Editorial: Keep high court incumbents on job

  • Article by: EDITORIAL BOARD , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 24, 2012 - 6:10 AM

Matchups show value of Minnesota's 'hybrid' process. The Editorial Board endorses Justices Gildea, Anderson and Stras.

  • 8
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 8 of 8
rafannonOct. 23, 12 8:27 PM

Lorie Gildea refused to hear an appeal from a mother who had her children taken away after a divorce from her rich husband. The mother is not allowed to see the children even with supervision... The mother did nothing wrong except marry a millionaire who hired big lawyers while she didnt have the money to fight back. You would think a women judge would make sure the kids could see their mother even supervised... Dont vote for HER!!! also, She is a Gov T-Paw's appointee... need someone more neutral

4
7
elmore1Oct. 23, 1210:50 PM

I disagree with the Strib continuing to support political appointment of Judges. Our court system is badly in need of reform and new blood is needed. Vote the incumbents out and let the public decide in the future.

5
12
viktorvaughnOct. 23, 1211:02 PM

I'd like to agree with you elmore, vote out the incumbent political appointees. Except, can't we field better challengers? Why aren't serious lawyers running against these Pawlenty appointees? Maybe cause they'd make half the money as a judge?

2
5
chris5144Oct. 24, 12 8:41 AM

Show me the judge on any level in MN firmly committed to the restoration of jury trial as the foundation of our justice system, and I'll show you a judge deserving of another term. So far, still looking. The Magna Carta made the liberty of the individual citizen a possibility, and the reforms it put in place have been scuttled by our own judiciary since the passage of the short-lived 18th amendment over 90 years ago. We killed off that amendment, but the corruption it spawned among our judiciary still increasingly prevails, and today less than 3% of civil and criminal cases ever see a jury, as the bulk of caseloads get detoured around constitutional rigor by those most entrusted to uphold and defend.

1
4
marathongirlOct. 24, 12 1:54 PM

Judges are supposed to be party neutral. I don't think people voting on them is the correct option, but I also don't think they should be appointed by any one person in office. Perhaps it needs to be done by an committee of the highest ranking member of every party (not just the two) that is currently in office. A bipartisan choice. John Grisham wrote a really interesting book on basically buying a lawsuit...it took place in the south due to the way the south works, but man it was an eye opener...yes, fiction, but you know the reality is close.

1
1
SALPAULSENOct. 24, 12 8:22 PM

Every time you read a court decision rendered in group by "conservative" vs. "liberal" judges, another flame of justice flickers and dies. Like the partisan politics that begets Minnesota's justices, if you want to see who is driving the decision-making of the courts, pay close attention to campaign finance reports next week and see who are the biggest contributors. Three Pawlenty-appointed justices? That's more than reason enough to balance the bench with fair, unbiased, non-partisan representation. I will vote Barkley.

3
0
MZBKAOct. 24, 12 9:29 PM

I always respect the ST's endorsements, but I respectfully disagree with their choice not to endorse Barkley. He has my vote.

3
0
bernice3Nov. 6, 1210:57 AM

The current system has an independent commission study and interview many possible candidates for judgeships. From this work, they choose (I believe) three from whom the current governor appoints his choice. After serving one term, the appointee has to run for re-election in order to stay on the court. This system has given us hundreds of fair, knowledgable and intelligent judges. Voting for party-endorsed candidates leaves us open to advertising by candidates and their supporters that lets voters their positions on issues that may come up in their courtrooms. This is hardly supportive of "justice." In our current election, both Tingelstad and Griffith are right-wing religious fundamentalists who want to make decisions based on their personal religious beliefs instead of the constitutions of the state and the United States.

0
0
  • 1 - 8 of 8

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT