#ncpol: Now, about THAT Supreme Court vote

DSC_4239_ppIn addition to picking a Member of Congress on Tuesday, we get to pick ONE candidate to compete for ONE seat on the state Supreme Court in November.  The top two finishers in the field get to compete again on the November ballot. Here’s our field:

  • Michael Morgan:   Party affiliation is pretty well obscured on campaign materials. But one good clue about this guy is his work at the NC Department of Justice from 1980-1989.  That would have placed him as a worker bee for Democrats Rufus Edmisten and Lacy Thornburg.
  • Robert Edmunds:    He’s the incumbent.  He ran for attorney general as a Republican a few years back and got clobbered.  His professional bio includes ties to guys like William Rehnquist and John Roberts. So, that makes him OK in our book.  
  • Daniel Robertson:  Not a lot of info on this cat.  Not even a website.  He has a lot of experience in the banking industry and now works in private practice.  He talks the outsider game and sounds almost Tea Party-ish.  (Though, word on the street is he is a Democrat.) 
  • Sabra Faires.  Um, HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL NO.  She’s running as unaffiliated.  But she was a longtime fixture on Jones Street as a goon for Marc Basnight, Jim Black AND — wait for it — Richard Morgan.  Yes, there is a stench of sulfur around her.  Stay away. Stay FAR away. 

Your clear choice here is Robert Edmunds.

10 thoughts on “#ncpol: Now, about THAT Supreme Court vote

  1. Sorry, but it should be ILLEGAL to conduct an election without party affiliation shown CLEARLY on the ballot for EVERY CANDIDATE. So tired of this “Three Card Monte” crap for NC JUDGES and for many city / county races.

  2. Agreed! It’s BOB EDMUNDS, or we’ll get lousy court decisions for years to come!

  3. And how unfair that Bob Edmunds actually has to run for that seat, right? Last year, our esteemed legislators and Governor tried to simply hand him another 8 year term, with the Ensure GOP Majority On Supreme Court Act… sorry, the Supreme Court Justice Retention Election Act, House Bill 222.

    “Retention Election”. Get it? There would be no other names on the ballot but Bob Edmunds. And in the unlikely case that a majority of voters would take the extreme step of throwing a justice off the bench for no clear reason, Governor McCrory would get to name his replacement.

    It was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals, and then that decision stood when the State Supreme Court split 3 – 3, because Bob was recused from casting the deciding vote for or against getting himself another 8 year term.

    I’ve seen people touting that recusal as evidence he should be re-elected. Balderdash. I’d have been impressed if he stood up during the debate on the bill and denounced it, but he didn’t do that, did he? He was happy to let his buds in the NCGA try to slip him another free 8 year term, if it didn’t get too ugly for him…

    For allowing himself to be the beneficiary of that attempt, IMO, he is unfit to serve. They tried to take away the people’s right to elect Supreme Court Justices.

    Anybody But Bob.

    1. Your ideological bias will ensure that you’ll move the goal posts on Edmunds no matter what he might have done. But I’ll agree that the legislature disgraced themselves by trying to establish that kind of election and that conservative groups did themselves no credit by failing to loudly chastise the General Assembly for passing such a self-serving piece of legislation that could not be justified for any reason.

      1. Don’t forget the three Justices that voted to support the “self-serving” legislation, despite it being obviously unconstitutional. As you say, self-serving. A majority desperate to stay in power, using their position on the bench to try to take away or diminish our ability to hold them in check.

        The next two Justices that apparently hoped the ‘retention election’ would allow them to stay on that bench without having to worry about any pesky elections? Jackson in 2018, and Newby in 2020… are also Republicans.

        I suppose you’ll say it’s just my bias, but doesn’t the whole thing smell pretty bad to you?

  4. BOB EDMONDS. Having been part of his campaign, you will meet not only a great proven jurist, but he a real down to earth gentleman who is genuine in his caring for people. Charlotte Observer is pushing a candidate WHO HAS NO COURT EXPERIENCE.

    Spread the word, say a prayer

  5. Bob Edmunds is a great Justice of our Supreme Court, and I have been doing what I can to help him win.

    Given the critical importance of this seat to the direction of our Supreme Court, our party should have been focused on this like a laser beam for the last few months. With most of the interesting Congressional primaries being among Republicans, we should have a turnout situation that allowed us to get over 50% in the first round if we had worked at this like we should have. People coming to vote in a GOP Congressional primary should be a slam dunk to vote for the only Republican running for Supreme Court IF they knew which one he was.

    Sadly, our party was embroiled in a power play over the chairmanship that regulated this critical race to the back burner and sucked up most of the energy in the party, both with the insiders trying to oust the chairman and the grassroots trying to defend him. Without those unnecessary distractions, Bob Edmunds would be in much better shape right now. If Bob should come up short, the blame should be attached to those who were behind that power play. Their priorities were way out of whack and our party and our cause may suffer badly from it.

    1. “our party should have been focused on this like a laser beam for the last few months”

      Up until 10 days or so ago, they thought they had it locked up, and that Bob Edmunds would be running unopposed. Oooops!

      Darn that State Constitution! ” If Bob should come up short, the blame should be attached to those who…” tried to take away the public’s right to elect Supreme Court Justices.

Comments are closed.