Don't anybody else do this! Goddammitgoddammitjesusfuck

Wipe out Sanders? Will she give him another $700 in the process?

Who printed these ballots? The bubbles and names are poorly aligned.

"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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

Thanks for contributing a Yelp review to an important civic and judiciary discussion.

@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.)

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.

@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.

@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. ;)

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.

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.