Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

I Know We Endorsed Bruce Hilyer for State Supreme Court Position 9...

Posted by on Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM

...but I'm throwing my vote behind Sheryl McCloud. She struck me as smarter and feistier than Hilyer in our endorsement interview and I'm pretty confident she could wipe the floor with Sanders if given the chance (you know how ladies love to clean!).

Vote!
  • The Shtranger
  • Vote!

Check out our reasoning for endorsing Hilyer instead OVER HERE. Read! Argue! Vote!

 

Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Don't anybody else do this! Goddammitgoddammitjesusfuck
Posted by gloomy gus on July 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM · Report this
michaelp 2
Wipe out Sanders? Will she give him another $700 in the process?
Posted by michaelp on July 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
DOUG. 3
Who printed these ballots? The bubbles and names are poorly aligned.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on July 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM · Report this
4
"She struck me as smarter and feistier than Hilyer..." what is that even supposed to mean? How does being feistier than Hilyer qualify her for ANY position, let alone a position on the WA State Supreme Court? I'll take even-tempered, logical and impartial over Judge Judy any day.
Posted by Sam O. on July 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM · Report this
5
I want judges who are smart and share my general values, but don't go into things with an overt agenda. She has an agenda, and will probably be as problematic as Sanders on a number of issues, including property rights and gun rights. And in her particular field, where people generally respect each other and behave above-board, her "feistiness" has caused her to take steps that have lost her respect among peers.
Posted by Gidge on July 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM · Report this
6
A few years ago I was on a jury panel in Judge Hilyer's Courtroom in a marijuana possession trial. As the jury selection started the prosecutor asked a potential juror about her views on marijuana and she replied that she would never vote to convict anyone of marijuana possession. Startled the prosecutor asked if anyone else felt that way and about 3/4's of us held up our hands. Judge Hilyer was grinning from ear to ear as this was going down. He was clearly enjoying this. We were all dismissed and a new panel was called. I will be voting for him.
Posted by ratcityreprobate on July 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM · Report this
Cienna Madrid 7
@4, it means what it says--she struck me as smart and feisty, while Hilyer was more staid and political. Through our meeting McCloud defined herself as someone who challenges people to fully defend their opinions and ideas and that's what I'd like to see on the supreme court.

@5, what agenda? In our meeting she specifically said, "To use the supreme court as a soap box for your ideology is wrong,” when speaking of the court's gay marriage decision.

She also explained her prior support of Sanders this way: “I felt that he was the one to uphold constitutional rights even if they were controversial. I changed my opinion when the Seattle Times broke the story about his racist comments.”

So, yeah. I voted for her, which in no way prevents you from voting for Hilyer.
Posted by Cienna Madrid on July 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
Eli Sanders 8
@7: McCloud also told us that she didn't change her opinion of Sanders after he voted against same-sex marriage rights back in 2006.
Posted by Eli Sanders http://elisanders.net/ on July 24, 2012 at 1:13 PM · Report this
9
Thanks for contributing a Yelp review to an important civic and judiciary discussion.
Posted by capicola on July 24, 2012 at 1:54 PM · Report this
Cienna Madrid 10
@8, that's true but it doesn't mean she's against same-sex marriage, and we've both sat through enough endorsement meetings to know that every candidate has his or her knocks. I don't think her past support of Sanders should cripple her viability.

I think she did a good job of explaining that she backed Sanders (despite his wrong-headed views on gay marriage, which, let me remind you, a majority of justices agreed with) because of his thorough understanding and strong support of constitutional law--which are the same strengths she brings to the race. (Minus the cloud of bigotry.)
Posted by Cienna Madrid on July 24, 2012 at 2:04 PM · Report this
11
Irrelevant to the issue of voting for her or not, she's got a nice kid. He's been on the Bainbridge Ferry every morning campaigning for her and has been polite and well spoken.
Posted by lone locust on July 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM · Report this
Eli Sanders 12

@10 It doesn't mean she's against same sex marriage, but it does mean her perception of Sanders as a defender of constitutional rights and unpopular freedoms is a little off. It also suggests that gay rights rates lower on her list of concerns than other things when it comes to supreme court justices.

Another issue is that she donated $700 to Sanders last cycle. He's her most likely opponent in the general, and a wily campaigner who would surely find effective ways to use that against her.

Posted by Eli Sanders http://elisanders.net/ on July 24, 2012 at 2:38 PM · Report this
13
@6: That's great. Sounds like it would've been fun to watch.

@7: I don't think it's a judge's job to challenge defenses. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the opposing legal counsel? Also, "feisty" seems like a negative quality for a judge to me.

Of course nothing you say prevents me from voting one way or the other. I'm not looking for an "agree to disagree" here, I'm challenging you to fully defend your opinions and ideas. ;)
Posted by Sam O. on July 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM · Report this
14
Hilyer is a wet blanket and the only reason SECB endorsed him is to make themselves look sane. Especially after endorsing Anti Fiendish Fluoridation Man.
Posted by K on July 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM · Report this
15
I mean, they endorsed corporate litigator Ramseyer over former public defender and well-experienced Ernsdorff because of Ramseyer's supposed "civil rights record", and yet somehow this criteria was not in play in Supreme #9, despite McCloud's much more impressive civil rights record. What's up with that? Who knows. I'd say it's because SECB wants their endorsement to mean something, but again... the fluoride guy.
Posted by K on July 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy