Little over a week ago, I wrote about a campaign flyer I’d received in the mail attacking the bona fides of judicial candidate Colt Fore by hinting that he was a closet Democrat by virtue of his 2016 contribution to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
I more or less defended Fore – not because of his political affiliations, but because of the attacks on those affiliations by his opponent for the 21st Judicial District judgeship, William Dykes.
The 21st JDC encompasses the parishes of Livingston, St. Helena and Tangipahoa.
But today, I received a flyer from Fore in the mail.
First, a little background which I alluded to in my POST of Oct. 7:
Fore is an attorney for a Denham Springs law firm. Several years ago, one of his partners was the legal counsel for the City of Denham Springs. When a controversy involving the police department arose, a Baton Rouge television station showed up to shoot video of the proceedings.
The attorney promptly informed the TV crew that video cameras were not allowed in the meeting – contrary to the Louisiana Open Meetings statute.
Even though I have no skin in the game when it comes to TV news, I chimed with my two cents by pointing out the law which says photography of proceedings which occur in open meeting certainly do permit TV cameras.
With a smirk that I can still see in my mind’s eye, the all-knowing attorney said, “The law doesn’t specifically say TV cameras,” as if that mattered. The law doesn’t cite salad forks as the weapon of choice in order that a murder be classified as a murder, either, but it’s still murder.
Bottom line: I detest lawyers who parse words and twist the meaning of laws for their own purposes or to advance an agenda.
So, today I received a mailer from Mr. Fore that proclaims him to be “the true conservative for district court judge.”
Among the attributes he lists on his flyer:
- Registered Republican at 18 years old.
- Supports President Trump’s initiatives to strengthen and safeguard our country.
- Upholds conservative values (Christian faith, 2nd Amendment gun rights, fight for innocent victims, opposes liberal agendas.).
On the flip side of the flyer, paid for by “Committee to Elect Colt Fore Judge,” is the obligatory attack on his opponent, to wit:
“Opponent William Dykes is a (gasp!) Democrat in disguise!”
It goes on inform us:
- He is from St. Helena Parish (whatever significance that is supposed to hold).
- He is a registered Democrat who has remained in the Democratic Party for more than 20 years!
- Don’t be fooled by a LIBERAL POLITICIAN. (all emphasis Fore’s)
- He even continued to align with the national Democratic Parity during Barack Obama’s presidency – the most liberal administration ever!
Just as a reminder here, we’re talking about a judge’s race, so why all the superfluous crap about Republican-Democrat, conservative-liberal, 2nd Amendment, liberal, and Trump?
I don’t know either man, never met either one, but both have managed to offend me deeply so I probably will just skip over this part of the ballot.
Judges are supposed to transcend political agendas, liberal or conservative rhetoric, party labels and political alliances. These two have fallen short on each point.
The single overriding fact in a judicial race is I don’t give a damn about your personal philosophy because it’s got nothing to do – or at least, it should have nothing to do – with applying the law as it is written in the Louisiana Revised Statutes. It should never be about some judge’s hackneyed feelings on a given issue.
I don’t want to stand before a judge who I know to be diametrically opposed to everything I represent; how can I hope to get a fair shake out of him if he a professed Trumper and I’m a recovering Republican i.e., a Democrat?
How can I expect justice, no matter how firmly the law comes down on my side if I’m of a liberal bent and the judge is such a proud conservative as to advertise such in his mailers?
If I am a proponent of some form of sensible gun control (such as limiting access to assault weapons) how can I realistically expect justice to prevail if the judge boasts of his unconditional support of the 2nd Amendment?
What if I’m assaulted by some hairbrained militia Trump poll watcher when I go to vote on Nov. 3? Can I expect a sympathetic hearing if the judge is still pissed at Trump’s losing the election?
All these are hypotheticals, of course, but try placing yourself in front of a judge who is a vocal advocate in his campaign literature of everything you oppose. Put my personal preferences aside and substitute your own and imagine such a hostile judge. Can you have any reasonable expectation of justice? Or should you anticipate a decision based on the judge’s personal political tenets?
So, please, judicial candidates: Cease your damned grandstanding and tell us your passion is administering fair and equal justice to all – blacks, browns, whites, gays, straights, male, female, young, old, rich or poor. That’s what we want to know about a judge – not some self-serving, brand of personal philosophy that’s not worth (in the immortal words of former Vice President John Nance Garner) a warm bucket of spit.
In other words, put impartial jurisprudence ahead of politics.
Louisiana Voice 
One of the definitions of a judge according to Merriam Webster is “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.”
From reading what you have described it appears that this may no longer be the case as political beliefs will be the deciding factors. It really is sickening.
Then please explain why all the Democrats are so worked up over the pending appointment to the U S Supreme Court ? Obviously, someone believes political leaning has something to do with how one interprets the Constitution. I suppose the same could be said about a lower level Judge as well.
I believe, if you go back and listen to the testimony, Judge Barrett’s previous writings and positions on several issues, including the ACA, pretty much underscores the very point Mr. Aswell was trying to make. If she’s so predisposed on these issues, she has no business being on the Supreme Court just as the two clowns he wrote about have no business running for judge because of their stated political leanings.
That’s really not so difficult to understand. But you seem to have already formulated your response before you actually read his post. Typical.
Gee Ben, I just do not understand your hostility. I clearly understood the point Tom was making. Barret clearly pointed out that each case must be reviewed based upon arguments put forth by attorney’s and that any ruling made would be based upon those arguments and existing law. Personal feelings were irrelevant. Can anyone be more clear ?
