Skip to main content

So I have already cast my ballot and in case there was any doubt, I voted for Jerry Brown (or "Moonbeam" as he is affectionately known by some) for governor.  He wasn't my first choice for a candidate this year but he wound up being the only candidate to run.  We were left with Meg Whitman.  Make no mistake about it, Whitman, if elected, would be an absolute disaster as governor and would be a disaster for California.  I think Brown will be a good governor and I am glad that I voted for him.  

Brown has been attacked during this campaign for many things by Meg Whitman.  One line of attack is the appointment of Rose Bird, an attack that she has brought up in debates.  Because people are largely unfamiliar with the story of Rose Bird, I thought I should write a diary explaining the saga and I thought I should offer a defense of Rose Bird as well and why, despite the criticism of Rose Bird, I still proudly cast my ballot for Jerry Brown.  

Some of you may be wondering, who is Rose Bird?  I think many people watching the California Gubernatorial debate probably asked the same question.  Who is Rose Bird?  What did she do?  And why is Meg Whitman talking about her?  Is she some female version of Willie Horton?  Perhaps some Bernardine Dorhn type accidently released from prison under Brown?  Well not exactly (but close to it depending on who you ask).  Rose Bird was the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court who was first appointed to the Court in 1977 by Jerry Brown.  Bird was the first and to date only (until Tani Cantil-Saukuye is approved by the electorate) female chief of the Court.  Now forgotten and unknown to most, she was once a lightning rod for controversy, a symbol of "judicial activism."  She was extremely liberal and often remembered as much for her opinions as her departure, she was unceremoniously voted off the bench by the California electorate in 1986.  

When then Chief Justice Donald Wright (a Ronald Reagan appointee) decided to retire in 1977, it was widely expected that Brown would appoint associate Justice Stanley Mosk to the position of Chief.  Mosk was a brilliant liberal (the William Brennan of the California Supreme Court) who had been appointed by Brown's father in the 1960's after serving as Attorney General and a lower court judge before that.  Mosk wanted the position too.  Unfortunately for Mosk, it was not meant to be.  Jerry Brown soon announced that the vacancy would go to Rose Bird.  The immediate reaction to this appointment was "Rose Who?"  

Bird was the State Agricultural Secretary (her most notable action was to ban the use of the short handed hoe much to the ire of agricultural growers) under Brown but was largely an obscure figure completely unknown to the courts and legal profession.  She had never been a judge, had served only briefly as an entry level public defender, and had only briefly served as an adjunct law professor at Stanford.  She was no star litigator either.  In fact, she and Brown first became acquainted during his 1974 gubernatorial campaign where she volunteered and became his chauffer.  In short, she was no legal standout and hardly on anyone's shortlist for one of the most powerful judicial positions in the United States.  This led to some contentious hearings from the State Judicial Commission where she almost failed confirmation needing Republican Attorney General Evelle Younger to change his vote at the last minute.  But notwithstanding the controversy, in 1977, at the age of just 40, Bird now found herself as the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.  She was controversial from Day 1.

Brown and Bird both reportedly thought that the court system had become too much of an old boy's club and was becoming distant to the ordinary concerns of people.  She immediately moved to make changes including selling the Court's official limosuine, setting the stage for the computerization of court records, and changing the rules to allow Superior Court judges to sit on the Court and hear cases by special designation, a major honor for most judges.  Previously, this honor of hearing cases by special designation was reserved to California Court of Appeals judges.  But with these changes, came problems.  

Shortly after being sworn in, Stanley Mosk, still bitter over not being appointed Chief Justice told her "I certainly cannot blame you for being here, but I blame Jerry Brown for putting you here."  Mosk was critical of her administrative abilities, in later years reffering to her as a "disaster" when it came to administering the court system, one of the main jobs of the Chief Justice.  As soon as Bird came to office, the California Supreme Court faced a major scandal when associate Justice Marshall McComb was forced off the Court because of senile dementia.  At one point, a Superior Court judge nearly jailed him for contempt of court because he failed to show up for his depositions.  His saga ended two months after Bird arrived when a panel of 7 Appeals Court judges ordered him retired.  It was about this time that the chief administrator of the Court resigned just weeks after she became Chief Justice, reportedly because he and Bird did not get along well.  

