Opportunism Disguised As Community Betterment
Opportunism: The art or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or
circumstances, or of seeking immediate advantage with little regard for
ultimate consequences.
This year Broward County finds itself with many firsts in the judicial selection process. There are four incumbent judges being challenged, there are 3 minority judges with opposition, and there is a sitting judge's spouse running against another sitting judge.
Why are there certain judges gaining opponents while the rest do not? Why are the majority of the incumbents without challengers non-minorities? Is this a coincidence? Are the others so good they do not deserve an opponent? Or, are there many that should have an opponent that do not because they have a voter friendly name?
We as attorneys have an obligation to our clients, to our profession, and to our community to support or oppose judges based on their performance on the bench and the integrity (or lack thereof) they bring to the profession while off the bench. Nothing else should ever be allowed to seep into our decision making process.
In listening to the candidates talk, the common thread is "I will work hard for the community and make it a better place for all to live." They say "I am here to serve the community and I want to serve you." They end with "I want to make Broward County better." I have yet to hear a candidate state why they should replace the incumbent, or how they would do a better job. When I hear this I wonder, what's the real reason the incumbent has opposition? Could it be deeper than wanting to "serve?" Or, is it simply the candidate believes that they can defeat the incumbent due to disproportionate voting strengths among the electorate?
We all agree that Democracy should prevail, that's the American way. But should it be at the expense of those who do not have the voting base due to their name or ethnicity? It's one thing if the incumbent is failing on the job, or the challenger feels they can do a better job, but it's a bit sinister if it's not. We have worked very hard over the past few years to bring diversity to the bench. Our bench must be reflective of the community it serves. There is nothing more important then for a person to feel equal when they enter and leave the courthouse.
Are the candidates running against minority defendants really helping the community? Or are they just helping themselves at the expense of the community? Are they exploiting a weakness with little thought to the ultimate consequences, or do they truly believe they can do a better job?
Reading yesterday's Daily Business Review, I noticed the story about Roniel Rodriguez IV filing to run against Miami-Dade Judge Spencer Eig. After speaking with CABA, he reevaluated his position, and decided to drop out of the race. The reason given by CABA's Sanchez-Medina was a strong one. Here is what was said:
“A race against a well-respected, accomplished judge like Spencer Eig who has done so much for
this community was not the right race at the right time,” Sanchez-Medina said in a written statement."
Please reevaluate your position challengers. If you are doing it because of poor judicial job performance or integrity issues off the bench, then go forward 100%. Otherwise, please step aside for our community. You and Broward will be better for it in the end.
Jeff Ivashuk
circumstances, or of seeking immediate advantage with little regard for
ultimate consequences.
This year Broward County finds itself with many firsts in the judicial selection process. There are four incumbent judges being challenged, there are 3 minority judges with opposition, and there is a sitting judge's spouse running against another sitting judge.
Why are there certain judges gaining opponents while the rest do not? Why are the majority of the incumbents without challengers non-minorities? Is this a coincidence? Are the others so good they do not deserve an opponent? Or, are there many that should have an opponent that do not because they have a voter friendly name?
We as attorneys have an obligation to our clients, to our profession, and to our community to support or oppose judges based on their performance on the bench and the integrity (or lack thereof) they bring to the profession while off the bench. Nothing else should ever be allowed to seep into our decision making process.
In listening to the candidates talk, the common thread is "I will work hard for the community and make it a better place for all to live." They say "I am here to serve the community and I want to serve you." They end with "I want to make Broward County better." I have yet to hear a candidate state why they should replace the incumbent, or how they would do a better job. When I hear this I wonder, what's the real reason the incumbent has opposition? Could it be deeper than wanting to "serve?" Or, is it simply the candidate believes that they can defeat the incumbent due to disproportionate voting strengths among the electorate?
We all agree that Democracy should prevail, that's the American way. But should it be at the expense of those who do not have the voting base due to their name or ethnicity? It's one thing if the incumbent is failing on the job, or the challenger feels they can do a better job, but it's a bit sinister if it's not. We have worked very hard over the past few years to bring diversity to the bench. Our bench must be reflective of the community it serves. There is nothing more important then for a person to feel equal when they enter and leave the courthouse.
Are the candidates running against minority defendants really helping the community? Or are they just helping themselves at the expense of the community? Are they exploiting a weakness with little thought to the ultimate consequences, or do they truly believe they can do a better job?
