I have just been notified that it is OK to go ahead and spill the beans early; so, instead of waiting until tomorrow at noon, you get the EXCLUSIVE story right now:
Jack Roberts will be officially announcing his candidacy for the Supreme Court of Oregon tomorrow, at 12 noon, at the Eugene Public Service Building!
Jack invited me to attend his announcement; however, I am unable to make it in person due to my class schedule. But I am happy to spread the word! And here is an exclusive statement from Jack:
This is not a step I'm taking lightly, but the positive reaction I received from people based on the interview that ran on your blog helped convince me that this is the right thing to do. Diversity on the bench has to mean more than just gender and geography. The Supreme Court also needs to reflect a diversity in philosophy and life experience such as I bring to this race. I'm looking forward to a positive campaign worthy of the highest court in the state.
I can't even begin to describe the feeling I have, hearing from a major political figure that something I did on my humble little blog played a role in his decision to run for one of the most important offices in the state. Blogs really are making a difference in politics!
It sounds like you helped convince one good man to run for the Supreme Court... maybe now you can convince Kevin Mannix to abandon the governor's race and take on Justice Durham instead!!!
Posted by: Hal | Wednesday, 11 January 2006 at 04:41 PM
YAY! The Power of Blogs does it again! ^_^
I wish Jack all the best, and I hope he really can do a good job on the Supreme Court.
Even if I disagree with him about certain things.
Posted by: Sailor Republica | Wednesday, 11 January 2006 at 07:40 PM
I will be there to cheer Jack on. He will be a great addition to the court!
Posted by: Boze Noze | Wednesday, 11 January 2006 at 09:24 PM
I've been sitting on this tidbit of news for nearly a week. I nearly burst, I couldn't resist. Blogging and secrets are not a good combo.
Glad to see it out of the bag, glad to see you break the story.
Posted by: darepdx | Wednesday, 11 January 2006 at 09:36 PM
Gully,
Just came from the announcement. Jack was his usual impressive self. He spoke with out notes from his head and his heart.
He has already scored a coup! Oregon Crime Victims United announced their formal endorsement of Jack! Talk about a running start in the race, Statewide name recognition and several great endorsements.
Posted by: Boze Noze | Thursday, 12 January 2006 at 01:32 PM
I have a serious question Gully, why is someone who hasn't practiced law for ten years and just reactivated his license to run qualified to be a justice. Why not either of the other two candidates, one of whom is a long-time Pendleton lawyer (and would be the first justice from the other side of the Cascades in many years) and the other is an appeals court judge, not be more qualified?
Seriously, why can't the Republicans pick someone who has at least been an attorney or judge recently?
Posted by: Bobby | Friday, 13 January 2006 at 01:53 PM
Bobby..
I have not hunted grouse in many years. Mainly because they are easy here in Mich, and not much of a sport.
So by your logic, I should have someone that hunted last year, take my daughter out for her first bird hunt while I head to the local library to brush up on what?
Posted by: Alpha Sierra Whiskey | Friday, 13 January 2006 at 09:48 PM
Serious answer to a serious question:
(And before I answer, I honestly think it is a good question, so I am giving the best answer I have)
You need to remember that the Supreme Court isn't a single justice, but a team of seven justices. No one person can be an expert in every facet of the law. Therefore, the best Supreme Court will be one in which the seven Justices have as diverse a legal background as possible.
Currently, the Supreme Court is comprised of seven people who, on paper, all look an awful lot like Virginia Linder. There is no voice on the court that understands things like tax law, law and economics, local government law, administrative law, or business law. Jack Roberts is a real expert in all these fields.
This is not to criticize Judge Linder, who is a very good judge. It is merely to point out that Linder wouldn't bring anything new to the court. She would be a "status quo" replacement for the outgoing Justice Carson.
If you think the Supreme Court, a body that has recently handed down decisions that say things like "live sex acts for cash are the type of protected free speech the framers of the Constitution envisioned," then by all means, vote for Judge Linder.
So, what about Hallman?
Well... Hallman is in many ways less qualified than Jack Roberts. Sure, Hallman has been practicing law lately. But you must understand the difference between a trial court and an appellate court. Hallman is a TRIAL lawyer. He is very good at working at the trial court level, and would probably be an excellent trial court judge. But this is the Supreme Court, not a trial court.
Trial courts are courts that determine matters of fact. Did the accused kill the victim or not? Was the plaintiff injured by the defendant or not? This is very different from what happens at the appeals level. Appellate courts do not review facts. They review laws. Does this law unconstitutionally grant power to the legislative branch? Is this law a violation of the equal protection clause? These types of questions need a different type of legal reasoning.
In a race between Jack Roberts and Gene Hallman for a trial court judge position, I would endorse Hallman. But in a race for the Supreme Court, I want a candidate who has the type of life experiences that will enable him to answer questions about the workings of the government. Jack Roberts, by virtue of his experiences as a state elected official, county commissioner, tax lawyer, and business advocate, is better suited to answer questions of state power than Gene Hallman.
Does this answer your question?
Posted by: Gullyborg | Saturday, 14 January 2006 at 09:30 AM
I think that the simplest answer is that a judge needs to be well-versed in the law enough to interpret the law, but does not need to argue it. So a judge needs to be smart, not persuasive. The hazard of a trial lawyer in a supreme court posititon is that they may tend to pursuade other justices to their version of the law instead of maintain the law as it stands.
Posted by: GullyBabe | Saturday, 14 January 2006 at 09:41 AM
Whoa! GullyBabe speaks! Hope this is a constant addition!
Roberts is qualified as anyone. Why? Because he knows the law, especially when it comes to Tax and Labor law.
Posted by: Sailor Republica | Tuesday, 17 January 2006 at 12:31 AM
GullyBabe = niloniak who you will find occasionally in the archives.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Tuesday, 17 January 2006 at 06:44 PM