Civic Engagement Taskforce: LA County Superior Court Nominees

Confronting and questioning the judicial nominees was the best part of the taskforce. For years, I have wanted to hear these judicial candidates justify their campaigns, actually explain to voters why we should give them the time of day, let alone allow them to serve six-year terms in the Superior Court.

Judges are important. They don't (or at least they are not supposed to) make laws, but the interpret and apply the law. They also supervise the court procedures for criminal and civil cases. They also mete out the sentences once defendants are found guilty.

In the 1970s and 1980s, many of the judges in Los Angeles County, the Bay Area, and even the California Supreme Court were content to flout the law and allow repeat offenders to be released on their own recognizance, without any regard for the safety, welfare, or well-being of the surrounding community. We have witnessed current liberal judges in the Bay Area let off offenders with very weak sentences, like the college student who raped an unconscious woman, who only got a month in jail!

That judge was recalled.

Another judge, this time in Orange County, was recalled in 2003 because he was caught with kiddie porn, and lots of lawyers lined up to take that creep's place. That guy did not have the common decency to resign from office. Then again, someone who wants to sexually abuse children has no decency to begin with -- and he was removed from the bench.

By and large, though, bad judges don't go away. They just get re-elected over and over, and nothing is done to get rid of them. Most of the voters don't know or don't even care, and they don't make any effort to find out.

This forum gave us all a great opportunity to find out about many of the judicial nominees.

None of them were incumbents, so that was an interesting start.

They all gave opening statements, stressing their prior legal experience as well as their commitment to equity, diversity, fairness, diversion, i.e. all the liberal buzzwords that most LA County voters want to hear.

             

            

           

           

           

            

 George Turner arrived late, so he did not provide an opening statement. He did make the case for his campaign (somewhat) in this video:       

                 

To repeat, many of them talked about diversity. They talked about a balanced approach to justice. It's understandable, because (no doubt) every individual on that dias was a registered Democrat. It's impossible to compete countywide as a Republican right now, although I think that RINO Steve Napolitano is still part of the GOP, and he received a number of endorsements from other liberal Republicans--as well as the Los Angeles Times! George Turner is his opponent, and the general public would get a broader glimpse into his--and everyone else's--judicial philosophy.

 Wokeness is not justice, and it's the last thing that our court system needs.

To their credit, the nominees talked about the needs of victims and the importance of providing order in the courtroom. Steve Mac was the most disciplined of the candidates, with Renee Rose a close second. The other candidates seemed too casual or too partisan for the job. More commentary to follow.

Two of them were late, which was a little disconcerting. Why bother showing up at all if you don't care to be on time? Of course, I have run across judges in other settings, like at the LA County Registrar-Recorder's office, who display another level of incompetence altogether. One lady was running for a seat on the Superior Court, and she was turning in her paperwork to file.

And she filled out the paperwork incorrectly. She readily admitted as much in front of everyone else at the Registrar-Recorder's office. What is this?!

But back to the Civic Engagement Forum of Judicial nomimees ...

One of the questions posed to the judicial nominees touched on the legal matter of Judgment non obstante veredicto.

That was my question, and I submitted it to the moderator because I wanted to tease out the nominees' general legal competence.

It was pretty disappointing!

            

The moderator struggled with the language of the question, which is understandable. But so did the nominees! They weren't sure of what the question was asking them!

When I shared that I was the one asking the questions, I confirmed that I was asking their views on when is it appropriate to set aside the verdict of a jury. 

And they got it wrong, for the most part.

Here's the legal definition, for anyone is still curious:

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a rare legal process that allows a trial judge to reverse a jury's verdict. The Latin phrase non obstante veredicto translates to "notwithstanding the verdict".

A judge may grant a JNOV if they believe the jury's verdict: Is not supported by the facts, Contradicts the law, and Should have resulted in a directed verdict

There was a general set of questions about judicial philosophy and temperament in the courtroom, as well as how they would rate their ability to withstand public pressure to make decisions:

               

 In this segment, the judicial nominees talked about their prior legal experience and how it best prepared them for judicial service:

           

In this segment, the nominees explained their judicial philosophy (originalist, textualist, pragmatist?):

           

This was another bewildering demonstration of incompetence.

Most of the nominees had no idea what a textualist or an originalist interpretation even was!

YIKES!

Here are the comments on whether endorsements mar their capacity to be impartial in the courtroom:

           

I give George Turner credit for recognizing that this question was a very good question. Indeed, I think many voters should be concerned that the vast majority of these judicial nominees are begging the leftist LA County Democratic Party to line up behind them and endorse them.

All the candidates justified receiving endorsements from political parties or other interest groups. They also swore--sure--that they would not allow those endorsements to sway their thinking or their rulings or their judicial philosophy in the courtroom.

I do not believe that for one second.

One of the best questions posed to the nominees was "Do All Lives Matter?"

This was a particularly striking question, since most of the judicial nominees were black liberals, and presumably lined up with the whole Black Lives Matter agenda, which does not care about black lives--or anyone's lives, for that matter.

How they responded was actually pretty reassuring.

Here are their responses:

            

George Turner was the only nominee who went out of his way to politicize the question, pointing out that it seems to conflict with the "Black Lives Matter" movement. That was a very disturbing answer, to say the least.

Judges must be impartial, and they should not allow the skin color of a defendant or a victim to come into play with how they rule on motions, cases, or sentencing. We don't need more racism in the courtroom. We don't need more wokeness and moral corruption in the courtroom!

Final Reflection

Because of the relatively intimate nature of the forum setting, the nominees seemed more than happy to speak freely on issues. They showed their true colors, their lack of understanding on certain issues, but also a ready commitment to get to work on Day One, relying on all their prior legal experience.

Whether they were public defenders or prosecutors or county counsel, they all demonstrated a considerable pedigree of experience. This forum afforded the general public an opportunity to question and hold judicial nominees accountable at least once in their political careers.