Candidate for
Family Court Judge; Westchester County; Democratic Party

What should be the political philosophy of a judge? Quite honestly, none.

Unlike other public officials who are rightfully elected or not, because they promise to get things done in one way or another for one reason or another, judges promise nothing. Oh sure, they promise to work hard and do their job well, but is that a political philosophy?

Promise nothing--this is the linchpin of judicial ethics. In fact, it is the linchpin of a fair and independent judiciary.

In the legislature or on the city council, in the State House or in the White House, elected officials take sides; they tell you this ahead of time, and that's why they're elected and why they should be elected. They tell you up front that they're with this group on this issue, and, if you disagree, don't rely on them to represent your point of view. Your only choice is to get enough others to agree with you and vote them out next time around.

Judges don't take sides, can't take sides and must never take sides. Judges don't work for one group or another, promoting a view on one issue or another. There's no aisle in the courtroom dividing majority and minority. The courtroom is that sacred place in our society where the only divide is between right and wrong, which is decided by the unique facts of each case and the law, as enacted by the People's representatives. The courtroom is that sacred place where, as the Torah commands, there is no deference to the rich nor pity for the poor, but only justice for all.

In New York, we elect most of our trial court judges. So, for a very brief time, judges are forced to enter the political process. As they enter this process, however, there are special rules for judges that apply to no other candidate for public office. These rules, found in the Election Law, the Code of Judicial Ethics and the Judicial Campaign Ethics Rules, allow judges to be part of the politics, but enjoin them from becoming political. Their campaigns are to be as non-partisan as possible, concentrating on judicial qualifications, experience and commitment. The integrity of this campaign process is intended to assure the voter that the way judges are selected will be as fair and independent as the judiciary they hope to elect.

Is this all lip service? It is, if judicial candidates are not ruthless with themselves in avoiding partisan politics and the appearance of partisan politics.

Although of necessity in past judicial campaigns, I have run with party nominations. I have always maintained separate and independent campaign committees, which have never included party officials. As is required, I have never run on a party ticket; I have never been endorsed by other public officeholders. My purpose has always been singleminded: to put my qualifications, experience and commitment before the voter.

This year, I have entered the Democratic Primary for Family Court Judge. Some criticize that I have taken advantage of an "obscure" provision of the Election Law, which allows judges to enter any primary of any party. There's nothing obscure about this provision. It is a clear and unambiguous provision, purposeful and intentional. It is part of the statutory and regulatory scheme in New York, which invites judges into the political process without the burden of partisanship. It invites judges to go directly to the voter--any voter--and talk about performance, not politics.

That's the invitation I've heard and the invitation I've always accepted, but especially this year, as I have qualified myself, in accordance with the Election Law, to seek the nomination for Family Court Judge of both major parties.

Political philosophy? Quite honestly, none. Only qualifications, experience and commitment to a fair and independent judiciary.