SHOULD THE BLOG ENCOURAGE OPPOSITION?

Readers like commenting on Judges who have opposition and Judges who should get opposition. It’s easy to blast a Judge and say he/she should have opposition. But lets remember folks, these are people’s lives and careers we’re casually trashing.

Plus, we like our Robed Readers.
It encourages us to keep our sentences short and refrain from our unabashed love of the polysyllabic. We don’t want our Robed Readers to develop a severe case of Onomatophobia- (Fear of hearing a certain word or of names). (See, there we go again).
[This is a great site: all the phobias are listed:
http://www.phobialist.com
including , we are not making this up: Oneirogmophobia- Fear of wet dreams) ]

We think the answer is a resounding NO. This blog should not encourage candidates to target any particular Judge. However, we will print (within reason) readers thoughts on the matter. Like this one:

Anonymous growls:

I know you focus mostly on MJB, but your readers should be asking why Judge Cardonne hasn't drawn opposition. Al should have challenged her.

Rumpole Replies: Why? Back up your assertion counsel. Judge Cardonne has been on the bench for many many years. What has she done or not done that merits opposition?

Anonymous writes about Judge Langer:

It'd be a shame that Milian had Langer's seat in his sights. Langer is a great judge and, unlike the Schwartzes, has done nothing to deserve opposition.Rumpole, maybe you ought to post a topic where bloggers can list the judges who they think deserve opposition and why. It could be an eye opener for those judges and might hopefully lead to changes in their behaviors.

Rumpole Replies: Here it is. We are against listing all Judges and stating "which ones deserve opposition?" We will print comments on individual Judges.

Anonymous weighs in on the Schwartz/Mendez race:

On the Mendez/Schwartz contest I Think the question you posed in your poll was silly. If any Hispanic Female puts in against Schwartz he was chosen because he was a Jewish Male. Why she chose him is a completely separate question than her qualifications.I have tried cases against Ms. Mendez when she was a Prosecutor and can state that she was quite competent and a worthy adversary. Since leaving that office she has been in private practice handling Family and Criminal cases. What about her resume makes you opine that she is unqualified?

And what about Schwartz make you so enamored with his qualifications?
He was a teacher then an ASA assigned to the economic crimes division. As you know Rump, that unit is not exactly a hotbed of the most active trial lawyers in the SAO (ok I understate my case). As a Circuit Judge he has been difficult to deal with as you have noted over and over again. Just don’t get your unwavering support for someone whose attitude you don’t like when there is a qualified alternative.

Rumpole Responds: 1) You see, we do print criticism of us. Its just easier to respond to the “you suck” comments then something as well thought out and argued as your comment.
2) SAO Economic Crimes Unit: How you can trash any unit that has both Bill McGhee and Bill Kostrewzski is beyond us. A "twin Bill" of Power and Experience ( and they are always pleasant to deal with).

3) Seriously- Your comments about Ms. Mendez are well put. She is as experienced as any other judicial candidate, more than some, less than others. And we have seen very clearly that the prevailing REGJB opinion is that Larry Schwartz has opposition not because Ms. Mendez is a Hispanic female, but because he deserves it.

We thought otherwise, and remain in the minority.
Our opinion is that Judge Larry Schwartz, when you get past the bluster, has many fine qualities and is a good judge. We never denied the fact that he needed to treat lawyers better. And as to Ms. Mendez, our comment was (in retrospect) more about our personal opinion that a lawyer who seeks the bench should have more than just a well rounded resume, and less about Ms. Mendez personally.

Whither Prosecutors?
Anonymous wonders where the ASAs are?

Throughout your posts you have continually exhorted prosecutors to enter the fray of this website. As a Criminal Defense Attorney who has been opposing the SAO for many years I am not surprised that you have not gotten any takers. I don’t know about you Rump, but I notice a certain apathy that exists in that office. Apathetic people aren’t going to respond to your attacks no matter how hard hitting they are (This coupled with the fact that I have heard that ASA's aren’t trusted with internet access which squares well with your commentary re them having to ask for permission to go to the bathroom let alone offer a plea but I digress).

It seems like the young ASA's have no fight in them and are only going through the motions. They seem to be not wanting to offend anyone so that they don’t jeopardize their chances at further career advancement whether it be the bench, the civil bar, or criminal defense. As a Criminal Defense Attorney I am constantly amazed at how often they agree to things that ASA's never used to agree to. For Example, ASA's used to always fight Arthur Hearings now It seems a lot easier to get a bond stipulation on PBL's. On Trafficking cases they routinely agree to massive bond reductions. On Career Criminal cases the ASA's are often standing there asking the Judges to offer lower pleas than their supervisors have authorized. I am not complaining about any of this as a criminal defense attorney but as a taxpayer I sometimes wonder what is going on in that office.


Rumpole Responds: Does anyone else know if the ASAs cannot supplement their work day with a ten minute “Rumpole respite”?

We agree that the prosecutors appear apathetic and seem to act mostly out of fear of upsetting their career path. But our experience is the opposite of yours.

Because Prosecutors are afraid to upset the apple cart and because they have so little authority (“Too Many Chiefs…Not Enough Indians” Judge Moreno used to say) we find that they are afraid to conduct an honest analysis of a case and respond appropriately. Thus we find that young prosecutors will automatically oppose any bond reduction request, and are afraid to offer anything other than the maximum. We actually saw a Prosecutor OBJECT to an attorney who after the defendant surrendered moved the court to revoke the bond and discharge the surety. The Judge looked a bit taken back, and then wisely commented something to this effect: “Do you know what you are doing? Are you trained to just object to anything a defense attorney asks for? Don’t you realize revoking a bond is in your favor?”

Young prosecutors have no fight in them because their opinions are ignored. The powers that be just want to wind them up, point them towards the courtroom, and tell them to object to anything other than the maximum sentence.

It’s sad. Its frustrating. That is not the office Richard Gerstein and Janet Reno ran.

See you in court { we're the lawyer getting the objections hurled our way.}