Linder is not really a "woman," is she Jack?

What the hell does "that" mean, Intrepid?

I thought the most interesting aspect of the Supreme Court race is that Gene Hallman, an able and respected lawyer from Pendleton, carried his home county -- Umatilla -- but lost every other Eastern Oregon county. In most of them, he was a distant third. So much for the argument that voters east of the mountains believe that they are not "represented" on the Supreme Court.

I mean she isn't really a woman by the traditional standard and definition of what it means to be a woman, is she?

Heck, until a few days ago, Jack Roberts wasn't really a lawyer by the traditional standard and definition of what it means to be a lawyer - so they're even.

Intrepid: What? As in, born with a uterus? I think she has that part covered. I really don't get what you're alluding to. Though judges are of course bound by the law, judges' approach to legal questions are guided by assumptions about a given state of affairs, which (in large part) are formed by their experiences. You can bet that, as a woman, she's had different experiences from most men, especially coming up in the profession when she did.

Amanda - intrepid is alluding to sexual preference, not gender.

Oughtn't we be examining their respective qualifications? And, as MLK might have said, not their physiology but the content of their character?

scott r: if that is indeed what "intrepid" is referring to, it's beneath comment.

Rusty: agreed. All things being equal, I prefer to see a few women on the Court. After all, we represent half the law graduates now. And things are far from equal in this instance. Judge Linder is smart, experienced in appellate law both on and off the bench (and appellate law is its own animal, so that's important), and fair. She's the more qualified candidate. To my mind, it's just a bonus that she happens to also be a woman.

Qualifications? What does that have to do with it?

These are robed politicians. Nothing more. Choose who to vote for by ideology. Quit pretending that Oregon's court system is full of judges. It ain't - it's full of politicians who get to decide things without man checks and balances, which is what makes it so dangerous.

Just look at Lipscomb and James. Hack politicians.

So, sexual preference is definitely a relevant issue inasmuch as it is a marker of (or a proxy for) ideology. And sexual preference IS a good proxy for ideology.

So, Linden's sexual identity is relevant.

intrepid: that is absurd. We have an elected judiciary, an initiative and referendum system (assuming one is able to follow simple rules) that allows the public to change the Constitution, among other checks on the judiciary (let's not forget recalls--at least, people who are capable of reading & following directions may mount them). To suggest that most judges aren't doing their utmost to apply the law is mere Constitution Party babble from people who have absolutely no training in the law.

Sexual identity is also an absurd proxy for politics. Although you can't be a hardcore right wing religious zealot if you're a lesbian, you can be all across the political spectrum otherwise. I don't mind the idea of voting against the aforementioned type of religious zealots who run--who WILL be activist judges if they are elected, for their faith demands it.

Here we go again - another election year chapter of "Those Evil Liberal Homosexuals".

Never mind that the percentage of gays/lesbians who vote Democratic drops with every election cycle. Wouldn't want to confuse the "homosexual agenda" crowd with actual facts.

The remnants and dregs of the OCA live on.

If you've ever appeared in Paul Lipscomb's court, as I have, you know he's not a hack politician. I've appeared before Mary Merten James only once and she ruled against my client, but had a good reason for doing so. She's no hack. Of course, reality don't mean a thing to pinheads.

It is laughable to say that sexual identity is not a good proxy for political ideology.

Would you also say that religion is not a good proxy? You would say, then that born again Christians as a group cannot be generalized as far as their political viewpoints?

Bullshit.

Hinckly you act as if pointing out that gays and lesbians are overwhelmingly liberal is some kind of bigotry. It's not, any more than pointing out that born again Christians are conservative.

Religion is not something you're born with. Sexual orientation is, but that's a fact the OCA crowd doesn't want to be confused by either.

But you're confusing statistics with facts.

What we have is not a race between "an arbitrary woman/lesbian" and "an arbitrary man". What we have is a race between "Virginia Linder" and "Jack Roberts".

Once you individualize something, statistics instantly become meaningless. You can't say that because 85% of lesbians are Democrats, that means Linder is 85% Democratic. She is an individual, not a representative sample, and statistics don't work that way.

Was anyone turned off by the fact that Virginia's platform seemed to be only that Oregon's Supreme Court doesn't have any women? I wound up voting for Jack largely because I don't really feel comfortable with anyone touting their (insert physiological description here) as their main qualifying trait. Am I alone?

intrepid: spoken like someone with a vast acquaintance among the LGBT community. Sure, it's inconsistent to belong to some right-wing religious sects and be (at least openly) LGBT, but as far as other political positions go, it's open territory.

We just completed one of the most closely contested--and, yes, highest spending--judicial races in Oregon history without any negative campaigning by any of the candidates. Why can't we keep doing that through November?

Judge Linder and I bring different backgrounds and abilities to this race and will provide voters with a choice that does not have to reflect poorly on either of us. I regard Judge Linder as a friend, and came to regard Gene Hallman as one as well. I don't believe friends have to become enemies just because they are competing for the same job.

Some of the insinuations in this thread are contemptible. We should have zero tolerance for this in today's world and I will not tolerate it in my campaign.

Whether or not sexual preference is a good proxy for ideology (as intrepid submits), the thing that makes it easy to figure out the ideology of appellate judges such as Judge Linder is that they write opinions and sign their names to them. The gender of the person that Judge Linder has (as I understand) shared her life with for the last 20 years isn't nearly as useful in figuring her out as are the judicial decisions she's written and published since she joined the Court of Appeals.

Saying that we should vote for Linder because she's a woman implies the rational permissibility and credibility of it's corollary, i.e., that it's reasonable to vote against her for the very same reason. Is this really where you pro-woman, pro-Linder advocates want to go? Me, I'll be looking at non-biological factors. If the scale tips to Linder on that basis, she'll get my vote.

Amanda, you write: Sexual identity is also an absurd proxy for politics.
--------

I agree with that statement. Witness Andrew Sullivan, a conservative.

But I don't understand what you then go on to say: "I don't mind the idea of voting against the aforementioned type of religious zealots who run--who WILL be activist judges if they are elected, for their faith demands it."
------------

That sounds bigoted and prejudicial. You are prejudging somebody based upon their religion. You probably wouldn't have voted for JFK, based only on his religion.

If prejudging based on sexual orientation is bad, prejudging based on religion is good? Or just certain religions?

Mary: not at all. Just poorly expressed, evidently. By zealots, I mean people who believe that divine law should guide their approach to any problem, even when civil law is already quite clear. So I meant that those individuals who based on their faith avowedly will not apply the law faithfully, not religious adherents generally. I do not at all think that religious faith and public office (or being a judge) are generally incompatible, and I'm sorry that it sounded as if I did.

The only thing I know about Jack Roberts is that he bought his kid a XBox at the Electronic Boutique @ Lloyd Center while I was buying some other game. I knew you'd all be interested in that. I'm just moving the the discussion along to where we all wanted to go in the first place:

Gaming with Jack Roberts.

Linder is not really a "woman," is she Jack?

When I was in law school Potter Stewart retired from the US Supreme Court, and Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to replace him, which would make her the first woman on the Court. In 1981 feminism was the preeminent fractious cause de jour, and there was an active women's bar association at the law school, whose offical position on the Day O'Connor nomination was to oppose it on the basis that, inasmuch as the reviled Reagan had nominated her, and because she was herself a Republican, she was "not a real woman."

Just poorly expressed, huh?

You clearly did not agree with somebody prejudging based on sexual orientation ("Sexual identity is also an absurd proxy for politics.")

Then you go and suggest the same: ("I don't mind the idea of voting against the aforementioned type of religious zealots who run--who WILL be activist judges if they are elected, for their faith demands it.")

That statement prejudges the candidate...how do you know that they will act the way you think a zealot will act? Do candidates advertise themselves as zealots? That "their faith demands it." How do you know what faith demands from one person versus another person?

