Count on who? More on judicial qualifications

Late breaking news from the Lowcountry as News Channel 2's 11 o'clock broadcast discussed what has been old news in the Blogland for over a week - critical assessments by the South Carolna Bar of two Lowcountry judicial candidates: Charleston Magistrate Linda Lombard and attorney Michael DuPree:

The South Carolina Bar Association says out of 46 South Carolina judicial candidates, Charleston magistrate Linda Lombard is the only one considered unqualified to run for office.

She was in the running for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court.

However, after a judicial review committee interview of more than 30 bar members, the opinion was that Lombard lacks the experience and temperment required for position of circuit court judge.

More proof that if you want late-breaking inside news in this state, don't Count on Two, count on us in new media types to bring it to you, and MSM types to bring it to you after it's safe to stick their necks out or we've done their homework for them.

Or both.

This news story focuses upon Lombard's plight, having been the only judicial candidate found not qualified, and only gives passing mention to DuPree, who in spite of a history of attacking police, Bar members citing his volatile temperament and his self-confessed anger management issues ... is somehow still considered qualified.

Given that the 48 page Bar report was quite lengthy (we read it, so we know), we can understand the need for brevity, which is why each candidate was given a rather modest summary. But in the case of the two candidates of whom they were most criticia: Lombard and DuPree, we believe it would have been best if they would have provided more information to support their concerns.

In case you haven't read the report, and need help sleeping at night, click here to see it.

Maybe the whole "right to know" concept is a little radical for them, but in light of the other black eyes our judicial system has taken recently, we believe a little transparency may help provide some much-needed damage control.

We're disappointed they couldn't do better, and we're also disappointed - once again - with the folks in the MSM for either scooping us without giving us due credit, or taking so long to get around to this story.

2 Response to "Count on who? More on judicial qualifications"

  1. west_rhino 29/11/07 10:27
    Again Earl, the fifth column inch of fifth columnists knows what's better for us. It also agrees with the Bar, that the Bar's resistance to public scrutiny, that the rest of the regulated professions face under the LLR in state and perhaps the lawyers ought to be, as the Constitution doesn't provide an exception for shysters, regulated by the state's Labor board, actually providing constitutional equality for all professions.
  2. pensacola airport moye 29/11/07 18:15
    I could not have said it better

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

To post a comment without having a Blogger account, select "Name/URL", put your name in, but leave the URL line blank. Email me if you'd like to comment, but need help making it work.