Friday, September 12, 2008

AZ Supreme Court justices

Andrew Hurwitz
Extremely liberal.
Napolitano appointee - 2003
FOJ (Friend of Janet) - co-chair of her transition team to Governor's office.
Chief of staff to Democrat governors Bruce Babbit and Rose Mofford.
Worked at criminal defense firm Osborn Maledon.
On board of directors of left wing Children's Action Alliance.
On board of directors of left wing Center for the Public Interest.

Rebecca Berch Presiding Justice UP FOR RETENTION ELECTION
Moderate to liberal.
Hull appointee - 2002
Berch has presided over a Supreme Court that is soft on the death penalty, gutted the hour restrictions on strip clubs, added a requirement that prosecutors prove aggravating factors before trial in death penalty cases (another activist ruling that slows these already slow cases), presided over the chaos in the Maricopa County courts and refused to do anything about it. Under Berch, the Arizona Supreme Court tilts left on key issues related to crime and values. It has allowed a left-wing State Bar that it supervisors to run wild and become corrupted.
Came down on the prolife side of a decision involving taxpayer funding of abortions.

Ruth McGregor

Extremely liberal.
Hull appointee - 1998
Came down on the pro-abortion side of a decision involving taxpayer funding of abortions.

Michael Ryan
Conservative.
Hull appointee- 2002
Former prosecutor and Marine.

Scott Bales*
Extremely liberal.
Napolitano appointee - 2005
FOJ (Friend of Janet), worked with her at the AG's office and at her law firm Lewis & Roca
Active in the left wing Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education, won the criminal defense Foundation for Justice award.

16 comments:

Impartial Arizonan said...

I understand where you're coming from and all, but for this site to be taken seriously, I suspect some changes will have to be made.

For the most part, it looks like your good/bad rating system for judges is strictly based on how conservative/liberal you view them to be. Nothing wrong with that, but to pretend it's an objective measure of their abilities as a judge seems dishonest.

Additionally, the subsequent review points are entirely unverifiable. Again, I can understand why anonymity could be considered a virtue in this sort of legal arena, but it doesn't seem honest to advertise this site as any sort of impartial or objective rating site for Arizona judges.

I look forward to seeing how this site progresses.

Friend of Justice (FOJ) said...

I think FOJ = Friend of Justice!

Anonymous said...

Voter should vote against the retention of Scott Bales. His position and views are complete out-of-line with the views and positions of the average Arizona. He only got appointed to the AZ Supreme Court because of his long time service for Janet.

Anonymous said...

Thank you. This site was very helpful.

AZ Judges Review said...

We will note that Chief Justice Ruth MacGregor has ruled sensibly on a couple of cases, but for the most part her decisions have been liberal.

Anonymous said...

This is a very informative site, I'm so glad that I found it! Just knowing whether a judge is soft on crime or conservative vs. liberal is helpful. Otherwise, we could never have enough time to find out about all of these judges.

I trust the names of those who compiled this information.

R A F F I said...

Great website!

Retain Scott Bales !!

Anonymous said...

Thank You for this "insight".... otherwise, to me...these judges would just be a "name on a page"....

Anonymous said...

The "liberal/conservative" distinction does not tell you everything you need to know about the ability of an individual (especially with the S.Ct. justices) to judge individual cases based on the facts. So few cases are decided on "political" lines that it would be foolish to vote for a judge based on such lines. You also leave out important information, such as the fact that Bales, Hurwitz, and MacGregor all clerked for a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. You clearly have no idea how difficult or impressive such a clerkship is. Bales and Hurwitz, especially, are considered two of the most intelligent lawyers in the southwest, let alone the state. To vote them out because they are left of center would be a complete detriment to our judicial system. Courts should not be politicized. In fact, I thought that was the Republican platform; clearly that is not true.

Bonita said...

Hey anonymous: Unfortunately, a lot of judges DO decide cases based upon their liberal or conservative (whichever the case may be) views. That's why it is important for me to know that.

Frankly, I don't care who clerked for who or where. I work for lawyers and have interaction with many, many of these judges, which makes my voting really easy; however, this site has given me some new insight and I appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

I heard this website mentioned by Mr. JD Hayworth and I found it very useful

Anonymous said...

I was finally able to make a decision on Judge Bales after I found: http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/az-supreme-court-decision-negatively-impacts-police/

Hope it helps someone else.

jnetntheboyz said...

What i would like to see is either examples of how they judged certain cases which would deem them liberal/conservative or links to websites, news articles, etc. showing this information. This would give a little more credibility to your website. Thanks for putting this together. It has great potential.

Anonymous said...

Re: http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/az-supreme-court-decision-negatively-impacts-police/

about Judge Bales, helped me make a decision. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

This site has been extremely helpful in helping me determine which judges will receive my vote. Judges make decisions based on their interpretation of the LAW. Therefore, their political persuasion is of the utmost importance.
Thank You!

Anonymous said...

This is a great site, even for Democrats and Liberals, just vote the OPPOSITE of what these folks suggest...