Do we need to choose between donkeys and elephants on the bench?

I had an outpouring of feedback overnight to my blogs about the audio interview of Judge Lisa M. Fisher of the Greene County Supreme Court speaking about methods she and her husband used in her recent judicial election campaign.  Wow.  And thank you for reading.

My readers are understandably concerned about methods used by Judge Fisher and her husband in Judge Fisher's election campaign, they are understandably upset about Judge Fisher enthusiastically discussing her methods in an article called "Business Challenge".  Running for public office, a judicial office as a business challenge was not perceived well by my readers - and rightfully so.

Law students are taught that considering even the practice of law as a "business" is unethical because lawyers prefer to consider it as a "service" to the people by sworn officers of the court.

When a judge admits that for her, judicial elections was a "business challenge", such a question raises all kinds of ethical questions.

Based on the feedback, I will run several other blogs, covering separately the issues raised.

The first is partisanship of judicial elections.

Judge Lisa M. Fisher lamented in the interview that there were no Republican judges elected to the Supreme Court bench in the 3rd Judicial District of New York in 18 years.

Now, tell me, why the tears and what difference does it make if the judge on the bench is a donkey or an elephant?  To me, the judge should not be any of these animals and should be a neutral adjudicator.

So why parties are so eager to put "their own" on the bench?  Is it because, with all the lip service as to the "duty of impartiality", everybody "in the game" understands that there is no such thing as judicial impartiality and that whoever helped get the judge on the bench, as well as the party members belonging to the same pack as the judge, will get a preferential treatment for years to come?  Supreme Court terms in New York are very long - 14 years, and usually, once a judge got on that bench, he or she sticks to it until mandatory retirement at 70.

Lisa Fisher was elected at 47, so whoever contributed to her campaign, were contributed to 23 years of favors?

Lisa Fisher actually hinted that she did not have to offer contributors "as much" as candidates for a Senator's seat.  

First, voters, take notice not to EVER allow Lisa Fisher into a Senator's seat, with such views that she has a lot to "offer" her campaign contributors.

Second, the first thing that Lisa Fisher did when she was elected to office was to create and enforce an extremely pro-plaintiff (pro-corporation?) set of "local rules" which can have an appearance of reimbursing contributors - most of them attorneys, her attorney-husband's friends.  By the way, one of the readers noted that in the interview the husband was taking the lead over Judge Fisher all the time.  I wonder if he is going to take the invisible lead in her cases and her rulings the same way...

So, the question remains - WHY do we even allow judicial elections to "run" on party lines instead of simply the merits of qualified candidates?

In the upcoming elections, please, don't let yourself be swayed by the "party appeal" - or other issues unrelated to qualifications for the office.

That can be deadly to yourself and your loved ones when an unqualified individual, once elected, starts giving out "reimbursements".