• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Hosey sought to reassure me that the process is fair, suffused with “checks and balances.” The information, he claimed, is corroborated, the sources vetted; and, he stressed, once the ratings are announced, the aspiring gavel-wielders are invited to address the committee to air their concerns. But when I pressed Hosey for details, he deftly sidestepped the question by attempting to invoke a sort of attorney-client privilege. How had the bar association come to the conclusion that Candelore and the other three candidates backed by Better Courts Now were “lacking qualifications” (or unratable, in the case of Coleman)? Hosey’s response: “It’s confidential.”

(Alvin Gomez, chairman of the Judicial Evaluation Committee, did not return calls for comment.)

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

AlexFredrick July 14, 2010 @ 5:40 p.m.

Let's Here about the atheist judges on the bench, they are more interesting! Why are the judges on the bench always behind the scenes, or why are the corrupt ones always protected?

Judge Lorna Alksne http://angiemedia.com/tag/judge-deann-salcido/

Or lets here about how the appointment of judges is affecting the impartiality in our courts.

Trust and Confidence in the California Courts: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents... (see pages 17,27 &28)

Commission for Impartial Courts: Final Report 2009: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/commimpa... (see pages 37, 38, 60, 74, 102-106)

Also if DeAnn Salcido got a lacking qualification by the County Bar, why is she still a judge?

No one cares that our courts are going down hill, thanks San Diego County Bar!

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close