Justice O’Connor: Judicial Elections Are Wrong


You can’t blame the judge.  He just wants a little air time.

Word from three courthouse regulars is that Judge Lee Seidman is lobbying to be on the bench in magistrate’s court. 

Many major baddies busted in Broward make a first appearance in magistrate’s court. TV news frequently features videotape of these court appearances, so the magistrate judge gets a lot of time on the tube. 

Seidman is facing two opponents next year.  So he wants the name recognition that comes with being the first appearance judge.

The first appearance judge is currently John “Jay Hurley.  Seidman wants to replace Hurley on weekends, when Hurley goes on vacation, or when Hurley is otherwise off the job.

Can you blame Seidman?

This is a guy who is totally unfamiliar with being a candidate. 

He’s a former prosecutor, and many say he was a good one.  He was not a lackey of State Attorney Mike Satz.  I’m told he actually clashed with his boss on occasion when he felt the office wasn’t doing the right thing.

Being a prosecutor might prepare somebody for being a judge.  It doesn’t prepare someone for being a candidate in Broward.

Broward, with 1.751 million residents, is larger than a dozen states, including places like Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana and Alaska. 
Just driving around the county to campaign you might have to be in Parkland and Hallandale Beach in one evening is daunting enough. 

Knowing where to go so you don’t waste your time, who to contact and how to spend your money is an art.

Finding enough money maybe $500,000 is another scary task for countywide candidates. It forces judicial campaigns to  beg lawyers, the very people who will appear in court.  

And judicial campaigns have too often degenerated into political slug fests. I covered one campaign where the judicial candidate was falsely accused of sleeping with condominium bosses to win endorsements.

None of this has anything in common with being a good judge.

That’s just some of the reasons that retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is campaigning to choose judges on the basis of merit, rather than by elections.

The former justice is chairwoman of the O’Connor Judicial Selection Initiative, announced this month by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver.

O’Connor would replace the elections with a selection commission and regular retention elections where voters can decide whether the judge should remain in office.  But the judge wouldn’t have to run against another candidate.

Florida appeals court judges are already selected this way. But some circuit and county judges still are chosen in elections.

This has allowed good Broward judges to be kicked off the bench just because they have Hispanic names and their opponents have “anglo names. 

It’s wrong!

Maybe you don’t like Lee Seidman.  Voters should be able to decide whether he should continue in office.

If they boot him off the bench, the governor would appoint a replacement.

I know letters will pour in saying the judicial appointments by the governor are political.  Only insiders get named to the bench.

I would argue vehemently that filling the bench by appointments recommended by panels that include lawyers is the better way to go.

What we have right now, in Justice O’Connor’s word, is a bench that too often includes “politicians in robes.

35 Responses to “Justice O’Connor: Judicial Elections Are Wrong”

  1. Not Entirely says:

    Your comments suggest that you have no criticism of the current structure of appointing judges. Before Jeb Bush changed the make-up of the JNC process, there was a much better system in place. It is now weighted to guarantee that the only nominees are those who have endeared themselves to the party in power. If the legislature were to permanently return to the prior process (three members appointed by the governor, three by The Florida Bar, and three lay members chosen by the six other appointees), then I would agree with your comments. The impact of politics in the current system should be the focus of your journalistic endeavors. In the current arrangement crafted by Bush, the only way that qualified individuals who do not pull political strings have a chance to win is to go to the people to make the choice. And, you denigrate those good judges who serve on the bench at the pleasure of “the people”.

    FROM BUDDY: Oh, you mean that the process before the Legislature altered it for Jeb Bush was not political?

    I recall when Lawton Chiles was governor that Mitch Ceasar was a JNC member along with at least two members allied with the public defender, who ran a Democratic political machine out of his office.

    To his credit, Ceasar took himself off the JNC when he became the county’s Democratic chairman even though he didn’t have to.

    Regardless, Ceasar was a Democratic activist for decades before he became the party chairman. That activism was one of the reasons that Chiles picked him.

    There have and will always be politics in the appointive process, but less than in elections.

    I do not approve of the way the Legislature about a decade ago handed control of JNCs to the governor. That said, Lawton Chiles managed to pack the JNC in Broward despite having less control because the new rules weren’t in effect.

  2. Right Wing Reactionary says:

    Politicians in robes? Show me a sitting Judge anywhere who’s registered as an independent. NPA or any other “independent” party.

    They can’t be found. It’s all about politics either at election time or appointment time. Great to point out politicians in robes, but does anybody remember forced busing? Federal Politicians in robes appointed for life.

