Posted on 11/24/2008 4:51:09 PM PST by george76
A special panel of the Washington Supreme Court made up of nine substitute judges reprimanded one of the court’s justices yesterday for visiting a facility that holds sexually violent predators.
The panel ruled that the justice, Richard B. Sanders, had “created an appearance of partiality” by questioning inmates and accepting documents from them at the McNeil Island Special Commitment Center on a visit there in January 2003. The center holds sex offenders who have completed their criminal sentences but who the courts have found are likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.
A case concerning the constitutionality of the state law under which the inmates were committed was before the court at the time.
During the visit, Justice Sanders spoke with some 20 inmates, one of them involved in the pending case.
Last year, the commission ruled against Justice Sanders, saying he had failed to promote public confidence in the judiciary.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He recently heckled Attorney General Michael Mukasey--shouting "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"
.
WASHINGTON—There was a weird moment last night even before the attorney general collapsed.
A man at a table near ours stood up, early in the speech, and shouted, “Tyrant! You are a tyrant!”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122728971156548357.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb
“He recently heckled Attorney General Michael Mukasey—shouting “Tyrant! You are a tyrant!””
Yes, indeed.
Thread related to this comment: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2137733/posts
Why are you posting this just now?
Sanders was a good justice at one time, but he is now as corrupt as the rest of the members of the WA SC.
Because the WA SC is corrupt beyond all recognition (the most corrupt in the nation), I will have a case in front of the USSC sometime in the first quarter of 2009; and the USSC will accept the case because the constitutional violations have been so gross the USSC dare not let the upcoming ruling of the WA SC stand.
Less than an hour after taking his oath of office, Justice Sanders became embroiled in controversy by speaking in front of a gathering of protesters outside the court building .
A judicial commission claimed that his speech violated ethics rules against political activity by judges, and sanctioned him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Sanders#cite_note-0
Oops; I guess I do know now.
The WA SC reversed the sanctions in that particular case and dismissed the charges.
My neighbor oversaw the release hearings of those committed to additional years beyond their sentences at McNeil (and previously up at Skykomish).
He was a VERY liberal guy in all respects.
He assured me that every one of these guys would repeat offend the moment they got out of lockup.
He said that they would submit to physical or chemical castration, be model prisoners, and successfully complete any rehabilitation program necessary.
They would do everything you required.
Then they would be released and the very next day they would rape someone, with a broomstick if necessary.
As a good liberal, he recognized that it was unconstitutional to hold them indefinitely with no charge or conviction. But he would not vote for their release.
There is currently no safe and legal solution for these people. Permanent lockup is required for public safety.
We need to make permanent lockup part of the law.
I haven't spoken with him in several years but remember him as a good justice. What happened?
(Me too. Heard him speak several times. Contributed to his original campaign(s).)
Richard B. Sanders is a good guy.
I understand what you are saying.
Sander’s point was that you cant lock someone up forever after they have completed their sentence. We have to give specific dates for sentancing(sp).
Indefinate sentancing sets a very bad precidence....what if the hoplophobes tried to put gun owners away under the same laws?
In fact he told me that as a father of a young woman he hates baby rapers and if you had an initiative for locking them up forever...Sanders would vote for it.
But you have to do it by the numbers.
What’s the dictum, “Good cases make for bad law”?
I also note with alarm the seditious doctrine sometimes embraced by our majority that even our Declaration of Rights is itself trumped by exercise of the state’s police power, a power which a majority of my colleagues seems to believe with their new-found wisdom has no limits whatsoever
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_sc/786372Co2&invol=4
He recently heckled Attorney General Michael Mukasey--shouting "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"Thanks geo.
“What’s the dictum, “Good cases make for bad law”?”
I always like “If the govt is going to do it for you, they are going to do it to you”
Cheers!
I quite agree. Sanders’ point is the same one my neighbor and I agreed upon, being both extremely liberal (him) and quite conservative (me).
You have to be originally convicted under a law with the required penalty being life without parole.
I’m in favor of such a law and sentencing in the future. My desire for that law does not make the holding of these people permanently constitutional. Continuing to hold them is a direct violation of the constitution.
The error is in prior legislatures making insufficiently strong law. That is extremely unfortunate for the next victims of the people who by the constitution must be released until they re-offend.
Yikes!
There is nothing on the Seattle times web site about Sanders making such a comment. They don’t like him, so iof it was true, it would be reported.
I suspect Sanders was not the guy.
I never heard of him until he recently heckled Attorney General Michael Mukasey
It is extremely unfortunate for the next victims.
Does Washington State have a three strike type law?
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.