North Carolina candidate wants me to elect him to its high court

October 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

I don’t live in North Carolina. I never have, and I’m pretty sure I just briefly drove through it once on my way to Florida. Yet, somehow, a North Carolina judge’s campaign has decided to send me an e-mail on why Judge Bob Hunter should be a North Carolina Supreme Court justice. Sorry, Judge Hunter, but I can’t vote for you as I live in Indiana and don’t care about your campaign.

I can’t figure out how I ended up the recipient of this campaign e-mail. I wonder what company sold my e-mail address to his campaign. They must have sent out a mass e-mail to any e-mail address they had and that’s how I ended up with it e-mail in my junk folder.

Out of curiosity, I searched for Judge Bob Hunter’s name online and got his campaign site to see if this was even a legit e-mail. Judge Hunter is on the North Carolina Court of Appeals. He has oodles of endorsements, from police organizations, former North Carolina chief justices and other judges, newspapers, and former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt.

This is why electing judges makes me uneasy. What if there is a case involving one of those newspapers that endorsed him that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, where he could perhaps be a justice. What if Judge Hunter finds himself ruling on a case involving one of the sheriff’s departments that have endorsed him?

When you mix money and politics, it can be a recipe for appearances of impropriety or partiality. If you’ve got a lot of endorsements from various groups, will you be forced to recuse yourself a lot from court? That doesn’t seem very effective.

I’m happy with Indiana’s appointment and retention system for filling our appellate courts. I’d be happier if Indiana went to a uniform system of appointing judges instead of electing lower-court judges. And my inbox is also happy it isn’t filled with e-mail from judicial candidates vying for the bench.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT