|
2004
Voter Questions, with Doug Schafer's Replies
Emily H. wrote: Judicial Candidates, I am researching judicial candidates and I have a few questions for you. 1. How would you rule on a statute that was constitutional but morally wrong? 2. Would you support abolishing the death penalty? 3. What do you think about the pledge of allegiance case? (I understand that this is a federal case, but I would still like your thoughts.) 4. What makes you different from your opponents? Thank you for your time. Doug Schafer's reply to Emily H.:
1. How would you rule on a statute that was constitutional but morally wrong? Our state and federal constitutions broadly describe rights of individuals and limits on the powers of the governing majority of individuals. If a statute (which must have been enacted by the governing majority) is constitutional as you say, it would be a breach of any judge's oath of office to rule that it is void for being morally wrong. Presumably, the governing majority that enacted the statute had not regarded it as morally wrong. Standards of morality vary somewhat from religion to religion (for example, whether polygamy is moral), so our government and our judicial system are guided by our written constitutions rather than by any religion's sacred texts or teachings. 2. Would you support abolishing the death penalty? Undeniable evidence illustrates that mistakes too often are made in administering the death penalty, which, of course, is irreversible. We know that some people who have been convicted and executed have later been proven to have been innocent (for example, DNA later proves innocence, or another person later confesses, or a lying witness confesses). So we must be extraordinarily cautious in administering the death penalty. The taxpayers' cost of that extraordinary caution is staggering (see WA Chief Justice Richard Guy's 2000 report on the death penalty posted at http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/deathpen/ ). But the issue of whether we should abolish the death penalty is a political decision to be made by the voters or their elected representatives in the legislature. So long as our laws prescribe the death penalty, I support its administration when a defendant is, beyond any reasonable doubt, guilty of a capital crime. 3. What do you think about the pledge of allegiance case? I was offended by the public ridicule directed at Judge Goodwin (a Christian chuch elder) who authored the Ninth Circuit's ruling, which held that the 1954 act of Congress adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance to have been a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, and that its daily teacher-led recitation in public schools was unconstitutional. Judge Goodwin's written opinion dispassionately analyzed the facts based upon the tests of constitutionality prescribed by prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in school prayer cases and others. Persons interested in the issue ought to read his ruling, posted (among other places) at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf . Given the 21 amicus curiae briefs filed in support of atheist Newdow's position when Goodwin's ruling was pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, it is apparent that Newdow's views are shared by a significant minority of our nation's population. I consider it inexcusable that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to resolve the issue, for it could then have either overruled its prior school prayer cases and other precedents or else explained how Goodwin's ruling failed properly to apply them. We look to our U.S. Supreme Court for leadership in such matters, and it failed us. The collection of briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the lower court rulings, and other materials concerning the Pledge case are posted at http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2003/march.html#02-1624 Persons interest in the Constitutional issues relating to separation of Church and State ought to read some of those materials. I would object if my children were expected at public school each morning to pray in the direction of Mecca or a golden statue of Buddha. Our nation was founded upon tolerance of diversity in matters of religion, including atheism. I fear we too often forget that. 4. What makes you different from your opponents? I urge you to read the materials on my websites (http://doug4justice.org, http://EvergreenEthics.com, http://DougSchafer.com http://JudgeDoug.org). I know little about my election opponents except for Justice Richard B. Sanders [click here for a 1998 Seattle Times profile on him]. He is too obsessed, in my view, with the rights of criminal defendants and individuals and too dismissive of the rights of the public to protection, to law and order, and to the fulfillment of community needs. He condemns government as if it were a foreign evil, but I recognize that government is simply us -- the majority, acting through our representatives. The majority may not infringe on the fundamental rights of minorities and individuals, but individuals and groups ought not threaten us or obstruct our recognized rights as a community of individuals. I will be more balanced in deciding the cases that weigh individual rights against society’s rights. Richard Sanders' apparent disregard of our society's needs and values is long-standing. In 1979, he defended his action of bailing out a dangerous psychopath without informing the bail hearing judge of his client's mental illness by proclaiming that he, Sanders, had absolutely no duty to society. See my