The 2 Court of Special Appeals Judges

[SEABREEZE 1957]

Since I didn't know anything about them, I gave Google a try.

I found this on a web site when I googled Deborah's name. There is also information on the other judge,Robert Zarnoch. May God give us wisdom as we carefully consider who to vote for. JUDGE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS, AT LARGE: Deborah Eyler This is a "vote yes or no" to retain the judge in question. As usual, there isn't much info on either candidate and no formal complaints. The County Democratic Party reccomends a "yes" for both but with no actual reasoning other than no-one seems to have complained :-/ Our first contender is Deborah Eyler, who has been on the court of special appeals for 11 years and favors a special drug court. A search of her name reveals she donated $500 to Barack Obama! More concretely, she has written an opinion of the territorial jurisdiction arguement regarding DNA samples in a rape case. She was apparently appointed by Glendening. Our second contender is Robert A. Zarnoch, appointed by Martin O'Malley, has worked for the Attorney General’s Chief Counsel for Legislation and Counsel to the Maryland General Assembly since 1979. Despite this career, the first article I found was Zarnoch trying to help Ehrlich give the state workers union the shaft. BUt on the other hand, he donates to Democrats like Alan Lightman and Paula Hollinger. But then as Assistant Attorney General argued that Gays and Lesbians are not a suspect class (meaning they haven't been discriminated against).

GrowVotes.org | Deborah Eyler for Judge, Court of Special Appeals At Large, Maryland

[Lenny]

From the Daily KOS "The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, adhering to a 2001 rule of their own design, endorses both candidates because no complaints have been filed against these judges."

At a salary of nearly $150K a year for the past 10 years, you would think the Democrats could develop a little more objective evidence from which make a recommendation.

Just based on the Daily KOS and the Montgomery Democrat Party's endorsement, I'd advise voting 'No."

Originally Posted by Lenny

From the Daily KOS "The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, adhering to a 2001 rule of their own design, endorses both candidates because no complaints have been filed against these judges."

At a salary of nearly $150K a year for the past 10 years, you would think the Democrats could develop a little more objective evidence from which make a recommendation.

Just based on the Daily KOS and the Montgomery Democrat Party's endorsement, I'd advise voting 'No."

I always vote No on sitting Judges and others .... like Cleck of the Court

[4Father]

Originally Posted by RadioPatrol

I always vote No on sitting Judges and others .... like Cleck of the Court

Why?

Originally Posted by 4Father

Why?

because they been sitting in place of authority too long


I always vote, to Vote The Bums Out


these positions are meant to be temporary not life time .....

take away Congressional Seniority and the scum sucking weasels have no reason to stay ... of course that was an insult to weasels

[4Father]

Originally Posted by RadioPatrol

because they been sitting in place of authority too long


I always vote, to Vote The Bums Out


these positions are meant to be temporary not life time .....

take away Congressional Seniority and the scum sucking weasels have no reason to stay ... of course that was an insult to weasels

Everyone who get elected is a bum? Some of those people are good at thier jobs.

Most Maryland judges have to run in the first general election after they are appointed so usually they have not been on the bench for very long.

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by 4Father

Everyone who get elected is a bum? Some of those people are good at thier jobs.

Most Maryland judges have to run in the first general election after they are appointed so usually they have not been on the bench for very long.

If you read the post and the link(s) you'll see that these judges have been sitting for 10 years and this is their first report card. So I wouldn't talk about "...not been on the bench for very long."

[4Father]

Originally Posted by Lenny

If you read the post and the link(s) you'll see that these judges have been sitting for 10 years and this is their first report card. So I wouldn't talk about "...not been on the bench for very long."

If you read the post I was replying to you would see that our conversation wasn't about the judges on the ballot in this election, it was about how Radio Patrol always votes against sitting judges and clerks of the court.

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by 4Father

If you read the post I was replying to you would see that our conversation wasn't about the judges on the ballot in this election, it was about how Radio Patrol always votes against sitting judges and clerks of the court.

Got it. So your statement that "...not been on the bench for very long." ignores the fact that the judges are on the bench 10 years before their first report card. It's just irrelevant to Radio Patrol's statement, right?

[4Father]

Originally Posted by Lenny

Got it. So your statement that "...not been on the bench for very long." ignores the fact that the judges are on the bench 10 years before their first report card. It's just irrelevant to Radio Patrol's statement, right?

The two judges that are on the ballot are court of special appeals judges, there are only 12 in the entire state. They are up for election after an intial 10 year term so they show up pretty rarely on the ballot. Circuit court judges have to run in the first general election after they are appointed by the govenor. There about 150 to 200 of them. Some of them are almost always on the ballot and they have not been on the bench for very long. So in the vast majority of elections, radio patrol will reflexively vote against a judge that has not been on the bench very long.