Let me explain. I am writing slowly because I know you read slowly. The issue about conservative versus liberal judicial matters is pretty obvious, be it local District Judges, Appeals, or higher courts. Left leaning judges have been distorting the Constitution for years at every level. Conservative judges, by definition interpret Constitution and other laws as strictly as possible. Example: 1st amendment grants the right of peaceful protest. Liberal judges have released rioters in some areas based on first amendment, even though these people were, in fact, rioting (burning buildings, police cars etc.). I suppose, to your way of thinking, that I am a clown for thinking rioting is NOT peaceful. Then there is the 2nd amendment. It clearly states one has a right to own firearms. Liberal judges note that guns were different in the 1700’s. Well, there were no radio, televisions, internets as well, so should that affect the 1st amendment ? FB and Twitter apparently think so, as they have just yesterday elected to delete posts talking about Hunter Biden’s emails, which expose the corruptness of the Joe Biden; this is indeed censorship, and violates 1st amendment. Do you think that is okay ?
Ms. Barret has said she is not predisposed. Senator Feinstein stated (on a hot mike) that because Barret was a Christian/Catholic, she was predisposed based upon her religion. If that is how you think, and I believe you do, you are opposed to the basic tenets of American law which is based upon Judeo-Christian (no Muslim here) fundamentals.
You commented that she, in your opinion, is predisposed. I assume you think Justices Kagan and Sotomayor were not, even though Kagan worked for Obama and was involved in ObamaCare , and then ruled on it. Each Justice is allowed that leeway ie. to recuse themselves or not. Your are hardly impartial.
Is this political ? Of course it is. Do you think if Schumer was in similar position that he would not pursue placing a Justice ? One need only go back to 2016 and note that suddenly Schumer (and most democrats) have reversed their opinions 180 degrees (as you obviously have). Does that make you a hypocrite as well ? You can decide for yourself.
No one has said Ms. Barret is not qualified. She is obviously a very smart individual. I would suggest that she is vastly more qualified than either Kagan or Sotomayor, but that is not the point, is it ? No one attacked either of Obama’s appointees like the three appointees of Trump. Democrats punish these people; Bork. Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh come to mind as victims of Democrat harassment. I hope Republicans NEVER sink to that level of Democrat Senators and treat any person like that. It is just what modern politics has become, and it is shameful and truly disgraceful.
No Ben, my response was made after I read what Tom had written.
Zoe, If anyone thinks you’re a clown, it might be because you accuse ALL protesters of being liberal Democrats… and rioting… and any other crime that comes to mind; and you claim that only “liberal” judges release them. It could also result from confusing the 1st amendment protection from government suppression of free speech with a non-government, commercial company enforcing their terms of service. All that after castigating demonstrators for exercising their 1st amendment right. How’d that taste coming out of your mouth?
And , seriously… “I am writing slowly because I know you read slowly”. You have some nerve to chastise us for grade school behavior.
Kent
First of all, Zoe, Tom is commenting about a state level judicial election. If we follow the definition that CJG put forth, then political beliefs have no place in an election or the court room. As for federal judges, they are appointed and presidents will nominate those with similar political beliefs. That’s the nature of the beast. You ask why the Democrats are so worked up. Then ask yourself why the Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings on Obama’s nomination, towards the end of his term.
Cliff, I actually understand what Tom wrote. In case you do not understand the concept, we elect people based upon a shared belief system, just as appointments are made. That is, in fact, the nature of the beast. But, I must admit, as naive as it may sound, I believe a judge should be above politics, and a decision should be based upon facts and case law, not interpreted based upon personal belief system of any judge. Look at Obamacare vote; Court approved legality because Roberts felt that the law was a tax law (making it within the scope of Congressional power) and NOT a healthcare law (where Congress has no authority to mandate who should buy what).
That is why I have repeatedly asked for you liberals to explain exactly what about the Democrat Party platform it is that you support. Kam got defensive and said he had no obligation to explain. I pointed out then, as now, that I did not blame him as the Democrat Platform is defenseless. It is socialism. It is anti-American. And most people who post here hate Trump but will not defend their belief system.
If Kam became defensive, it was because you were using your broad brush again to paint everyone here as a liberal and a Democrat. I am neither.
“In case you do not understand the concept, we elect people based upon a shared belief system, just as appointments are made.”
Zoe, I clearly understand the concept, probably better than you. As I spent almost 30 years working for the Louisiana House of Representatives as a staff attorney. First of all, I don’t even know why a party designation has to be listed below or next to a judicial candidates name. Actually, a judge’s political beliefs are not easily imposed in a courtroom. A judge primarily rules on evidentiary and procedural matters. It’s quite hard to impose your political beliefs in such rulings and if a judge is able to, belief me any competent attorney will notice it. And if he loses, he will surely appeal. Don’t get me wrong there is such a thing as forum shopping. Attorneys seem to feel better about their chances when they are in certain courtrooms. But, a favorable outcome is not guaranteed.
When I vote for judicial candidates, it has nothing to do with political beliefs. I vote for the person who I think is most qualified. It would be stupid of me to vote for a candidate who has a “D” listed by his name over a judicial candidate who has a “R” listed by his name, along with years of prior judicial experience. Finally, stop comparing elected state judges to appointed federal judges.
P.S. If you believe what you said in your post, I would hope that if you were a plaintiff in a lawsuit against a big corporation, your case winds up in the courtroom of one of those so-called liberal judges.
Same here Tom… I skipped over the area these two fools occupy on my ballot.
Tom, thanks! You can’t run for any office without declaring your allegiance to the NRA, and your religion which is against abortion from the moment of lust to climax, and the wages of sin is death! Judgeships are special, you can change your political party to Republican only, because Obama was a Democrat. ron thompson
So Tractor, you are opposed to the 2nd amendment, and you are pro abortion. I do not understand the “wages of sin is death” nor the “Republican only, because Obama was a Democrat”. Is someone seeking death penalty for gamblers or prostitutes ? Do all democrats support Obama ?