With respect to property rights, you are correct that this is among the most important reasons for my candidacy. Life, liberty and property--the three great rights--were not pulled from thin air by the authors of the Magna Carta, John Locke and others. They are not simply random items on a laundry list of rights. They are the three things that government can take away--or threaten to take away--to coerce the individual. Security of tenure in one's property and chattels provides a measure of autonomy and freedom that cannot exist in a society where the government has unlimited regulatory authority. In the middle ages land tenure was linked to homage and the threat of losing one's home and resources was used to keep people under control. If anyone doubts my sincerity with respect to the importance of property rights, please see my law firm website at www.teichertlaw.com.
I agree with you that Kelo was incorrectly decided and misunderstands the purposes of eminent domain authority. I also agree with the dissenting opinion of Justices Johnson and Sanders in the Seattle Monorail Authority case, 121 P.3d 1166 (2005), where our state Supreme Court unfortunately made a decision similar to Kelo, and allowed the monorail authority to condemn more property that it needed and sell the surplus to the highest bidder at a handsome profit. They did so by giving deference to the Seattle Monorail Authority's assertion that the intended use of the property was "public" even though the plain language of our state Constitution expressly tells the court not to give deference to any legislative assertion that the use is public. So I don't think that the term "judicial arrogance" is a hobbyhorse. I think that the judges in that case wanted the government to have broad eminent domain authority, so they gave it to them even thought the Constitution said otherwise.
You suggest that the reader "look at [my] support framework" and suggest that the Constitutional Law PAC is a creation of the Christian right. That is simply wrong. The Chair of that PAC is Senator Slade Gorton who is thought by many to be a relatively moderate Republican, and is not closely identified with the Christian right. I know that the Seattle PI characterized it as "right-wing" but that was inaccurate. As I understand it, the Constitutional Law PAC's primary principles are a more balanced approach to criminal justice, protecting property rights, and interpreting the Constitution and law according to its intent. Those are mainstream conservative ideas and ideas that I believe in. (By the way, I don't think that the Constitutional Law PAC has yet formally endorsed anyone and I do not speak for them.)
While I am happy to have people know that I am a person of faith, your statements that would characterize me as a puppet for the ideology of the Christian right is inaccurate and fundamentally unfair. I have reached out to people of faith who feel disenfranchised by activist judicial decisions, and it is appropriate for me to do so. But they are not the only constituency from which I have asked for support. If you look at my endorsement list (www.jeffforjudge.com), it includes two sheriffs (one of them a Democrat), a police chief, a State Supreme Court Justice, a former United States Senator and Attorney General, three state legislators and members of the County Council and others. My support structure is very broad. And if you are serious about not wanting judges to legislate from the bench, my support framework should include YOU--even though you may have liked the outcome of some of my opponent's activist decisions from a policy perspective.
Again, this posting will probably be my last. It's been fun.
JEFF TEICHERT Candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
I agree with you that Kelo was incorrectly decided and misunderstands the purposes of eminent domain authority. I also agree with the dissenting opinion of Justices Johnson and Sanders in the Seattle Monorail Authority case, 121 P.3d 1166 (2005), where our state Supreme Court unfortunately made a decision similar to Kelo, and allowed the monorail authority to condemn more property that it needed and sell the surplus to the highest bidder at a handsome profit. They did so by giving deference to the Seattle Monorail Authority's assertion that the intended use of the property was "public" even though the plain language of our state Constitution expressly tells the court not to give deference to any legislative assertion that the use is public. So I don't think that the term "judicial arrogance" is a hobbyhorse. I think that the judges in that case wanted the government to have broad eminent domain authority, so they gave it to them even thought the Constitution said otherwise.
You suggest that the reader "look at [my] support framework" and suggest that the Constitutional Law PAC is a creation of the Christian right. That is simply wrong. The Chair of that PAC is Senator Slade Gorton who is thought by many to be a relatively moderate Republican, and is not closely identified with the Christian right. I know that the Seattle PI characterized it as "right-wing" but that was inaccurate. As I understand it, the Constitutional Law PAC's primary principles are a more balanced approach to criminal justice, protecting property rights, and interpreting the Constitution and law according to its intent. Those are mainstream conservative ideas and ideas that I believe in. (By the way, I don't think that the Constitutional Law PAC has yet formally endorsed anyone and I do not speak for them.)
While I am happy to have people know that I am a person of faith, your statements that would characterize me as a puppet for the ideology of the Christian right is inaccurate and fundamentally unfair. I have reached out to people of faith who feel disenfranchised by activist judicial decisions, and it is appropriate for me to do so. But they are not the only constituency from which I have asked for support. If you look at my endorsement list (www.jeffforjudge.com), it includes two sheriffs (one of them a Democrat), a police chief, a State Supreme Court Justice, a former United States Senator and Attorney General, three state legislators and members of the County Council and others. My support structure is very broad. And if you are serious about not wanting judges to legislate from the bench, my support framework should include YOU--even though you may have liked the outcome of some of my opponent's activist decisions from a policy perspective.
Again, this posting will probably be my last. It's been fun.
JEFF TEICHERT
Candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals