenient (especially as pertains to handling attorneys' actions) could be a very important attribute. Something of that sort would dictate how a lawyer prepares his/her case.

Yeah I guess in that sense it could be. I look at that as actual ability, though. When I read "reputation" on that site I thought of like "he isn't very well respected among the legal community" or something, I don't really care if an elected official is respected by other elected officials or lawyers as long as they are fairly upholding the law and not letting things slide.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by onepoint

I would comment that a reputation as a "push over" or as being overly lenient (especially as pertains to handling attorneys' actions) could be a very important attribute. Something of that sort would dictate how a lawyer prepares his/her case.

Most judges fall into a category of some degree of linient or strick. Isn't it only relevant when a judge is biased with his/her leniency/strickness?

[onepoint]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Most judges fall into a category of some degree of linient or strick. Isn't it only relevant when a judge is biased with his/her leniency/strickness?

In my opinion, not necessarily. A judge holding a reputation for leniency or as being a "push over" may result in counsel putting together a sloppier case for their client, assuming they can catch some breaks. A judge with a hard reputation will assure that all involved cross their t's and dot their i's (without getting into whether that should be done in each and every case anyway ).

But I do agree that a biased reputation would be much, much worse.