Monday, October 24th, 2016

Philosophically unqualified


The verdict is in. I have weighed the evidence, listened to the charges and counter-charges, and while I agree Judge Ziegler did violate the rules, I find her opponent Linda Clifford guilty of being philosophically unfit to serve on the state supreme court.

In the case of Ziegler v. Clifford, the choice is between Ziegler’s conflicts of interest and Clifford’s competence to serve. While nobody can point to a case where Ziegler benefited from her decisions, it’s pretty clear that her opponent is confused about the nature of the office she is seeking. Clifford envisions the state Supreme Court as a super Legislature, achieving legislative ends by judicial fiat. The office she is seeking calls for someone to interpret the law rather than write new law.

Clifford’s philosophy renders her more fit to serve in the Assembly than on the state’s highest court. On Tuesday we’ll see if the voters agree.

I gotta admit, if the balance of the court wasn’t in question, I might’ve been more supportive of the idea of putting the philosophically troubling Clifford on the court. But because she would complete a tilt to the Left on the state’s highest court in judicial philosophy, and because that philosophy is damning in itself in rendering someone unfit to serve, we’ll go for the candidate who must’ve been sleeping through the lecture on, “Kick those conflicts of interest down the road.”

It’s the vote for the least amount of harm. Doesn’t mean you have to like it.

Find classic movies at

Be Sociable, Share!

Print this entry

Comments are closed.