Posted on 06/11/2011 9:56:44 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
Then you know C. Wiggins....
BTW hello from the peninsula.
I have corresponded with him briefly on a couple of occasions prior to his election to the WASC. It was a travesty that Sanders was not re-elected. Unfortunately, Sanders participated in the cover-up of corruption within the WASC. Had he exposed it when he should have, he’s be the current chief justice of that court.
Will find out soon if all of Wiggins’ talk about judicial ethics was real or just B.S.
I am not close to Charlie but have known him and several of his business associates for many years. No one I know has anything but wonderful things to say about him. But then I’ve never been sued by him. LOL...
As an appellate attorney, Wiggins made many of the worse arguments in the history of the court. Some of them were painful to watch.
Is is also pro-homosexual marriage and that is one of the main reasons he won the election. The media also portrayed Sanders as a justice who was a racist when nothing could be further from the truth. Just read his dissent in the State v. Valentine case, where for the first time, the court ruled that it was a crime to resist an unlawful arrest. It was a travesty of justice.
Stephens was a court of appeals judge for a number of years prior to being appointed to the WASC.
Chambers was in private practice, as was Charles Johnson. Charles Johnson won a surprising election against a well-respected incumbant. He did nothing to campaign and many think he was elected because his name was the same as some religious cult leader and his name just sounded familiar.
Chambers is or has been active in the pro-homosexual agenda for reason I suspect,but haven’t confirmed.
Madsen was also a judge earlier in her career, which was almost exclusively working for the government.
Alexander is the longest serving member of the Wshington judiciary in the history of the state; hardly a private practitioner.
Wiggins was primarily an appellate attorney, and really not all that accomplished in that role even though he made many appearances before the court.
Owens was a district court judge before her election and ran a stealth campaign as a conservative; she is anything but that.
Fairhurst has close ties to the political establishment and it is well-known that she is a lesbian.
I think that's an unfair assessment. I remember discussing with him his winning the election, and how surprised he was by not only the amount of liberal support he had, but also by the surprising amount of votes he had in areas he spent no time or money campaigning.
That said, your comment made me curious so I dug a little and found an interview in the Seattle Gay News. He clearly states he would have sided with the majority in the Anderson case which upheld DOMA constitutionality. Not exactly "pro-homosexual marriage".
It also seems more likely it was Sander's propensity for siding with criminal defendants that did him in.
The media intentionally misconstrued his position regarding the rights of criminal defendants, even though I thought he went too far in a number of cases. Primarily, he simply wanted the prosecutors to do their jobs the way it is supposed to be done and not take shortcuts by denying the constitutional rights of an accused; which is a huge problem with prosecutors and judges in the State of Washington.
The media's hatred of him was only because he was pro-DOMA. Wiggins had the strong support of the homosexual community. I don't care what Wiggins said in an interview, just you watch how he votes on those cases.
Well then their both pro-DOMA.
It sounds like Sanders may have been a little more ‘fire and brimstone’ anti-gay, vs a ‘live and let live’ (within the law) type mentality.
I do not know Charlie’s personal position on the gay lifestyle. He does tip his hand a bit by saying in the article ...
“I’m 62,” Wiggins reflects. “I’m several generations removed from high school. Their attitudes are so different. On LGBT issues - I have to be honest with you - I have to consciously think about my own attitudes, to put them aside. My kids don’t have that. It’s totally foreign to them.”
As you say, we’ll see how he does. I for one am not worried about it.
Based on his statement, isn’t it rather obvious that he will be a pro-homosexual vote on the next gay marriage case?
It’s not difficult to read between the lines in this instance. Maybe you are a bit blinded by what you think he is.
Maybe. Maybe I'm not the only one.
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.