Reading yesterday's Daily Business Review, I noticed the story about Roniel Rodriguez IV filing to run against Miami-Dade Judge Spencer Eig. After speaking with CABA, he reevaluated his position, and decided to drop out of the race. The reason given by CABA's Sanchez-Medina was a strong one. Here is what was said:
“A race against a well-respected, accomplished judge like Spencer Eig who has done so much for
this community was not the right race at the right time,” Sanchez-Medina said in a written statement."
Please reevaluate your position challengers. If you are doing it because of poor judicial job performance or integrity issues off the bench, then go forward 100%. Otherwise, please step aside for our community. You and Broward will be better for it in the end.
Jeff Ivashuk
well stated
Reply to this
Do you think they'll get it? Political oportunism is the name of the rancid game here. Looks like they will have to learn the lesson the hard way, if at all. Good article.
Reply to this
Just look at the people that are running and it tells the story.
Reply to this
Sounds like Feld fits the description against Gonzalez, shame on you Ellen, withdraw and run for an open year in two years
Reply to this
I think this well stated post is going to be lost when you take into account the environment in this place. There seems to be little sense of community down here. It's a pig trough with the biggest piggies grabbing all they can before they eat enough to pop, or get indicted.
Reply to this
You're a little late Ivashuk. This should have been written BEFORE the filing deadline if that's how you felt, as everyone knew what was going on. But instead, your friend gets an opponent so now you write? You are as two faced as he is. Interesting how the blogging has completely slowed down now that you are out campaigning. Good job giving those old ladies the blog address Saturday with Hungry Howie. Almost as good as the speech Tuesday night in Parkland. Funny to hear the people leaving their candidates night wondering why Broward needs a Public Defender's Office at all. That speech went well. Two face.
Reply to this
Read the article over again, am i missing something, but where did he mention finky in the article. Thought it was about the judges and their opponents.
Reply to this
I think Dijols needs an opponent. Same with Avalos. If they survive they will be better judges. I don't know about Avalos, but Dijols is a changed man since Bober announced. He is now even tempered, considerate, and calls the balls and strikes right down the middle (after exhibiting the worse case of robe fever I have ever seen pre Bober).
Avalos - what can you say? Have you ever seen a more heightened case of self importance in, of all things, a County Court judge? Come on, get over yourself. You are a NEUTRAL referee as judge, nothing else.
The perception of prosecutor in robes is always enough to get an opponent IMHO.
Where this gets sticky for me is the Gonzalez question. While the other two should be tested through the electoral process due to their questionable performance, I think Gonzalez is the eptiome of a fine judge. Honorable fits him to a tee. Everyone likes him, and he is completely fair in his approach and rulings.
All told you have to wonder. Factor in Gonzalez and it smacks of opportunism, pure and simple. Obviously people want these jobs, and they are probably thinking the Hispanic names are easy marks. But before the Hispanic bar screams "racism" I would say - "did you ever try talking to Dijols?" "What about Avalos" "Were these the best candidates you could have advanced and supported?"
Or, is the whole thing, Gonzalez included, just a reflection of the failure of the JNC's and past governors to appoint diverse candidates? Would this be happening to Hispanic judges who have been in office for a while? What took so long to get Hispanics in and establish their names to a rapidly diversifying Broward?
Ask - "Why didn't Ro-Powell get an opponent?" Hasn't she served as GM for quite some time? Maybe this is why she wasn't challenged?
No, I think overall the opposition is due to the perception that the new judges are easy marks because they are untested new judges and don't have strong support in the community and because 2 of the 3 were not performing up to snuff.
Reply to this
Feld is in the perfect position..she has no practice and does not litigate so she does not give a ///.
Reply to this
I thought the whole idea of challenging incumbents was to change the system. The incumbents being challenged haven’t been around for a full term, yet we all proclaim from the mountaintops how change is coming. The incumbents being challenged were the “change” – as each are ethnically diverse from the mainstream (all minorities).
Jaab proclaims a victory out of one side of their mouths for the fact that they face challengers and from the other side of their mouth question the intentions of the candidates.
From my count – 2 of the 24 circuit judges that are up for re-election are ethnic minorities – Pedro Dijols and Mily-Rodriguez Powell (both of which are recent appointments). 2 of the 4 county court judges that are up for re-election are ethnic minorities – Julio Gonzalez and Catalina Avalos (both of which are recent appointments). 3 out of those 4 ethnic minority judges face opposition - do I see a pattern.
I think in all fairness, JAABlaw was taking credit for two of those opponents, namely Bernie Bober and Ed Salantrie. Coincidentally, both are white males (as white as you can get). With all due respect Jeff, please don’t write such an ignorant piece when your organization (as you are one of the elite) spearheaded two racially directed attacks against minority judges – it just plain smells bad.
We speak of change and the need to right the system. Here’s a news flash – all Judges believe they are elite and most likely with good belief as they control the lives of so many. I don’t recall any national or even local new stories about Dijols, Avalos or Gonzalez. When looking back at the previous year I note only one of the Judges up for re-election who embarrassed this community – namely Jeffrey Levenson, with his homophobic comment about the victim of a crime. Last time I checked the election site noted “unopposed” – next to his name. If you have ever been in his courtroom – he is as “elite” as it gets – yet no opponent…oops, that’s right he’s white. Equally as white as Bernie and Ed – and I guess Gelin, Kulik and Ivashuk
- do I see a pattern.
Reply to this
I remember someone writing on here a while back saying "be careful what you wish for because you may get it".
While implied but not stated this "article" goes to Howard's challengers as much as the Judicial challengers.
Jeff, YOU personally as well as collectively with your JABB co-founders have begged, cajoled, insisted and called for the Judges to have challengers. So lets examine your problem. What you really wanted was for Judges you and/or Jabb didn't like to have opposition. Unfortunately the atmosphere of change you created came back to bite you because Judges like Gonzalez and PD Howard got an opponent. I seriously doubt this article would have been written and posted had Stacy Ross been the only sitting Judge to have a challenger. Yes, Jeff I am aware of your attempts to claim Stacy is a good Judge yet you never expressed those views once as lies were spread on here about her for the last year. So maybe you did support her but the collective JABB which you are a part of did not. Two faced, you make the call. Will this article be written in 2010 if there is a challenger to Aleman or Oconnor? Doubt it. I am sure it will be if Seidman has opposition.
This is what you wished for now you have to live with it. The best part is what happens if all the incumbents win? Does that not possibly create a chilling effect in 2010 for those thinking that Broward has changed and you can beat incumbents? This is where you, Bill and Kevin were short sited as usual, it was not enough to put in warm bodies who will lose to incumbents and call that change. As someone said on here before JAAB cant be credited for changing anything until it actually shows it can generate grass roots support, raise money and get someone elected. Sadly, Bober is probably your best bet to do this and you dont seem to do anything for him
Reply to this
One should never mistake an opinion piece for an article. Having said that the opinion voiced is clearly correct. For too many years the Bench has been forgiven for too many transgressions not the least of which is poor judgment and bad behavior. Although its impossible to separate the politics from the desired credible Bench most of those that drew opponents deserved them. Some of those unopposed should have drawn opponents. There is no more misbegotten judge in the wrong place at the wrong time than Aramony. She doesn't have a clue and bristles at being informed of the law. Let's not confuse a nice person with a competent judge. So let the Winds of Change blow and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe we'll stop being the joke of the State not to mention the Country. Seidlin, Spechler, and the rest that ran like rats leaving sinking ship are just the tip of the iceberg. More of them need to get going.
Reply to this
Based on past performance and that they are not minorities, I doubt he will have any reason to write this piece about those two in 2010. Is Seidman gonna still be here? Jeff, Bill keep writing, the forum that you provide for all is what leads to change.
Reply to this
To 10:51
Yeah. Keep writing and keep allowing people to post assanine anonymous comments. You are on the hook:
836.03 Owner or editor of the paper also guilty.--Any owner, manager, publisher or editor of any newspaper or other publication who permits any anonymous communication or communications such as is signed otherwise than with the true name of the writer, and such name published therewith to appear in the columns of the publication in which said communication any person is attacked in his or her good name, or it is attempted to bring disgrace or ridicule upon any person, such owner, manager, publisher or editor shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Reply to this
FUNDRAISER TO RE-ELECT PEDRO DIJOLS
On Friday May 23, 2008 12 noon- 4 pm--at our law office 629 SE 5th ave, There will be a fundraiser For Pedro Dijols, All are welcome to attend. There will be food and refreshments served
any questions please call me
Steve Melnick
954-462-7234
Political advertisment paid for and approved by Judge Pedro Dijols for Circuit Court group 3 non- partisan. The purchase of a ticket for a contribution to the fundraiser is a contribution to the Judge DiJols campaign for circuit court group 3 non-partisian
Reply to this
CORRECTION-
It should state-- RETAIN- judge dijols
MY MISTAKE-- Steve
Reply to this
Why does "race" always has to be thrown into the race. Anybody who is qualified should run. (period)
Speaking of qualified I think the Democrats and this Country would be better served with Al Gore or Joe Biden as President.
