Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval wants to be a superior court judge. In the election in June, he failed to reach the 50% threshold that would have otherwise not allowed a run-off against the sitting Superior Court Judge Thomas Mellon. Judge Mellon's crime? He's a Republican. Supervisor Sandoval's motivation to become a Superior Court judge? "I am running for judge because we deserve a court with a balanced and diverse point of view that reflects San Francisco."
Not to enforce the law, or anything like that; no, he wants the court to reflect San Francisco, law be damned. His platform is based on three things: he's been in some post in the city government for 20 years, so that's good enough to continue in government service as a judge; number two starts with a statistic about how 80% of inmates released every year commits a crime within a year of being released, then he goes on about how he wants to search the world for other types of rehabilitation methods and get them introduced here in California. In other words, he wants to reduce the amount of repeat offenders by figuring out a way to not have criminals go to jail in the first place, but rather, give them a hug and a pat on the back and tell them someone loves and feels their pain.
Finally, "and most importantly," he wants to make this position as a judge political. He notes that 30% of the judges on the court are Republicans, and "too many come from large corporate law firms," nevermind he started at Skadden Arps, "one of the country’s premier law firms." Yes, god forbid there be any Republican's on the bench. Primarily, he wants to be a judge "because the current composition of the court does not reflect San Francisco in any meaningful way" by applying "legal principles in a fair way, but in the context of our community."
First, I thought protecting minority rights and respecting the opinions of others was a San Francisco value? Ohhh, silly me. . .unless you're a Republican, then you don't count. Second, he advocates using the position as judge "a tool for social change." I thought the role of a judge was to interpret and implement the law, not make law.
In case you are wondering why all of a sudden did I choose to make a rant against a retiring Supervisor running for seat on the Superior Court, it is because of something he said recently. According the an article in the Chronicle that detailed a hearing where the Board of Supervisors set up law banning the sale of cigarettes at large drug stores, there was a quote in there by Supervisor Sandoval. It is that quote that led me to this post: "We have to do anything we can to get people to stop smoking. ... To ban the sale of cigarettes citywide would be justifiable," he said. "Call it social engineering, call it what you will, but the statistics speak for themselves."" Supervisor Sandoval has no problem with the government stepping in between you and your ability to make your own decisions. The government can and should hold your hand and guide you to a better lifestyle by banning cigarettes. I find it very hard to believe that Supervisor Sandoval would be an adequate or even fair arbiter of the law should he eventually be elected to the Superior Court.
In interviews with Cal Law, Sandoval couldn't cite to one case where he disagreed with Judge Mellon, couldn't identify one instance where a litigant was treated poorly, instead, he relies on a nearly 10 year old survey where Judge Mellon got low marks for demeanor. He says that the court should be more diverse, by which he means Hispanic. So, his main arguments for voting for him is because he's hispanic and Judge Mellon is mean. Additionally, he seems to the think of the position of judge as being able to dictate what and how things get prosecuted- he noted that he thinks the court deals with too many petty crimes and small time drug deals and wants more prosecution of lending practices. Great. . .let him run for District Attorney and do that. In short, the court is not a political position where one can dictate the types and importance of cases that should be brought before it; it is not a position where one makes law, but where one interprets law.
In an article on this race, Cal Law, which failed to issue an endorsement, they had many concerns about Supervisor Sandoval, notably his experience and his reasoning for running. They noted that
There's the additional problem that Sandoval is running for this position the minute he is termed out from the Board of Supervisors. It smacks of a person looking for the next possible government job, and during our interview he did not evince a passion for the nuts and bolts of judging. In a separate interview with one of our reporters, Sandoval said, "Well, what is a 46-year-old Columbia Law School-trained attorney with a passion for public service supposed to do next? Am I supposed to move to West Texas and be become a peanut farmer?" We find Sandoval's candor admirable, but not reassuring on the point.
I think it has to be questioned his ability to fairly adjudicate cases before him. How would a Judge Sandoval rule on cases involving illegal immigrants caught dealing drugs? He's already said he doesn't think small-time drug cases should be brought before the court, I would imagine he supports the sanctuary city status, and I would imagine he would try to use all available means not to have this illegal immigrant deported. All of which are social and policy positions of the city and not based on the state or federal law. The Bar Association of San Francisco noted that he was unqualified, the Chronicle, noting Sandoval's appearance on Fox News stating that the U.S. does not need a military, says that Sandoval has not shown himself to be fit for the office. How he managed to receive more votes than Judge Mellon is beyond me. Actually, it's not, since this is San Francisco. Yeah, I think that is answer enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment