Posted on 10/28/2006 4:52:53 AM PDT by ThreePuttinDude
Upon receiving my sample ballot for the upcoming election, I noticed in the non-partisan section the names of the Florida Supreme Court Justices up for re-election. What I noticed were names that brought back memories of the 2000 election, and all of the nightmare antics we had to go through due to the state court.
Names to remember:
I believe the "majority vote" was put in there because in 2008 there is going to be a DMA put on the ballot. I think this was put on by the trial lawyers.
Also, it has a lot of support because of the fact that PIG PENS are regulated in the FL constitution due to a referendum. Also as FL gets more and more republican, it becomes very likely abortion will make it onto the refrendum question.
It is a two edged sword.
If you want to know your judges - here's an easy way to do just that:
Go to Yahoo (I don't Google) - and search for the names - and I found it's even better if you search with the title of Justice or Judge before the name.
I found out all kinds of information about these people - when they were previously elected or appointed - AND WHO APPOINTED THEM. And .. you can also find out how they ruled on important issues. Most of the time - the person who appointed them will be a well-known Governor or President - and it's a very big clue as to how the judge will lean. Do not trust any judge appointed by democrats.
Of course, there are some exceptions - but it's just another way of being able to judge the judges for yourself.
THEY CAN'T HIDE FROM US ANYMORE!
Respectfully you can not count on that in FL.
In FL you have to be a FL lawyer for 5 years and over 18. You run the pro-left gauntlet of the JQC HOWEVER since the FL is so NON-diverse with so many leftist kooks, it is very very very very very hard to find a conservative who happens to be a lawyer.
The FL is now very big into pushing judicial independence which is just code for imposing "thought crime" controls on judicial candidates.
Last line should read,
"The FL BAR is now...."
Not sure which one you mean when you say "homeowners insurance".
I asssume by "majority vote" you mean #3, on which I voted Yes, because it seems the amendment would make it more difficult to amend the state constitution by requiring 60% of the voters instead of a simple majority. I don't think the consitution should be amended frequently or simply to please special interests (such as "protect the pigs").
You find the conservative lawyers doing things like real estate, commercial litigation, securities work, etc. Oh, and in the Prosecutors Offices.
You usually don't find them on billboards or with a 1-800-ASK-JOEY phone number. :-)
Vote NO on all three bump.
Why are those twerps listed as "non-partisan"?
I didn't remember any of the names (as I didn't live in FL at the time) so I voted against all of them. I don't normally do that, as I normally don't vote if I don't know anything about a candidate, however I remembered 2000, and thought it likely that they were involved.
susie
I voted against Amendment 3. Why should we (the people) take more power away from ourselves and apportion it to the legislature. Yes, our constitutional amendments are often trvial in nature, but they do serve the will of the people. I think one of the great things about our state is that if the general public disagree with the professional politicians, we can overturn them. I would, however, vote for amendment 3 if there were a way for the public to modify STATUTES via referendum as opposed to modifying the state constitution. The legislature had a chance to do this last year. It was a move supported by Dems and opposed by Republicans. In my mind, the best way for the citizen initiative process to work is via statute, and not constitutional amendment. Since that isn't an option, I'll vote NO on 3. BTW, I voted against retaining all three liberal justices.
The admendment process has been usurped by large lobbying groups, pay for lawyers to write the text, pay to fight the challenges, pay for canvassers to get signatures, and pay for political advertizing.
It is not a citizen's initiative anymore. It is a way for activists to lobby without a politician involved.
A citizen group would have to really get a groundswell of support to get ANY thing past the judges, lawyers and then the negative ads from "profssional" activists.
SO IMHO, Yes on 3, and vote like a pirate! (R)
I voted "NO!" on all threeofem!
Any 411 on:
Circuit Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit, Group 20
Patrice J. Pilate or
Charlie G. Crawford
County Court Judge, Group 10
Judith (Judy) Atkin or
William L. (Bill) Powell, Jr.
WHOAH! Rethink Amendment #3, people!
Are we a government of the people, by the people and for the people or a government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians?
Most conservatives would likely want to Vote NO on Amendment #3, if you did it in pencil, you might want to erase. See here for a very lucid argument.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/OPINION/611030377/1030/OPINION01
Basically: Amendment #3 keeps government in the hands of the people when the legislature refuses to listen to the populace.
Quoting from the link above:
By requiring that any proposed amendment be approved by 60 percent of the voters, rather than a simple majority, it would certainly make changing the constitution much more difficult. But it would do so by further restricting the only avenue Florida citizens have for initiating changes in law or the constitution that the Legislature has failed to address.
Legislature too often fails to protect the public interest. Instead, special interests hold lawmakers in sway, through political contributions and other incentives, and thwart popular causes.
Critics of the initiative process like to cite the famous pig-crate amendment, but important changes have been made through initiative, for example, requiring full public disclosure by state and county elections officials. The Sunshine Laws.
((The legislators would never have voted to have their actions in full view of the public. It took US to do that. Trying to force this with a super-majority would be virtually impossible.))
No other state requires a supermajority for approving an amendment.
I suggest a NO vote - keep the power in OUR hands instead of theirs. Or at least do a little more research on your own and think it over.
Great thread on the JUDGES !! here is my 2cents worth on this election..
http://www.vote2006.DavidOsborne.net
My Tallahassee Voter Guide.. includes all races including the Local Stuff...
You are right. No on 3. In 08 we are going to have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. I don't want to have to meet the 60% barrier. Majority should be enough. An mark my words, they want Amendment 3 to pass so we cannot pass the ban against gay marriage with just a majority vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.