It is interesting to read the posts regarding the candidates and their qualifications for judge. However, there is one thing that, I think, needs to be stated about judges. Andy came close to the specifics when he said the judges are to interpret the law. The one piece he missed is that the judge, who ever it is, is supposedly bound by law to do exactly that, interpret the law. This means that there is no such thing as an "activist judge" the right claims changes law to suit their positions. Yes I understand, that its difficult to ignore your personal beliefs when attempting to interpret a law. But that is the job. It is not to create new law, just clarify it. Of course that doesn't mean that a sitting judge doesn't find a way to rule in favor of his or her beliefs. In the particular race being discussed, we have a post be someone who doesn't like the incumbent because she didn't like how the judge acted on a specific case. Even though he actually ruled in favor of her position. To me this is a smoke screen for the real issues. This is like voting against a candidate because he or she voted against a specific measure without knowing the facts about the entire proposal. Remember most legislation is so filled with a variety of issues that it would be virtually impossible to cast a vote without an opponent claiming the incumbent voted against a sacred cow. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen I Voted _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
