October 22, 2004
-
Arggh
personalThere was a major glitch with my Qwest line and I’ve been w/o internet connectivity for about a week. This has significantly intefered with both my ability to get work done as well as with my ability to review the candidates.
Unfortunately, this means I will not be able to do as in depth of a review of the candidates as I had originally hoped. It also means they will have to come more rapid fire now.
Candidate Review
state politicsJUDGE – COURT OF APPEALS 14
(i) R. A. (JIM) RANDALL vs DANIEL L. GRIFFITHI am choosing to vote for Jim Randall
This is a challenging one to decide. Both Randall and Griffith seem to be men of principle and idealism with a clear view that the job of a judge is to see justice done within the confines of the consititution.
One source of information was the League of Women Voters’ website.
Daniel Griffith responded to all the questions with answers I supported. He believes that a judge’s personal beliefs are subordinate to the law and that the paramount duty of a judge is justice. He wants to see people be more able to learn what a judge believes in so they can make informed decisions on who they vote for.
Jim Randall did not answer all the question, but the one he did answer had a nice response:
List and describe the duties of the judicial office you are seeking as you see them. How would you rank those duties in order of importance? Are there duties you would like to see added to or removed from the list?
I have devoted my 37 years as a lawyer and a judge to the protection of the men and women of Minnesota from unwarranted intrusion in their lives by the power of the government. I see social justice as the start and end of my working day. Social justice and criminal justice follow when government treats its citizens fairly and honestly.
Reading Griffith’s web site supports the answers he gave and painted a picture of a decent person who has done good things with their life. One interesting thing he included on his site:
Our first US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, said we should elect of all people Christians. I think that was because he knew that it is important for our judges to believe in God so they do not think they have become God once they get into office.
While I may not agree with what Jay had to say, I think Griffith’s interpretation of its significance is respectable.
Randall will reach mandatory retirement on Aug 31, 2010 which will be 2 months before this seat is up for election again meaning a replacement will be appointed at that time. Griffith is concerned that this means his replacement would be appointed rather than elected.
However, I believe the replacement would only be appointed for the remainder of 2010, and a new judge would be elected in Nov 2010 taking office in Jan 2011, so I’m not sure this is that big of a deal.
Jordan Kushner from the MPD (State Politics Discussion) List:
I have appeared before Judge Randall as an attorney numerous times. He among the best prepared and sharpest judges I have seen. During oral arguments, he often refers to documents or evidence in the court file that the attorney did not know about, and can point to specific sentences in attorney’s legal briefs that contradict statements in the attorney’s oral argument. A former criminal defense lawyer, Randall has also demonstrated a willingness to apply the Bill of Rights, regardless of whether it means ruling against the government. This is critical in an ever increasing atmosphere where individual liberties are expected to be sacraficed under the guise of public safety.
I’m left feeling like both candidates would be fine options (wow, isn’t that a change of events?), so I am not endorsing either candidate.
I am personally going to vote for Jim Randall as his statements as well as Kushner’s comments imply that he leans more towards the rights of the citizens than the rights of the goverment as well as the fact that few seem to have complaints about how he has done the job.
