facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

O’Connor, Lanzinger endorsed



Published: Sun, October 17, 2010 @ 12:00 a.m.

O’Connor, Lanzinger endorsed

The race for the Ohio Supreme Court is unlike any other in several respects.

For one thing, the candidates by rule can’t specifically discuss any issue that is likely to come before the court, which tends to hamper debate. For another, the races are defined as nonpartisan, even though each of the candidates in the November race won a partisan primary in May. And finally, there are no unqualified candidates in these races. All are graduates of fine universities and law schools; all have extensive, if varied, legal experience, including judicial experience. All are solid citizens.

There are two races on the November ballot, one for chief justice, a seat that had been held for 24 years by Thomas Moyer, who died suddenly on April 2.

The candidates

Eric Brown, a former Franklin County Probate Court judge, was appointed by Gov. Ted Strickland to fill out Moyer’s term.

Brown and Maureen O’Connor, who has been a state supreme court justice since 2003, had already committed to run for Moyer’s seat. He was barred by age from seeking another term.

In the other race, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, who is finishing her first six-year term on the court, is being challenged by Mary Jane Trapp. Lanzinger is a former Lucas County Common Pleas Court judge and member of the 6th District Court of Appeals; Trapp sits on the 11th District Court of Appeals and is former president of the Ohio State Bar Association.

Having Brown and Trapp, two Democrats, on the Republican-dominated court would give it some balance. That factor can’t be ignored.

However we believe O’Connor’s more extensive experience on the court makes her the stronger candidate for chief justice. And we believe that in her one term on the court Lanzinger has earned consideration for re-election.

This paper has not agreed with many of the judicial decisions of either in the past, but these races transcend how a candidate ruled in a limited number of specific cases.

The Vindicator endorses O’Connor for chief justice and Lanzinger for a second term as justice on the Ohio Supreme Court.


Comments

1Elizabeth(4 comments)posted 3 years, 10 months ago

Trapp is the better choice for Ohio Supreme Court. The way I see it, Lanzinger's ruling which created executive privilege for former gov. Taft only served to protect her former campaign manager,convicted coin dealer Tom Noe, from further "Coingate" trouble. What is equally troublesome is that Lanzinger continues to sit before cases brought to the court in which campaign donors have filed is very troubling. The New York Times cites Lanzinger rules in favor of her donors the majority of the time. Lanzinger says she will not recuse herself. Sure gives the public the impression that the current court is for sale.

Suggest removal:

2bones1987(1 comment)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

Judge Lanzinger has once again put herself in a position of suspicion by failing to recuse herself of a case in which potential for bias is implicated. While I once supported Judge Lanzinger with financial contributions, both her action and inaction in the Huff vs. First Energy 2010-00857 case, led me to believe I made a mistake in her endorsement. In this case Judge Lanzinger authored an opinion in spite of being aware of Mr. Reggie Huff’s involvement in opposing and speaking out against the campaign of Judge Mary Trapp and thus effectively supporting and working for Judge Lanzinger.

Additionally, her opinion in this case is narrowly focused and fails to protect the innocent 3rd party from damages incurred by the actions of an employer and contractor, who in their actions created a risk and liability which ultimately severely injured a 3rd party.

Judge Lanzinger, in her written opinion, stated that because this 3rd party was not injured during the activity between the contractual obligations of the employer and contractor that there are no residual liabilities to outside 3rd parties as a result of their actions. This is absurd. First Energy’s and Asplundh's actions left a severely damaged and weakened tree on their electrical easement which ultimately fell later and injured the 3rd party, Mrs. Lisa Huff.

Judge Lanzinger, in her opinion, stated because Mrs. Huff was not injured during the tree trimming process and was not listed in the contract as a beneficiary she was not “covered” or “protected” from injury by First Energy and Asplundh. How absurd and obviously biased!! Only judges seem to get away with this type of ridiculous reasoning.

Lastly, I found that in 2010, Judge Lanzinger did receive the highest campaign support allowed by law ($6,000) from First Energy.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the facts in this case do not support Judge Lanzinger as a fair and unbiased judge that the average man can or should trust.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport