Sorry! I wrote this last night for scheduled publishing this morning but forgot to reset the drop down choice from "unpublished" to "scheduled." Sorry about that.
Insert disclaimer here. I work at the state Judiciary but these are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. Further, this site is completely independent of my work and is in no way connected to it. YMMV.
The old saying is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And, in my opinion, when I see an opinion that I disagree with, I usually let it go. I mean, just because someone has a different opinion from me doesn't mean I have to respond to it (nor give it a wider audience by linking to it). But sometimes, some opinions are just so outrageous that I have to respond, regardless.
Such is the case regarding a local newspaper editorialist who described Chief Justice Ronald Moon's tenure thusly: "Ronald Moon has had a 13-year run as chief justice — 17 years by time he'd hit mandatory retirement — and the court's performance has not been particularly distinguished under his guidance."
Obviously, how you define "distinguished" is open to debate but this site gives a good synopsis of decisions that made a difference. Add to that the recent landmark case regarding public versus private beach property that I wrote about earlier and, in my opinion, you have a distinguished body of work to be proud. Can this court do better? Of course, all courts can. But to dismiss the impact that this court has made as a way of deciding a debate on mandatory judicial retirement does not, in my opinion, lead to more thoughtful debate.
In addition, I guess the writer makes the assumption that Chief Justice Moon is a Democrat. Maybe he made this assumption because the Chief Justice was appointed by a Democrat. In any case, having made the assumption, he seems to jump to the conclusion that our Democrat majority legislature wants to protect one of their own by assuming that our Republican governor will not be able to replace the Chief Justice.
The problem is, the Chief Justice is, now wait for it, a Republican. In fact, our Republican lt. governor was also a judge.So our Republican governor, Republican lt. governor, and her Republican attorney general (the party affiliation of the editorialist, if any, I do not know) are all trying to get rid of a member of their own Republican party. Oh the irony!
In one feel swoop, their argument goes flying out the window as so much hot air...Life is like that sometimes. In the words of another old saying: I'm glad its them and not me!
Aloha!