Bird narrowly squeaked by with 52% of the vote in her 1978 retention vote.  But then, Bird faced a major scandal.  There was an accusation that the Court had purposely delayed releasing opinions in order to help Bird win a 1978 retention vote.  Soon thereafter, without consulting any of her colleagues, Bird called for an investigation of the Court.  The investigation fell through on constitutional grounds and dissolved without resolution.  However, the entire Court's reputation was tarnished as it was made to look dysfunctional during the proceedings.  Bird's relationships with her fellow Justices was also strained.  Reportedly, she kept her door closed and locked at all times and required fellow Justices to make appointments in order to see her (which alienated even her liberal colleagues).  She would throughout her time on the Court often bring along a note taker to transcribe conversations between her and her fellow Justices which alienated her fellow Justices.  At one point, relations with fellow Justice William Clark were so bad that she would not talk to him or even his clerks.  

When it came to her jurisprudence, other problems existed.  Throughout the 1980's, there was a constant back and forth between the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court because there was constant confusion over whether California had issued decisions on the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.  This resulted in an embarassing constant back and forth between the two courts.  Additionally, rather than attempting to unite the Court, Bird charted her own course and would often write separate opinions, sometimes writing concurring opinions where she had written the main legal opinion.  

But these weren't the reasons that ultimately led to her downfall.  In fact, I doubt that many people cared or even knew about the court drama.  Bird was a solid liberal on the Court and authored many decisions that favored plaintiffs and consumer rights advocates over big business.  While Californians may have agreed with her decisions in favor of consumer rights, big business didn't and they were resentful, ready to get her off the Court.  Where Bird's liberalism infuriated Californians was her jurisprudence on the rights of criminal defendants, especially the death penalty.  In all 64 death penalty cases that came before the Court, she voted to vacate the death penalty in every single one of them.  This was often criticized as overtly political and in defiance of what the voters and legislature of California wanted.

Why did this matter so much?  California went through some incredibly violent periods during the 1970's and 1980's where crime soared and California witnessed an unbelievable number of horrifying crimes.  Starting in 1969 with the Tate-LaBianca murders committed by Charles Manson and his family, California was repeated shocked by ever increasing horrifying crimes.  There were a number of brutal mass murders (the 1981 Wonderland Avenue Massacre occurred just a few blocks down the street from where Jerry Brown lived).  There was a huge increase in the number of infamous serial killers.  And if that wasn't bad enough, California cities, especially LA, witnessed huge increases in gang warfare and bloody wars over the cocaine trade.  Many streets and neighborhoods in LA became near warzones.  The response to the crime and horror was a desire by Californians to give the death penalty.  Rose Bird continued to take this away and she earned the ire of voters.  

In 1986, Bird was up for a retention vote.  Big business interests across the state teamed up to launch a campaign against her, focusing mainly on her opposition to the death penalty.  In November of 1986, Rose Bird was unceremoniously voted out of office with a full 67% of the vote.  On election night, Rose Bird conceded by noting that "I have tried my best" and that the California Supreme Court was "a house of Justice, not a house of Justice."  In addition to Bird, two other liberal Justices, Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso, were also voted out of office (though by smaller margins, 60%-40% against Reynoso and 57%-43% against Grodin).  Ironically, Stanley Mosk was also up for retention and despite his liberalism, was retained with well over 70% of the vote.  Republican Governor George Deukmejian would move to appoint Malcolm Lucas to replace Bird.  The contrast could not have been greater.  Where Bird was an unabashed liberal, a single, unmarried woman, from a working class background, Lucas was a solid conservative WASP from southern California Republican nobility.  He would push the Court far to the right during his time.  

After her defeat, Bird would fade off into obscurity, becoming a recluse of sorts in her later years.  Unlike her rejected colleagues Reynoso and Grodin, who received job offers from big law firms and law schools, Bird remained unemployed.  She spent time taking care of her ailing mother and sometimes would volunteer for grassroots political organizations (though usually she would be incognito and cease volunteering after people figured out who she was).  She occassionally would be hired to do television and radio shows and would be billed as "the most controversial woman in California" but those shows failed mainly because she was too soft spoken and articulate.  People were expecting to tune in to hear some Stalinist left wing maniac screaming over the airwaves and looking to fight, instead they found someone who was articulate and intelligent and not unreasonable.  They tuned out.  She faced a similar problem that the late Daryl Gates faced as well (who was also soft spoken and articulate instead of a raging Glenn Beck style maniac that everyone wanted).  In 1999, Bird died of breast cancer.  She had actually been diagnosed in 1976 and initially had been successful in battling it off but ultimately succumbed in the end.  

Today Bird is mostly forgotten.  She's not cited to in the pantheon of great prior judges.  Instead she is most remembered by Meg Whitman and other Republicans who will bring her up to make political attacks (a little bit unseemly considering that she's no longer alive).  But it should be noted that Bird has left a legacy.  For example, during her tenture, the California Supreme Court held that free speech rights extended to those in privately owned shopping centers under the California Constitution, a great individual right that lasts to this day.  The Court also held that there was a right to strike under the California Constitution, a decision that remains good law.  During her tenure, the California Supreme Court also held that peremptory challenges based on race were unconstitutional under the California Constitution (long before the Supreme Court agreed).  Other cases on the right to privacy and gay rights would set the stage for landmark decisions under the current Court in favor of gay rights and the right to choose.  

Although Bird could be fairly criticized for politicizing her decisions on the death penalty, some hindsight is important here.  Even though the Lucas Court would dramatically shift in favor of prosecutors and affirming death penalty sentences, crime would continue to soar in California.  Reportedly, Bird was always concerned that the death penalty was disproportionately applied to minorities and often to people who might be innocent.  As hindsight has shown, she was right.  Since the development of DNA evidence, there have been hundreds if not thousands of exonerations of people convicted for crimes they did not commit, many of them on death row.  In hindsight, something must be said for her own battle with cancer, which occurred while she was on the bench but was not known to the public.  Regardless of her opinion on the death penalty and regardless of whether she was legally correct in her ways, I can imagine that someone battling for their own life would vote against taking the life of another.  

In conclusion, Bird is not the boogeyman that Meg Whitman and her campaign has made her out to be.  Even Stanley Mosk later remarked that "Rose Bird is a very bright, intellegent, competent woman."  When Bird died, she received a glowing tribute from Justice Joyce Kennard, a Deukmejian appointee to the Court who arrived on the Court after Bird had been voted off the bench.  Initially expected to be a conservative, Kennard drifted to the left on the Court and during her early years on the Court struck up a friendship with Rose Bird.  At the Court's memorial session for Bird, Justice Kennard remarked "This woman of intellectual brilliance, extraordinary courage, compassion and grace has forever left her imprint on California's history."  She would add "Rose championed the interests of the downtrodden. She was fearlessly committed to her ideals of liberty and justice for all."  Kennard concluded "She should be remembered as a strong, brilliant, yet caring human being who gave heart to the law and hope to the disadvantaged that justice was available from the Supreme Court."  

I will choose to remember former Chief Justice Rose Bird in that way.  

Originally posted to SoCalLiberal on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 09:38 PM PDT.

Poll

Who is your favorite all time California Supreme Court Justice?

21%7 votes
3%1 votes
0%0 votes
6%2 votes
34%11 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
6%2 votes
0%0 votes
6%2 votes
0%0 votes
3%1 votes
0%0 votes
3%1 votes
15%5 votes

| 32 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for Rose Bird and Jerry Brown (12+ / 0-)

    I got an automatic tip jar on this but I wanted to create an extra one for the former Chief Justice.  

  •  Thanks for your historical review. n/t (4+ / 0-)
  •  You had me at the headline. n/t (6+ / 0-)

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 09:53:19 PM PDT

  •  Whitman going after Rose Bird (6+ / 0-)

    seemed about as timely and relevant as Glenn Beck's crusade against Woodrow Wilson.

    You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

    by abrauer on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 09:56:00 PM PDT

  •  The visceral objection so many people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal

    had of Chief Justice Bird was her total disregard for the law regarding death penalty cases. She was a bad appointment though she wasn't a bad person.  She was a really good person in fact with great liberal views.    

    I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

    by thestructureguy on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 09:58:32 PM PDT

    •  I mostly agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, thestructureguy, IreGyre

      I think Rose Bird should have been appointed to the California Supreme Court or perhaps a California Appeals Court, just not the Chief Justice position.  She had never been a judge before and came under great scrutiny.  I think that had she had the time to develop as a judge, she could have been a great judge and could have been highly influential eventually.  

      In terms of the paucity of her legal background, it's important to note that many women at the time suffered from the same fate as Rose Bird.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated at the top of her class at Columbia (after being top of her class at Harvard, writing on to both law reviews, all while raising two young children and taking care of her husband who had cancer) and yet Felix Frankfurter would not hire his fellow Jew to be a clerk and no law firm would hire her.  Sandra Day O'Connor graduated #3 in her class at Stanford and not a single firm extended an offer to hire her (Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher offered her a position as a secretary which she smartly turned down).  In the case of Ginsburg, the women of America ultimately lucked out.  Ginsburg was the Thurgood Marshall of women's rights in this country and helped bring gender equality to the law.  So when it comes to someone like Rose Bird who was at the top of her class at UC Berkley, I can't blame her for lacking the legal experience of male counterparts.  But giving her the Chief Justice position was ultimately a mistake.  

      •  I never doubted or questioned Rose's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SoCalLiberal

        intellectual abilities or background.  What hurt her was her lack of political savoy.  Earl Warren was elevated to the SCOTUS without being a Judge.  However, he understood and was able to navigate the politics of the court.  Rose wasn't much of people person either.  The wrap she got was bad and didn't give her credit for the positions she held.  You're right in that she may have been remembered more positively if she was an associate and out of the lime light.  

        I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

        by thestructureguy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 07:43:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Rise and Fall of Rose Bird (7+ / 0-)

    Don’t believe for a moment that the campaign to oust Chief Justice Rose Bird from the California Supreme Court is a spontaneous public uprising. Four groups working to defeat her reconfirmation have raised more than $5.6 million, much of it through direct mail to previous contributors on conservative mailing lists.

    [...]

    Don’t believe, either, that the effort to get rid of Chief Justice Bird is non partisan. Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican up for re-election; Mike Curb, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, and Ed Zschau, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, have all campaigned openly against her.

    [...]

    Don’t believe, finally, that the anti-Bird campaign is about the death penalty, although that is the emotional issue that Mr. Roberts, the Republican and the right wing have fanned into near-hysteria.

    [...]

    Thus, the death penalty is only the trumped-up excuse for the anti-Bird campaign - the actual purpose of which clearly is to put a conservative majority on the California Supreme Court. ... And a deeper motive of the business groups involved in the anti-Bird campaign - big contributors include the Independent Oil Producers Agency and the Western Growers Association - was suggested when Crime Victims for Court Reform issued a paper charging the Bird court with being "anti-business."

    Tom Wicker
    In the Nation; A Naked Power Grab
    New York Times
    Sept. 14, 1986

    Interesting analysis here (.pdf). Always liked that woman; it was appalling how the right ganged up on her. Thanks for remembering.

    Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

    by adios on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 10:32:56 PM PDT

  •  Nicely done (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal, adios

    If we had retention elections for SCOTUS justices, Douglas, Black, Warren, Brennan, T. Marshall, and latter-day Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter would have been removed as well, thanks to just this sort of right-wing hidden-agenda campaign.

    •  Oh No! Not Souter! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane, IreGyre

      I love David Souter, he's my absolute hero and one of my favorite all time Supreme Court Justices (right up there with Brennan, Douglas, and Warren).  He was unbelievably brilliant and just a damn good judge.  No, a great judge.  My only sadness is that he could never come out of the closet and will probably spend the rest of his life in the closet.  But he's merely a victim of his own time I suppose.  I don't think Souter would have been voted out of office.  The others though I kinda agree except for Stevens and Blackmun.  Blackmun was such a good All American guy, the type who liked baseball, chocolate chip cookies, apple pie, hot dogs, and all things wholesome.  He would have squeaked it out.  And Stevens is just so grandfatherly, how could people campaign against him?  I wouldn't completely count out Brennan and Warren.  Warren is the most successful elected official in California history and Brennan at least understood how to play politics.  They likely would have been thrown out in a retention election but both could have made it close and both would have had an outside shot at winning.  

      Not having retention elections for our current Supreme Court Justices cuts both ways.  If we had them, we could remove Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.  And their removal would make the Supreme Court much better.  I've often reffered to John Roberts as a "right wing Rose Bird with a penis."  But the more I think about it, it's kinda insulting to Rose Bird.  When Bird made up constitutional law or ignored the Legislature, she did it because she cared about people and she cared about the plight of the least well off of society.  That may be legally wrong but it's admirable.  John Roberts makes up law all the time but he does it to harm the least well off and benefit his favorites.  As much as I dislike Scalia, at least Scalia simply tries to enforce his own conservative views on the Constitution and doesn't use his position as a platform for the Republican Party like Roberts does.

      I forgot this but under the Rose Bird Court, there was a decision requiring California to pay for the abortions of women.  I think it's still good law (though maybe preempted by federal legislation).  

      Nicely done

      Thank you.  

  •  I remember when I first got involved in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal, terjeanderson

    registering voters in the late 1980's, and the shopping centers grudgingly complying with the law and allowing us to set up tables there. I didn't know at the time the connection to Rose Bird, even though I had voted for her reelection.

    •  That was some good karma (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AaronInSanDiego, terjeanderson

      THink about it, you were one of 33% of the voters to retain her and yet you didn't know that one of the things you best cherished was a result of her.  She literally was the swing vote on the Court that allowed Pruneyard.  Btw, Pruneyard back in 2007 was revisited and it was once again reaffirmed (people thought Pruneyard would die and yet it triumphed again!).  

  •  Whitman's slurs against Rose Bird . . . (3+ / 0-)

    . . . will prove as ineffective with the California voting public as everything else she's tried--if only because, considering that Bird disappeared quietly from public life in 1986, the majority of today's voters listening to Whitman's babble would probably scratch their heads and wonder, "Who's Rose Bird?"  The name "Rose Bird" remains a dog-whistle for elderly nut Republicans, but for no one else.

    Rose Bird was definitely my favorite California Chief Justice.  Among all justices, though, I retain a special affection for Matthew Tobriner.  Besides being a good progressive on every issue, he gave my best friend a long exclusive interview when we were both in journalism school at Cal in 1978.  Busy as he must have been, he had time for that.

    "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

    by keikekaze on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 11:26:11 PM PDT

    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terjeanderson, blueoasis, keikekaze

      But I wanted to write a diary defending Rose Bird and her legacy.  I think that when people die and they are trashed, they can't really defend themselves.  Now some people deserve to be trashed even in death and that includes judges.  We don't need to sing the praises of Roger Taney or even Oliver Wendell Holmes who once wrote that "three generations of imbeciles is enough" or defend the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson.  But Rose Bird wasn't such a Justice.  And I felt the need to defend her.  

      •  Oh, by all means, celebrate and remember her. (3+ / 0-)

        And tell her story for those too young to remember.  Both admirable goals.  I'm only saying Bird and her legacy don't need defending from the spew of tenth-rate wannabe political hacks like Whitman.   I'm glad you wrote this diary, though, and I thank you for it.

        "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

        by keikekaze on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 11:42:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  hey all you legally-informed people out there (4+ / 0-)

    if you have any information on the judge races in CA, it would be a godsend if you wrote it up and posted it ASAP.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 11:58:07 PM PDT

    •  Which races are you voting on? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      keikekaze

      I voted to retain all appellate judges.  I voted to retain Tani Cantil-Saukuye and Carlos Moreno on the Supreme Court.  I voted against Ming Chin's retention.  For local judges, I voted for Randy Hammock for Office Number 28 and Alan Schneider for Office Number 117.  For 117, both candidates are prosecutors (I think I voted for a defense attorney in the primary) but Schneider is ranked "Well Qualified" by the LA County ABA and his opponent Tom Griego is ranked "not qualified."   For 28, I voted for Hammock since he's already a Superior Court refferee and because both his parents were deaf when he was a child.  I imagine that probably impacted him positively.  He's probably a good listener and has the right temperament to be a judge and deal with a wide variety of litigants and lawyers before him.  Both he and his opponent, Mark Ameli are ranked by the LA County ABA as "qualified."  I don't know if you vote for those offices but I know you're in LA County so they might be on the ballot.

      •  3rd district, in the sac area (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keikekaze

        does cantil-sakauye have any record at all, or is she a cipher? i'm inclined to vote against her simply for being a schwarzeneggar appointee, given how carefully he's fucked the state with his other actions as governor, but none of the coverage of her has made mention of any positions, political, legal or otherwise.

        surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

        by wu ming on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 09:28:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My understanding (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          keikekaze

          And I say this with a caveat that I haven't reviewed a good deal of her legal work is that she is a moderate.  

          I've also heard that she married a gay couple during the period in which same-sex marriage was allowed in California.  

    •  Also (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      keikekaze

      Ever since that horrible debacle with Dzintra Janahvs back in 2006, I've been far more careful on voting on judges (which frankly is a terrible idea and shouldn't be done).  I always check now to see which ones are ranked as qualified and which ones are not.  When you have more than one qualified candidate running for the same office, I do background research and look for traits I like.  Typically, I prefer a liberal over a conservative.  

      I decided to vote for Tani Cantil-Saukuye because she is well qualified for her position and I don't think she is going to try and retrench on some of the Court's major decisions where Ron George was a deciding vote as she is George's handpicked successor.  I would hate it if she tried to retrench on the suspect classification of sexual orientation or if she decided to overturn California's jurisprudence extending free speech rights into shopping centers or if she went back on the right of minors to seek abortions without parental consent or notification (that's highly unlikely to come back to the Court).  But I don't think she'll do that.  I wish that Carlos Moreno could have been appointed Chief Justice and so initially I thought about voting against Cantil-Saukuye for that reason.  I thought better of it though when I realized (beyond the fact that I'm not the Governor of California and don't make these kinds of decisions) that the only way she will lose her retention vote is if people vote against her because of her unusual name.  We know this is a possibility if only because Superior Court judges have been defeated for reelection in LA County because of odd sounding foreign names.  This happenned with Dzintra Janahvs, who lost reelection in 2006 for seemingly no apparent reason at all.  Well, if I voted against Cantil-Saukuye and she lost, I'd feel horrible that I was part of a vote based on bigotry and I will not be making the same mistake again.  

  •  Good job and a couple comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal

    Very well written diary, SCL.  Just a couple of comments.

    You mention how Stanley Mosk wasn't voted out in 1986.  IIRC, the folks who organized the campaign to oust Bird, Reynoso, and Grodin decided not to go after Mosk since he was already in his mid-70s, and they figured it wouldn't be long before nature would take care of him.  Much to their chagrin, he went on to serve another 19 years.

    As for Kennard and Bird, it's perhaps unsurprising that the two would become friends.  After all, Kennard has sometimes adopted Bird's practice of concurring in opinions that she herself has written.

    Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

    by FogCityJohn on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 10:31:31 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site