Gun rights supporters and advocates for the preservation of Constitutional rights in Washington state were on the verge of celebrating justice when the unthinkable happened. A superior court judge had emphatically and rightfully ruled that a document sighting potential changes to state law and used by the gun control lobby to gather signatures, was in blatant violation of the basic policy of the initiative process, and effectively blocked the entire measure from reaching the ballot. Sure enough, the group aiming for stricter gun laws appealed the “no doubt” rock solid ruling, and the state supreme court complied by restoring the document with voodoo legal magic, while completely railroading their judicial colleague, all while allowing the fate of I-1639 to be decided by the voters, not to mention setting a reprehensible precedent for future initiative campaigns. An official retort filed by gun rights groups was curtly rebuked by a supreme court commissioner and never even reached the attention of the justices.
The courtroom description given to the borderline illegal document in question by Thurston County superior court judge James Dixon should have wrapped up the matter with a traditional bow and ribbon.
It’s not readable to me. I don’t know whether I’m most people. I can’t read it. The court is not persuaded by the argument that substantial compliance is the proper analysis; rather, the court believes that it has an obligation to require strict compliance with the initiative process.
The aversion by the state supreme court to side with a nearly absolute truth in terms of a clear violation of procedure identified by citizens, is a troubling and insidious development marked by the infiltration of political ideology into the chambers of justice. Because of this deplorable interpretation of the law, a bevy of strict gun control measures were enacted, and residents with the expectation in practicing reasonable self-defense now face the consequences of horrendous policy diminishing Second Amendment rights. While the expectations of an apolitical environment throughout the courts is a reasonable assumption, clearly overzealous justices and staff members are comfortable with crossing the threshold into uncharted territories tarnishing the concept of holding a disinterested mindset, and in doing so failing to serve the best interest of citizens. In the subversive and murky infrastructure of state level politics, state supreme court justices do not face a level of public scrutiny and criticism endured by other elected officials. However, with the influence and power that they hold over how policy is applied within a state, it is time for things to change, and voters to receive a jolt of transparency in dealing with a group of individuals, who have up to this point not been held accountable for their resounding decisions.
Interestingly, seats in the Washington state supreme court are officially non-partisan, and voters are left to the whim of their own internet search in determining which way a candidate leans of policy. Another troubling fact in stacking the court with political allies, is the governor of the state has the power to appoint an individual for a justice position which is then decided by voters. Ironically. the last republican governor to serve Washington was voted out of office in 1985, and the lack of balance of the court is truly appalling, as a certain political party is forced to continuously battle with the highest court.
The issue regarding the lack of political balance among the justices is compounded by the basic structure reinforcing the walls of the halls of pretended justice. Court members are elected for six year terms and the only restriction which applies to length of service stipulates that a justice has to retire in the calendar year of their 75th birthday. Currently, the longest tenured judge on the roster is in year thirty of a tyrannical reign. As turnover is rare in the realm of legal dinosaurs, voters will not be able decide the fate as to the composition of the court until 2021, but at least the two year window gives the public ample opportunity to research potential candidates that represent common sense, and not radical policy emanating through a borderline socialist legislature and rubber stamped by a dull governor attempting to make a token run for the White House. Cue the circus music.
To combat the insanity of the legal system and the increased presence of liberal judges, search engines and electronic databases are a sensible voter’s best friend and should be utilized in the best interest of protecting Constitutional rights. Ballotpedia.org stands out as a detailed and effective resource in facilitating accountability and navigating through the purposeful ambiguity of a rigged system set to fail, without an infusion of applicable knowledge and reason.
As politicians bent on escalating gun control to a level where weapons ultimately end up in the hands of criminals and echoing the current nightmare of London, residents face increased danger and are forced to fund the ridiculous legal costs of restoring basic individual rights. Unfortunately, Washingtonians now face an unsettling future of the broken initiative system supported by the state supreme court spewing damaging policy to all corners of the state and originating from homeless encampments in the dystopia of Seattle. The vocal minority has spoken and everyone is now entitled to the plunder and pillage from the special interest lobby gone amok.
This editorial powered by duckduckgo.com