discussion about Sanders' mercenary actions and views in the Hawkins v. King County case beginning at page 11 of my Motion for a Ruling on Issues of Disqualification (http://dougschafer.com/Mot2Disqualify.pdf) and pages from the appellant's brief in the Hawkins case at http://dougschafer.com/Mot2DisqEx15.pdf. In my own close observations of Justice Sanders, I have concluded that he simply is not a consistently honest person. See the two instances of his apparent dishonesty that I documented at http://doug4justice.org/Shielding/LaundryList.html. Sanders' misleading public accusations against our Commission on Judicial Conduct for bringing its pending disciplinary case against him further illustrate his deceptive nature. See http://doug4justice.org/Sanders/ . I cannot myself substantiate, but I suspect as true, rumors that Sanders' marriage failed in 2001 due to his infidelity and that in 2003 the other justices directed that he not hire any female law clerks due to his past improprieties. [Webnote: After writing this reply to Emily H., I obtained his ex-wife Kathleen Sanders' public Declaration filed in King County Superior Court on Jan. 31, 2001, in which she stated,"Prior to filing the Petition for Dissolution I reconciled with the Respondent [her husband, Richard B. Sanders] on two occasions each time resulting in continued infidelity and unkept promises on the part of the Respondent." See http://doug4justice.org/Sanders/InfidelityDeclaration.pdf.] I believe that Justice Sanders lacks the personal character and values to be a state supreme court justice, notwithstanding his documented intelligence and commendable writing and speaking skills. I believe that I have the requisite personal character and values. Thank you for asking me your questions. Doug Schafer, Candidate for State Supreme Court, Position 6. [P.S. posted 9-10-2004: In his1998 election campaign, Justice Sanders claimed to have three children (click here to see his voters pamphlet statement), and the Seattle Times then reported (click here) him as "the father of three children," but now he claims only one child--his 17-year-old daughter, Laura (click here). Public records show that Kathleen's daughter and son from her prior marriage were ages 23 and 21 in 1998. Was it truthful or deceptive for Justice Sanders then to claim to have three children? Is parenthood a relevant factor in selecting a judge, considering the volume of family and child cases?] Judith M. wrote: Dear Sirs: I am interested in learning more about your judicial philosophy, especially in regards to "judicial activism" where judges are essentially making new law. Also I am interested in how you determine the balance between civil rights and the rights of the majority. Doug Schafer's Reply to Judith M.:
Both liberal and conservative judges are sometimes accused of "judicial activism" by critics of their decisions. As the two articles linked below and posted on the conservative Heritage Society and Federalist Society websites, both conservative and liberal judges sometimes declare laws to be unconstitutional and for doing so they are condemned by some as "activists." But when a case comes before them, they must adjudicate it, and they must give priority to the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, the state constitution, and state laws (in that order). When conservative judges find gun control laws unconstitutional and when liberal judges find abortion laws unconstitutional, they're both simply doing what judges must do -- assessing whether majoritarian laws infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights, as they see them. [Click here to read Ken Eikenberry's condemnation of Justice Richard Sanders as an "aggressive judicial activist."] My personal views on the boundaries of our fundamental constitutional rights are heavily influenced by what I consider to be the general public's traditional or long-standing views as to those boundaries. In weighing the rights of individuals against the rights of majorities (society), we must keep in mind that individuals belonging to the majority also have fundamental rights (e.g., the right to be safe and secure in their homes and communities). An individual's claimed rights should not be recognized if their exercise threatens or impairs the fundamental rights of the individuals surrounding them -- the majority, our great society. If no such threat or impairment exists, then traditional constitutional and statutory interpretations determine the validity of the individual's claim of rights. I perceive that too many uninformed folks claim to have rights (e.g., a claimed right to be treated the same as others) that have never been bestowed by constitution, statute, or recognized in any controlling court ruling. http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/HL456.cfm http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/hottopics/august.htm Doug Schafer, Candidate for State Supreme Court Position 6 Kevin wrote: Since I can't ask about specific issues, could you answer one or both of the following: 1.) Who do you think is currently the best U.S. Supreme Court Justice? 2.) Which politician of the last 30 years do you most admire? Thank you. Doug Schafer's Reply to Kevin:
Kevin, I do exercise my First Amendment right (recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in White, below) to express my views about many specific issues on my website, http://doug4justice.org. I even have posted my responses to candidate questionnaires given me by special-interest groups. http://doug4justice.org/PACs/Question.html I urge you to read the material on my website, and if you have the capacity to read more, go to http://DougSchafer.com and http://EvergreenEthics.com, and http://JudgeDoug.org. To reply to your question, I do not regard any of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices as "best," for I find myself generally impressed by the scholarly persuasiveness of each of them, and I agree with different justices on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps the justice I admire most is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for she so often effectively decides controversial issues by joining with either her four more conservative or her four more liberal colleagues. I was particularly pleased by the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia in the 2002 judicial candidate free speech case -- Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. It is posted, with many of the parties' appellate briefs, at http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2001/march.html#01-521 If you'd like my own observations about the White case, go to http://www.doug4justice.org/PACs/TandemVincitur.html#Callaghan. I have not paid such close attention to politicians in the last 30 years that I could identify any one who I "most admire." Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton had great leadership strengths (at least with respect to their followers), but both had some conspicuous flaws. I have not been politically a highly partisan individual, having over the last 30 years voted for politicians of both major parties, depending upon the issues and the candidates. Two of the current politicians I most admire are General Wesley Clark (D) and Senator John McCain (R), for I see them both as middle-grounders who would genuinely try to reduce the degree of divisivensess in our country and in our world. Doug Schafer, Candidate for Washington State Supreme Court Position 6. Lane D. wrote:
Thank you,
Having taught Current Issues and US History for thirty years in a public high school, it is obvious that those who seek non-partisan offices still employ their political philosophy when chosen to serve. To help us make an educated choice will you please tell us who you will vote for in the race for President. the D......s
Doug Schafer's reply to Lane:
I feel that I may report to you, within applicable ethics rules, the following historic public facts. Last January I attended my Democratic Party caucus meeting to actively promote the presidential nomination of Gen. Wesley Clark (who I still admire). In early 2000, I attended my Republican Party caucus meeting to actively promote the presidential nomination of Sen. John McCain (who I still admire). I consider myself an independent "midfielder" who tends to lean to the left on most social issues and to the right on many role-of-government issues. I urge you to read my website at http://doug4justice.org, including my posted answers to various special interest groups' questions. And please read and consider my posted material about the responsibility of our state supreme court to govern the conduct of lawyers -- prioritizing between client interests and public interests: http://www.doug4justice.org/DougsPledge.html Doug Schafer, Candidate for Washington State Supreme Court, Pos. 6 C. O**** wrote: Hi, What is your position on abortion? For or Against? Thank You. Doug Schafer's reply to C. O****:
Reply to C. O****: Please read my website (http://doug4justice.org) at which I post, along with much other information, my past exchanges with special interest groups (http://doug4justice.org/PACs/Question.html). In 2000, I addressed my past views on the abortion issue in my response to the NARAL PAC questionnaire specifically at http://doug4justice.org/PACs/NARAL.htm#AbortionViews. I emphasize that my past views on abortion and other controversial issues are subject to change, for I will always open-mindedly consider all responsible arguments presented on any issue and all scientific, medical, and social sciences research and evidence germaine to the issue. Doug Schafer, Candidate for State Supreme Court Pos. 6. Carrie J. wrote: My question is this: Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks and King County Superior Court Judge William Downing recently ruled that Washington State's DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act, banning gay marriage] was unconstitutional. I realize, not having heard the actual court cases, that it is difficult for you to say how you would rule. But, from the best of your knowledge on the subject, I would like to know just that. How would you have ruled? Doug Schafer's reply to Carrie J.:
Carrie J.: Because two cases you mention on the constitutionality of our state's legislative ban on gay marriage (Defense of Marriage Act) are now pending in the State Supreme Court, it would be improper and unwise for me to declare how I would rule on them. If I get elected on November 2, I might be sworn-in before the Court hears arguments and begins considering those cases. My impartiality and eligibility to participate in those cases would be challenged if I were now to publicly declare a position on the cases' central issue. If elected, I will give open-minded, careful consideration to all arguments presented to the Court on the issue. I recognize that the ramifications of the recent rulings by Judge Downing (click here to see it) and by Judge Hicks (click here to see it), if upheld by the State Supreme Court, are quite staggering. I urge you to read through the material on my website: http://doug4justice.org. Thank you. Doug Schafer, Candidate for State Supreme Court, Pos. 6 |