" Well, “our people” would be hired first if they had the education and training for those jobs. "
^ this is blatantly untrue.
You mentioned, "provided that they aren't pressured by their lawyers to waive their jury trial rights." And how would you enforce that?? And how much pressure will public defenders be under to 'encourage' defendants to waive a their right to trial by jury in order to save the state the expense of a jury trial? This is just another opportunity for the judicial system to fall short on the proper representation of those who cannot afford an attorney. Time for a reality check, Indy!
Your endorsement of the amendment "allowing" defendants to waive their basic right to trial by jury was a disappointment, and it taught me that I cannot rely on "Indy" endorsements as I did on the old "Independent" weekly. The amendment increases the chances that poorly-represented minorities will be forced to waive their right to a jury trial - primarily to save this state some money. This is an important justice issue, and I suspect that you did not do your homework. ~Carol Prokop
Tricia Shields has years of experience in North Carolina trial and appellate courts and is by far one of the most qualified for this seat on the NC Court of Appeals. She is also smart, fair-minded, and would be an incredible asset to the Court and to the State of North Carolina. An overwhelming number of candidates are running for this seat, but please take the time to read about Tricia and give her your vote.
RE: Endorsement of Kay Hagan
Kudos to IndyWeek for carefully and loyally maintaining leftist integrity and silence when it counted. It has been so important to conceal anything harmful to Kay Hagan from the people in these finals days of the election. Not all media has done this-- look what the Charlotte Observer did! Those flunkies ran a story over the weekend that was critical of our Kay and then, after finally seeing the light, pulled it down. Heads need to roll for this traitorous act against the people's interests.
Your endorsements rely on contradictory treatment of the results of the State Bar Association's Judicial Performance Evaluation for judges. You set aside the results for Nancy Gordon but not for Pat Evans, though you cite courtroom behavior for both. Challenger Storch posted a YouTube clip of Evans that was clearly taken out of context, but I know this only because I did the requisite digging. I urge the IndyWeek to provide links to questionnaire responses within every endorsement - and urge the NC Bar to provide opportunity to Bar members with the ability to make written suggestions to judges for qualitative improvements, and not just a numerical rating. A numerical rating for a 360 style evaluation is insufficient. Most of all, voters need to do due diligence. Dig for information on the web. Scott Holmes of Brock, Payne & Meece wrote of a defendant who was charged for essentially being crippled, indigent, and addicted in a blog post entitled "Guilty of Neglect" on the firm's website. Judge Evans is mentioned. Read the post and find out why. For whom should you vote? Pursue the answer for yourself. As the Oracle in the Matrix told Lawrence Fishburne: "make up your own damn mind!"
What concerns me about the amendment is that wealthy criminals (with assistance from their counsel) may be able to forum shop the judge and avoid a trial by their peers.
Love this woman!
I like her LGBT and family social economical dissadvantage family issues.
Voting for Hagan? Consider this.
Kay Hagan seems to want to make the US Senate race all about NC State Politics. I'm OK with that, and I'd ask anyone who supports her to consider the following. Prior to 2010, the Democrats had almost complete control of NC State Government for 100 years. But I'd like to focus on recent times. I moved to NC in 1995. From 1995 - 2010, the Democrats had 100% control of NC State Government, with majority's in the Legislature and Senate, and the Governorship. Kay Hagan was a NC State Senator from 1999 - 2009. During that time there was nothing Republicans could have done to stop them. Consider this:
1. Why didn't they raise the minimum wage in NC? Many other states have done that.
2. Teacher pay was consistently at the bottom of nationwide rankings, at around 48th. Why didn't they raise teacher's pay?
3. If Universal Health Care Coverage is so important to them, why didn't they pass
a state law and implement universal coverage for the citizens of NC? They did it in
4. Why did they allow Duke Energy to build all those coal ash plants along all the NC waterways? All of them have been there for decades.
I can understand why Hagan wants to shy away from talking about national issues during her campaign because there is not much to say, but I believe I illustrated her and the Democrats record in state government is even worse. I also illustrated that she's had 16 years in public office and has done nothing for the constituents she claims to represent.
I've found that if you support big business loving, statist, control freaks that want to run your life, the Indy is as reliable as the national Democrat party for excellent recommendations.
On the other hand, if you support Liberty, local businesses and organizations, and decreased government and big business control over your lives, you can do what I do and vote against everyone the Indy recommends. I thought the endorsement of the amendment was a nice touch, and noted with amusement the quandary the Martin/Lewis race put them in (fortunately they supported the solid establishment candidate that will do the bidding of the elites).
Thank you for again standing up for your "liberal" ideals by supporting all those who have no understanding of liberty or traditional liberalism.
In all seriousness - thanks for the discussion of the sheriffs race. While you were using phrases meant to ameliorate your endorsement of Mr. Rowe, all of your qualifiers are the reason I may vote for him, as he sounds like he has some understanding of liberty and the dangers of an over politicized/militarized police force.
Thanks for the link to the text; I wish I were in that district so I could vote for him! He clearly gets how white people often have internalized racism in ways that they don't know because it is so heavily ingrained in our society and daily interactions. It's truly hard work.
It was thanks to reading this http://dolphin--girl.livejournal.com/15350… years ago that I came to understood why "colorblind" and "I don't see skin color" is a major problem, particularly when white people say it.
Tom, "Vote straight Democratic ticket" is now illegal in N.C. You should try to read the Indy more often and you might know these things.
Reading these endorsements demonstrates that this paper is and will continue to be a joke. Who would endorse a judge who has violated the law and tramples on the victim's right? Why in the world would we elect a judge who believes that because a statute is from "18 f--king 85" is somehow not important? There is a reason that Judge Evans received so many endorsements and Steve Storch none.. Storch is not and will not be good for Durham, he broke the law in front of the Durham County Courthouse! Again common sense tells you that a judge who breaks the law, pleads guilty and uses his political connections to receive a deferred prosecution can not be fair!
Wow! This amendment strengthens the hand of the state and weakens the hand of the individual. It is not like the state needs more efficiency in this after all they have, compared to defendants, unlimited resources wrt to prosecution and conducting trials. Now, give the state yet another tool to strip a KEY COMPONENT of defense of the individual away...NO F***ING WAY, JOSE!
This endorsement is not an act of typical IndyGigNation (aka IndyWeek) leftism, unless the left is now synonymous with fascism...
I'd say I overlap with the Indy's POV probably 90% of the time, but I am going to strongly disagree with this one.
Short version: I don't trust our judicial system to apply this fairly. The "option" to waive a jury trial could very, very easily become pressure to waive a jury trial.
Tom, if you don't like the Indy's endorsements, I encourage you to cancel your subscription!
Issues relating to this policy issue are reasonably likely to be litigated in our courts and, therefore, I am constrained to avoid commenting on this issue.
I don't understand why you don't save time, effort, ink, and a lot of money and just say "Vote straight Democratic ticket." Your endorsements are worthless.
Chris, either you've woefully, tragically misunderstood Graig Meyer's comments, or you're actively trying to mislead Indy readers by throwing around the phrase "white supremacy." The latter seems more likely. Gross, dude - really.
If folks have ANY doubt as to what Meyer actually said, they can read his actual words here: http://books.google.com/books?id=pLFs0kkbzVAC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT283#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes, he would clearly take issue with the concept of "white supremacy." Wouldn't you? White supremacy isn't real. White privilege is, and we need people in office who recognize it and work to fight it in order to make "equal representation" a possibility.
Honestly I'd never even heard of this guy until I saw your comment, but having read that piece he wrote, I wish he was running in my district so I could vote for him.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation