"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

County Court Judge Race

 
Yesterday the county clerk's race had some twists and turns and today the County Court Judge race enters the market.  Sitting Judge Kim Martusewicz has a unveiled a website and Attorney John Hallett is making the circuit recruiting support for a run at the position. If the above is any indication, then it is safe to say he is serious about running. 

14 comments:

Dan Francis said...

This potential race is precisely why I think Judges should not be elected... both Kim Martusewicz and John Hallet are outstanding men and public servants... I know them both, and I can support either one of them -- both would be excellent choices.

It is a shame that we can only "choose" one. Judges should have NOT have to run for office IMHO.

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Because you have two outstanding men and public servants you should not have elections. What about when you have two outstanding men (or women) running for COngressman -should we do away with public elections

Carl D. said...

The one thing about looking at Judge Martusewicz's record he does not put drug dealers in jail on the first conviction. That does not represent the sentiment of the community and it is time we get a judge who will put drug dealers away for as long as possible, first time, every time.
The second thing is that with DWI as rampant as it is in the North Country neither the judge nor the DA is requiring a breath control lock on vehicles of convicted offenders. This has been allowed in New York for a length of time now, but we are still not protected up here. How about using all the tools at our disposal to keep us safe?

Anonymous said...

John Hallet is a good person for judgeship and I believe he would make more people responsible for their actions. We spend thousands on repeat offenders and this needs to stop!!!
I will support John because Judge Kim has not done that.

Dan Francis said...

Anon 3:17: You continue to distort my posts and intent.

I didn't say toss aside the democratic process of voting for our representatives in Congress or locally, either.

I just think the judical system should not be subject to politics and that's what elections do: taint the process...

Judges should be neutral and not have to show their political stripes and run for office.

Our would you propose USSC elections, too?

Read my words carefully, I use them carefully and with specific meaning and intent... something many others do not.

In any case, I'd appreicate if it you would stop distorting my words/posts.

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Carl, I understand how you feel. But it costs a lot of money to put people in jail. I'm very much in favor of giving people a chance to get off the drugs, via programs like Credo or Drug Court. If these drug offenders are given a chance and fail, fine, jail it is. But I can't go along with first time, every time thinking.

We just disagree.

Anonymous said...

DMF,

Read your post. I did not distort anything. You said "This potential race is precisely why I think Judges should not be elected." YOU then went on to say you like them both. You did not explain any other reason that Judges should not be elected.

My post simply tries to point out that you did not distinguish a judge race from any other race.

Why should Judges not be from a political party. Should they not belong to Rotary etc. Why would appointed Judges be better. They still would have to suck up to politicians to get the appointment.

Do you think that appointed Supreme Court judges have given us better Judges are do you think Judges (or wanna be Judges) have avoided the process? Most of the best legal minds would not consider going through the process that they now call selecting a Supreme Court Judge.

Your second post is still devoid of any reason to have appointed Judges.

Your

Anonymous said...

It ain't me, Dan. I didn't say it.

I don't want to upset you or any thin-skinned frogs.

Anonymous said...

I can understand Dan's comment regarding judges/politics. Unfortunately, if left solely appointments, we may be worse off.

As for eliminating elections altogether, that time may be coming sooner than you think.

Anonymous said...

I feel that The Drug Court Program is a great way to prevent people from being thrown in Prison. This is a one time chance to rehabilitate or face Prison for several years. (Only the willing to change will make it). I believe interlock systems should be enforced in ALL DWI cases who are allowed to drive. I also believe that Everyone should be treated equal..Whether you are Joe Smuck or a Correctional Officer! If you Drink and Drive your should pay the price, Especially if it's a second one! I know of a case right now that is being fought in Leray Court in which the C.O. nearly struck a State Police Vehicle! Sure his last one was years ago, but realistically he's been and continues to drink and drive because he has always gotten away with it! Treat him like everyone else,Knock him back into reality and get him some rehabilitation before he kills someone!

Dan Francis said...

Most judges will tell you point blank that they hate to run for office... and all of them will avoid situations where questions cannot be answered... too political they will say.

So, if they are running why won't or can't they respond to all questions... that's my point -
they by no choice have to be evasive!

I know, I've campaigned with plenty of them and they hate it.

sam said...

I am all for the drug court program to try and get these people back to being productive citizens and not in jail for the state to support. I feel they should have to follow threw with the whole program and because they themselves have a job that they think they can hide behind, they are no diffrent than anybody else. We have an instance right here in town where a father and son were both killed by drugs and drinking, so it does happen. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions, reguardless if it's the first time being caught or their third times, not a slap on the hand but go threw the process and if they don't want to do it then throw them in jail! So If Kim Martusewicz wins or John Hallet, I know it will be a much safer highway to travel on

Anonymous said...

I totally agree about whether you are Joe Smuck, a Correctinal officer, State trooper, judge, or ANYONE that represents the law and you are charged with DWI, especially a second offense; that they should all be given the same sentence. They are just as dangerous on the road as anyone else. Too many 2nd, 3rd, etc. time offenders , do it all over again.

Anonymous said...

Dan, as usual, you're on the money.

Does you wanna talk about the stupid hoops Schumer and them tried to put the potential Supreme Court justices through on confirmation hearings. Or do we want to keep this a more "local" discussion. Imagine, after slobberin' Barney Frank's latest comment, what the next hearings are going to be like. The next Supreme Court justice will have to be gay, liberal, pro-abortion, open-border, anti-gun, and maybe will have to drool a bit to show sensitiiiiivity with our boy Barney.

And if he or she is white, they will have to appropriately apologize for that.

Live Blogging