On November 26th, 2008 at 1:05 am, thebronze said:

Really? Do tell us which of your personal civil liberties have been restricted.

I’m pretty sure I already know the answer…

I think you need to re-read my post. You seem to have missed the point.

Every time a judge chooses to interpret law beyond the specific meaning of the words, nearly everyone who comments around here cries foul. But when a judge takes a dissenting and unpopular view expressly because he is concerned about future “interpretations” of the law, he is considered kooky? Really?

I’m not defending a judge yelling out the word “tyrant”. Personally, I think judges should behave at a level above that. Either he shouldn’t have attended the session or he should have kept his mouth shut and say quietly or he should have left quietly. But to impugn his judgment from the bench based on some snippets from a couple of newspaper articles is a bit much.

You will not find a stronger defender of the Constitution on the Washington state Supreme Court. There is a reason that Richard Sanders was once condsidered a hero by Michelle. It is because he stands for the rule of law, even when they’re poorly written. He does not legislate from the bench.

He’s the kind of person who doesn’t allow words like ‘molester’ to influence his understanding of the law. One would think that the legislature could read his dissenting opinions and revise the statutes, but that would be asking far too much of them, I’m sure.

And, I knew you weren’t saying the other members of the court were conservative. I shouldn’t have said that. I just wanted to clear up the implication that the Washington state Supreme Court was anything but a bastion of socialist judges. Sanders is the only independent voice they have. I think all of the 8-1 decisions lend evidence to that assertion.

DougT said:
Perhaps you should read his minority opinion in the case instead of taking your sound bites from a newspaper.

Laddie, most everyone who does wrong will offer a rationale by way of an excuse. Sanders did so again here after his decision to go to a conference to heckle the AG of the US like some deranged Code Pink kook. But having a “reason” to do wrong does not make the wrong correct.

Again, this just illustates Sander’s downward spiral, as do things like his BDS inspired “War On Freedom” rants/writings. His boundless self-admiration doesn’t help.

if you think the other 8 justices are conservative

Didn’t say that. Just pointing out the fact Sanders is just as goofy, if not even nuttier, than they. He’s quite obviously at odds with them when it comes to child molesters:

Justice Sanders dissents from decision to disbar child molester

I’m sure he has a rationale for his pattern on the issue.

You are welcome to buy the excuses, as you are for his excuse for heckling. But it’s just unrealistic to expect others to buy into his excuses, too.

It’s histrionics. If all she meant were ‘I prefer individuals to confine their comments to other channels’, that also would not be news of any sort.

I don’t disagree with her right to write about it – she can write about the plight of field mice in especially cold winters, for all I have to say about it. It’s her site. But as an admirer of hers, I would hate for her ot present this as news, and to ignore what may be the positive gems to be found here, which I have written in my previous comment.

DougT said:
Justice Sanders is not a liberal by any stretch of the definition

LOL. Yes, judicial attempts to enable child molestors to harass their spouses definitely aren’t PC-leftist at all:

Wash Court OKs contact ban for non-victim spouse

8-1 ruling, guess who dissented.

As noted, Sanders may have started off on the right track but he got derailed into nutso-land somewhere down the line.

Here is yellow journalism–be afraid(cowardly in fact) to ask the president-elect of the the country anything tougher than where the kids will attend school, and what type of doggie they will have!

Real journalists would be asking for F.O.I.A. court orders to answer all the missing records questions, digging into all his organized crime and radical associations, and questioning him on why he is pushing for radical economic programs(national health care,cap & trade, global poverty,) that will destroy our countries capitalism and render us a has been nation!

Actions speak louder than words

Personally after reading about this judge’s improper behaviors in other instances that he has been admonished for, I would not want him to be a judge in a case that involved me, but he would probably be superior to most of the liberal judges seated in this state!

When we have honor students kicked out of their honor society for eating skittles, how is this not far worse?

If he were not a Washington state Supreme Court Justice, this would just be a matter of someone speaking their mind and leaving what they took to be an intolerable monologue.

Unfortunately for Justice Sanders, he doesn’t really have the option to be in “private citizen” mode. I agree with comments about the dignity of the office and such.

But to call this a character flaw? That is patent nonsense.

Justice Sanders will call them as he sees them. He is a defender of the Constitution. This slip in judgment should not take away from his years of service defending the rule of law. In Washington state, he is often the lone voice.

For those of you thinking he’ll somehow fall in line with Obama, well, you apparently don’t know him. While I doubt he’ll yell out “tyrant!” at any more speeches, I do believe that he would get up and leave in a similar situation, no matter the administration.

Justice Sanders is not a fairweather fan of the Constitution and the rule of law. When Obama and his AG overstep the boundaries in the name of social justice, just as Bush and his AG have done in the name of national security, Sanders will behave the same way.

Yeah, he made a mistake by unprofessionally opening his trap. He should be held to a higher standard of behavior, but that’s about as far as this goes. He didn’t cause AG Mukasey to collapse. He owes no one an apology except, maybe, the voters of Washington state.