Reply to this
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but is the implication of this article stating that no one should run against a minority because the poor thing might be beaten if there aren't enough minorities who vote will vote? This diversity/correctness whining has really gone too far; the last time I checked this was a free country and if qualified, anyone may seek office. Or maybe not; maybe it will eventually only be free for cry babies who can't make it on their own merit. What a proud day will be!
Reply to this
Now that the blog is slowing to nothing (what happened to the PDs?), I guess New Times has nothing to write about either.
Reply to this
Have any of these judges faced challengers before? No. They are appointed. The Constitution says they are to face election. The people decide ultimately. They are not anointed for life. Stop crying. If you think the county needs these judges than start campaigning and writing checks. Otherwise MOVE TO CHINA if you don't like it.
Reply to this
all from the same sinogog
Reply to this
Is it really opportunistic opposition when one minority challeges another?
Reply to this
"A fan of Ian Richardson wrote:
Is it really opportunistic opposition when one minority challeges another?"
Good point. It's always the blacks that get screwed here. Jewish judges, Hispanic Judges, but no one even thinks how the blacks feel with so little representation on the bench and so much overrepresentation in criminal courts.
We should all be ashamed of ourselves.
We should also vote for Ian.
Reply to this
sounds like you missed the whole point of the article
Reply to this
You would prefer to see Ian Richards, a 5 1/2 year attorney who practices criminal law in Miami (well has a fake office in Miami), who was fired from the Dade State Attorney's Office be a judge instead of Catalina Avalos. It doesn't take much to figure out who the more qualified candidate is. The kicker: he picked her because she is a minority and forgets that he is also in the same boat. He is also dumb enough to be at a party and tell people his name "sounds white" which is enough to get him elected in this town. Seems the voters of Broward are a little smarter than Ian "I deserve to be a judge because my name sounds white" Richards.
Reply to this
I still think its funny that his fan doesn't even know his name.
Richardson = Richards???? WTF?!?!?!
Reply to this
Sad as it may seem, Broward is about as backwards as you can get, and a name that "sounds white" will generally win.
Reply to this
Hasn't worked for Mardi Cohen or anyone else I know. So few people vote in these elections that when they do vote, they generally know about the candidate. If they know about Ian, they aint voting for him.
Reply to this
Hey fan of Ian Richardson, why don't you get his name right so you will at least be able to find it on the ballet since you will be the only one looking for it. Good luck to you.
Reply to this
I know I'm voting for Ian Richardson that's for sure.
His name sounds very very WASPY and that's good enough for me.
Reply to this
What's the big deal? Stacy Ross had barely five years in and out of that she was out on maternity leave for a year before Daddy Ross rigged the selection process to get her appointed.
Reply to this
To the person that keeps repeating this LIE. Stacy was an attorney for 9 (nine)years before being appointed. She was not on maternity leave for a year. She was on maternity leave for 3 (three) months and tried a DUI Manslaughter case 2 days before giving birth. I guess your're not interested in those facts? Does it make you better to just keep repeating the same old lies?
P.S. You try giving birth and going back to work in less time!
Reply to this
Discuss amongst yourselves:
Some of our current judges ran unopposed, they weren't appointed or elected. There are at least 3 on the county bench and 3 on the circuit bench. Some of them ran for years, working diligently to get their names out, while some socked tons of money into their campaigns and scared off opponents. How is that not opportunism? What about the judge who gets appointed because he fits a specific agenda for the governor or just knew the right people or the governor himself? Is there really a perfect way to become a judge? There are flaws in each example. Life is full of opportunism and it's not always a bad thing.
Consider this:
Some of the judges who were appointed are great judges, others are not. Some of the judges who were elected are great judges, some are not. And even some of the judges who weren't elected or appointed are great judges, while others are not. How a judge gets a job seems alot less important then how they perform at the job.
Reply to this