To use sexual orientation as a proxy to determine where somebody stands politically is just as wrong as to use religious beliefs as a political proxy.

But in some circles, it is much more fashionable to do the latter, but not the former.

I suspect this is getting me awfully close to violation of the comments policy, but I think I should correct any possibility of misreading here. I'm thinking of people like Roy Moore, formerly of the Alabama Supreme Court. There are people who, yes, out-and-out say (at least to friendly audiences) that they will judge according to other than legal principles. Or, like Roy Moore, who show it in on the bench. I think it's awfully dangerous to support them. You bet I "don't mind the idea" of voting against them.

That's it. That's what I meant. Geez.

prejudge: to judge beforehand or without sufficient consideration.

Intrepid does so with sexual orientation. Amanda does so with religion.

Both are wrong. Equally so.

Mary: that is absurd. I explained what I meant; if you choose to dismiss my statement after clarification as a general litmus test barring anyone of faith from public office, well, you've made up your mind to think that, and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. People of faith--or anyone else, for that matter, but we were speaking of people of faith--who think they shouldn't apply the law to the best of their ability don't belong on the bench. If you choose to view that as a religious test, that's on you. I'm done.

Statistically, I believe the Supreme Court has already met their quota on sexual minorities.

Jack, for goodness' sake, you need to strike Intrepid from your comments, if you haven't done so already. Sheesh. They are beneath contempt.

To the other Jack: Good on you. Your decency is among the best of your many good traits.

I think this is an instance where good speech can easily drown out bad speech.

As I recall, religious affiliation was an issue with both the Alito and the Roberts nominations.

It is ironic "freedom of religion" (which is enumerated in the Constitution) doesn't protect judicial candidates from entertaining questions about their religious beliefs; while "freedom of sexual orientation" (not enumerated in the Constitution) is considered off limits from a discussion of judicial temperament or objectivity.

Roberts v. Linder is a classic showdown between a seasoned politician backed by big pockets and a highly competent jurist who has earned the respect of the Oregon legal community with her years on the bench. Jack Roberts is not a seasoned lawyer in the traditional sense that he is a guy who has years and years of experience representing every day people with regular problems. Tax lawyers represent rich people who want to keep their money from Uncle Sam, and it's no small wonder Jack Roberts has so many rich Republican buddies backing his campaign. If you wanted a lawyer on the bench who represents real people you should have voted for Gene Hallman, a lawyers lawyer with 30 years experience in the trenches. In the primary I thought it was a close call between Hallman and Linder. I voted for Linder because with her excellent track record on the bench she is the most qualified for the position.

OK, Jack B, define "cut his teeth." Is having cut one's legal teeth now the standard for Supreme Court justices in this state?

C'mon, Bogdanski. There's no way you'd refer a prospective client to him, would you?

Which of the below observations is more politically damaging in a "non-partisan" race for the Oregon Supreme Court?

A). Jack Roberts has "so many rich Republican buddies"

B). Virginia Linder is a Lesbian.

I would argue that answer choice "B" is an advantage in the People's Republic of Portland, but a hinderance statewide. Conversely, answer choice "A" is a HUGE drawback in the PRP, and may even hurt Jack Roberts statewide in the 2006 election cycle (with the falling poll numbers for all things Republican).

Either way, both labels ("rich Republican" and "Lesbian") are dismissive and mono-dimensional caricatures that fail completely at shedding any light on their understanding of and application of the law.

How about we elevate the discussion to include something relevant to their legal experience?

I thought it interesting that all the comments seemed to ignore Jack Roberts' plea.

Oregon -- things look different here. The left is nastier than the right, by a large margin.

"The left is nastier than the right, by a large margin."

So that zero tolerance can translate to zero public conversation on matters of public concern.

I dun care. I'm voting for Roberts because I know him. I don't know Ginny Linder, so until she comes down to the Westside to talk to me in person and get to know me, she's out.

"The left is nastier than the right"

That's what's known as an overgeneralization.