Justice Jim Johnson - Position 1

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Michael Reitz

Justice Jim Johnson earned a BA in economics from Harvard University and a JD from the University of Washington. After school he spent 2 years in the U.S. Army, and then became an Assistant Attorney General for Washington. During twenty years at the Attorney General’s office he headed the Fish and Wildlife Division, the Special Litigation Division, and served as Counsel for the Environment. In 1993 Johnson entered private practice, and continued to practice until he was elected to the Supreme Court in 2004.

Ratings

Notable Endorsements

Individuals

  • Justice Tom Chambers
  • Justice Charles Johnson
  • Justice Susan Owens
  • Justice Debra Stephens
  • Former Chief Justice Gerry Alexander
  • Attorney General Rob McKenna

Newspapers

Organizations

  • Washington Association of Police and Sheriffs
  • Association of Washington Business
  • Building Industry Association of Washington
  • Washington State Farm Bureau
  • Washington State Republican Party
  • Mainstream Republicans of Washington

Websites

Tags: ,
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/admin/trackback/215061
Comments (5) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Ted Bradshaw - August 9, 2010 12:22 PM

It would be helpful to cite a half dozen decisions by each of the candidates. This will give us an indication wether they are Cobnstitutionalists or activists.

Ted Bradshaw

Elaine - September 28, 2010 8:13 AM

I agree with Ted Bradshaw. I believe the Washington State Supreme Court makeup is just as important as the election of state representatives and state senators. Seeing a general synopsis of several of their decisions in various areas would be tremendously helpful to your readers.

Jim Curtis - October 5, 2010 4:33 PM

I agree with Ted Bradshaw. Unfortunately my experience is that, although they are considered non-partison, there can be an intense "peer presure". Incumbent judges need to reveal some of their decisions. Other candidates need to share their principles and be held accountable. (oh, how do we do that with a Supreme Court Justice?) Endorsements, although a good start, don't show the whole truth.Who are these people who will be making such important decisions? How good is their judgment?

Michael Reitz - October 5, 2010 8:54 PM

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. We don't have summaries listed directly under each candidate, but if you click on a justice's name in the "tag" section it will take you to the majority or dissenting opinion they've written.

For example: http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/tags/james-johnson/

James D Miller - October 15, 2010 3:29 PM

I have become more convinced that the judiciary is too important to be left to the politicians. Judges should be rated and critiqued just like any other public figure, then people can see if judges are legislating from the bench or decided the finer points of the law.
This would make it easier to remove judges from the bench for malfeisance.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.