Thursday, February 25, 2010

It's Not Just the Republicans . . .

Lisa Falkenberg is back from maternity leave with a good column this morning covering a couple of the judicial candidates that the the Democrats have put forward this year, despite the fact that they have no criminal experience.

Lisa's article focuses on candidate Brandon Dudley, who at least was very candid about his lack of experience, and has some things in his background that at least tie to criminal law. He's running against Judge Jeannine Barr in November.

And then there is Kathy Cheng, who has made the decision to run against one of the most highly esteemed and the most senior judge on the bench, the 209th's Judge Michael McSpadden.

Both Judge McSpadden and Judge Barr are well regarded judges with years and years of experience. It would be pretty sad to see them lose to people who never tried a case, wouldn't it?

But, the Democratic Party seems to be working its ugly back-room deals just like the Republicans. At least the Democrats aren't standing behind a hate-mongering rodent like Terry Lowry, though.

There is a heartwarming quote from other criminal law rookie, Sharolyn Wood, that she is running because she just really really likes jury trials.

Hmm.

Well, I still really really like football, and nobody has made me quarterback of the Texans yet.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

All things considered, they would probably give you (or anybody) a try-out. The helmet would fit you well. Can't believe YOU are making hair comments, Newm.

Anonymous said...

Murray anything is possible.

Lisa could have written the same piece during the 2008 primaries....

"Endorsed, yet less experienced....

Even Pat Lykos was surprised when party activists asked her to run for Harris County District Attorney.

She wasn't a practicing defense attorney or a prosecutor. And, since earning her law license in 1933, she'd never been lead counsel on a criminal case. Or any case, for that matter.

Yet, the 96-year-old staffer of County Judge Ed Emmitt finds herself running in the Republican primary for Harris County District Attorney."

We all know the rest of the story....

The irony is that Lisa is just now starting to show signs of buyer's remorse....Caveat Emptor is not the sole purview of Snookems.

Michael said...

I was wondering when you would weigh in on Dudley. As for the Texans, keep your eyes on the prize.

Anonymous said...

Brian Rogers also wrote an article. The article lacks substance which appears to be common for Mr. Rogers. One thing he is capable of doing is missing the point on a regular basis.

Anonymous said...

Brian Rogers article is a NON-article; there is so much he could have written, but chose an unimpressive blasé approach. If he needs substance he could begin here! (Good job Murray)

Anonymous said...

I really really like to see young inexperienced prosecutors run for the bench and lose. HEY, We got something in common!! Well, maybe not.

Anonymous said...

As I read falkenberg's column (looks like she wants to throw Murray's readers a bone; surely her pregnancy did not cause an epiphany), the inexperience of palmer v. the experience of Donald Smyth immediately came to mind. Since the Comical has endorsed palmer, however, they are precluded from writing a similar expose' on her. It proves one very clear point - this paper has no integrity or credibility. The only thing about this article that is troubling is what was the Comical's motive. Surely, they do not want the reader to think they are consistent, rational, apoliticcal or reflective in their endorsements - they long ago proved that not to be the case.

What's the law judge said...

What is the difference between running for office and applying for a job? When you apply for a job you have to be qualified. When you run for office you have to be connected. Unless you have a lot of money (Farouk Shami) you have to have support of elected officials. It is the American way. Why is this news to lawyers? George Bush ran Texas to the bottom of ever statistical category and was still elected to the white house because people felt they could have a beer with him. Then he goes on to run the US in to the ground. Some of the judges on the bench have 20 plus years of experience and still refuse to follow the law. So I for one don’t care what a person has done prior to getting on the bench I care if they will follow the law. And if anyone thinks for one second everyday voters read the chronicle you are fooling yourself. It’s funny that the story of 13 retiring judges did not make it to this blog. It mentioned that one judge had dementia while presiding over cases. But hey who cares he has experience. I am putting my money on another Dem sweep in Nov. Well maybe the dems with African American sounding names will lose but other than that get ready for a big shake up

Anonymous said...

Brian Rogers is probably one of the poorest journalists the Chronicle has ever has. Wait, that's being too kind. He's not a journalist, just a writer apparently paid to write blase articles with half the facts missing or misstated.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:44

Why would anyone wish for a sweep of the judiciary based on party recognition? It should be about qualifications, not party. There have always been some very good and very bad judges from each party. As for a D sweep, I wouldn't hold your breath. For better or for worse, I think the opposite will happen. Most Ds won two years ago with O at the top of the ticket when he was at the top of his popularity. That isn't the case anymore. And, I think it's unfortunate that judicial elections are determined by how people vote in races at the top, no matter which party is in vogue.