Judicial Race Heats Up

Most of my life, Attorneys and Judges weren't allowed to even have yellow page ads asking for business. It was considered bad ethics. That policy was changed a few years ago. We have finally arrived, I guess, at the natural end result of that change.

Here in North Idaho, we have a race between an appointed incumbent district Judge, John Mitchell, and his challenger, Rami Amaro. Much has been written about the various qualifications of each, with Amaro's lack of experience being a large issue.

We have what I think is a first in this race, insofar as it has become bitter, with mudslinging , accusations of foul play, and various other high crimes and misdemeanors. It would be entertaining if it weren't so sad. One would think they were running for Congress or something.

Here is a position that requires judicial solemnity, restraint, and unblinking neutrality. The very life and liberty of those facing the courts is at stake.

I don't know, and don't want to know what political party either belongs too, or what political philosophy each believes in. This, I believe gives me an non-prejudiced position to comment from.

It would seem that the candidate challenging, has limited experience as an attorney. It also becomes obvious that Amaro has exhibited what I would consider immature behavior, and has developed a shrill defensive attitude about the various criticisms that she has received. One area pointed to is various bloggers and blurkers, (blurker being the non-blogger commenting from anonymity) on line that have issues with her candidacy.

Ms. Amaro should remember that the public opinion that she is dissing, is the same public that she wants votes from. Shrill, defensive behavior is not the way to convince the voters that you possess judicial qualities.

One should always remember that when digging yourself a hole, the best policy is to drop the shovel before you get deeper.