Thursday, July 27, 2006

Debates

I was at the Fowlerville and Howell Judicial Debates. Tonight's the Hamburg debate. I'll probably be unable to make that one.

The Probate Article is linked there. Seven are running and two will run off in the general election. I don't think there was a clear winner in Probate. All brought their strengths to the race. I do think one candidate hurt himself in the debates with his arrogance. I have no idea who is going to win there. Anytime there's a seven way race, anything can happen.

The open District race was discussed here. All three did very well in both debates. This race has slipped through the radar some. I think all three candidates would make a good judge.

The other district race was the last debate. I suspect the Argus set it up that way so people stay.

I thought Jay had a very slight edge over the others in the first debate in Fowlerville. He gained two votes from his answer on small claims matters which IMO gave him the slight edge. Other than that, I'd call the Fowlerville debate a draw.
Brennan performed well in Fowlerville (Where there was no political question), although I thought she was a little defensive and irritated in the Howell debate. In the Howell debate, Jay was excellent. He was prepared, thought well on his feet, and handled all questions well. The political question was first, and Jay was ready and answered it correctly. While party label does not matter, philosophy does.

One other thing that should be mentioned. Bill McCririe pointed out to the audience that district judges are now assigned some circuit court cases. That makes judicial activism an issue now at the District Court level (outside of moving up to Circuit/Appeals). Why does that matter? Because now injunctions can be issued. If the ACLU wants to make things tough against pro-lifers - injunction. If new development around Howell Gun Club leads to Ann Arbor transplants trying to shut it down - injunction. These things would happen at Circuit Court, and if District Judges are assigned to Circuit Court, philosophy now matters there as well.

4 comments:

Communications guru said...

We must have been at a different debate in Howell last night. Judge Theresa Brennan clearly outshone the two other candidates. She was professional, competent and prepared. In short, she was judicial. Even Christina Heikkinen came across better than Drick. Clearly, she did not have the experience Drick had, but unlike Drick, she came across as sincere, human and running for the right reasons.

You left out the most interesting thing. The question was asked to both sets of District Court Judge candidates whether political parties and politics – I’m paraphrasing here – should enter into this race on any other nonpartisan judicial race. Out of the six candidates only one said yes. Not only that, his answer was wishy-washy at best. He cited an obscure Supreme Court decision that allowed him to legal and ethically do it, and he not only did not answer clearly yes, but he never said why it matters.

What a lame argument to vote for Drick, that “district judges are now assigned some circuit court cases.” I guess there’s a reason Judge Brennan has a 54 percent lead on the poll on your blog.

I thought Carol Sue Reader won the debate among the first set of District Court Judges. It was very close, and all three did a very good job.

Anthony Kandt did surprisingly well among the seven Probate Court Judges. He impressed some people, and among the few people I talked to he picked up five votes.

Republican Michigander said...

Kandt and Reader (a distant cousin of Dave) both did well.

As for Drick, he was methodical, and well prepared. His answer was clear to me. Party label doesn't matter, but judicial philosophy does matter.

"" I guess there’s a reason Judge Brennan has a 54 percent lead on the poll on your blog."""

That's because you or Brennan told your people to vote for her. Leftists visit this blog too, just as I go to leftist blogs.

Communications guru said...

Obviously, you were watching with your heart and not your mind if you really believe Drick was “was methodical, and well prepared.” Too bad the other five candidates disagreed with you two on the party label scheme.
As for the 54 percent, I never told anyone to visit this blog, let alone vote on it, and I know of no communist blogs or communists who visit it, other than “count me red.”

jusmyopin said...

Let's give credit where credit is due. Brennan did come off well last night. Some people are just better at debates than others. I think Bush is a great president but at times he can't talk his way out of paper bag. Speach making is an art and some are better than others at it.