    And then there’s Sotomayer, who stupidly acknowledged that Judges should legislate from the bench. Now she’s in for life.

    And then there was the appointed Federal Judge in Kansas City who forced the state to add $2 billion to the Kansas City school system resulting in decimating the district so badly that it lost accreditation.

    Or, how about the Supreme Court of Florida who selected George Bush?

    Retain or remove? How many Judges have been removed by vote? I can’t think of one. Are you ready to start raising money to defeat Judges at the ballot box?

    If there’s an appointment committee, who selects the committee?

    Maybe it would be better to select the best and brightest of the starry eyed law school graduates, send them to “Judge” school and place them on the bench before they become tainted by politics.

  3. No to Seidman Monster says:

    Seidman is a lazy, gun-toting, wacko. He speeds through a docket at record speed and hurts people along the way. Seidman is the worse judge that Broward County has ever seen. A Jeb Bush appointee who possesses 50,000 rounds of ammunition and a year long supply of food. Two people have wisely filed against this creepy guy. Seidman needs to go. This guy is a piece of mierda.

  4. Not to be trusted... says:

    You actually think that we should let people like Rothstein nominate them, and have the governor appoint them, in exchange for a large contribution to the republican party. Bologna!

  5. huy says:

    buddy and lee sitting in a tree k-i-s-s-i-n-g

  6. Agreed But..... says:

    I agree with you on this one Buddy, but the problem is the alternative process in place stinks too.

    By the way, please recall that what you have proposed was put to the voters just a few years ago as a constitutional amendment and was roundly smacked down. People want their say and an elected process for judges is what the voters supported.

    The appointment process is just as political as the elective process, if not more so.

    While I wasn’t paying much attention to the appointment process back in the 80s and 90s, when Jeb Bush decided to change the JNC process (which had included members of the lay public, gubernatorial appointments and individuals selected by the Florida Bar) to one where all 9 members of the JNC are appointed by the governor, he created a system where it seems that only those with juice with the sitting Gov have a snowball’s chance on South Beach of getting an appointment.

    Bundle $100k to the gov., and if you want to be on the short list for a seat, you’ve got it.

    Be Scott Rothstein, and you get to sit on the nominating committee for the 4th District Court of Appeals.

    So like I said, I agree with your theme on this one. Just remember, the system we have is the worst system there is, except all the other ones we can choose from.

    And using Lee Seidman as your sympathetic figure here is laughable. If memory serves, he and his wife were HUGE Jeb Bush boosters, raised big bucks for him, and then got cushy appointed jobs shortly thereafter (Laura was GC of the NBHD and Lee got his County Judgeship — although his lying to the JNC a few years later cost him any shot of a promotion to circuit).

    Dont be surprised if Seidman’s challengers can compete nicely with $25k or $50k budgets. A decent personality and competitive dollars will do wonders in that race….as they will in several others in 2010.

    The shakeup is coming. Rest assured that there will be a number of incumbents (not merely hispanic surnames either) that will be sent into defeat in 2010, and the public will be the better for it.

    FROM BUDDY: Anybody can win an election, but going into a countywide race with $25k or $50k is a joke. Since there will be over 100,000 voters in the election, the figure you use is less than 25 to 50 cents a voter.

    I guarantee that any incumbent judge will have much more money.

    I believe the appointment process is better, although the JNCs were fairer before the Legislature changed them for Jeb Bush. The governor appoints the judges, but we elect the governor.

    Nobody elects the political consultants who control Broward judicial elections today.

    In Broward, a small clique of criminal defense attorneys are trying to reshape the judiciary through elections. Nobody outside the courthouse cares. And if voters thought about this attempted coup taking place, they would be against it. Voters like judges friendly to the prosecution, not the defense.

    These criminal defense attorneys may have limited success because voters choose judicial candidates for all the wrong reasons — whether they are attractive and have the right ethnic connections. Seidman has the right name (Jewish sounding) and a lot of money. He won’t be easy to beat, although many in the defense Bar hate him.

    The problem with electing judges is that even informed voters know little about judicial candidates. Since the media largely ignore the races, the voters get most of their limited information about the candidates from advertising….and that costs money.

  7. Chaz Stevens says:

    I nominate Judge Harry T. Stone!

  8. When the tide rises... says:

    I actually believe that Chief Judge Tobin will remove the highly productive and well liked Judge Hurley from Magistrate Court and replace him with Judge Seidman at about the same time that Global Warming causes the tide to reach the second floor of the courthouse.
    Collectively hold your bated breath.

  9. Jack Thompson says:

    The problem with this approach is that by removing any democratic accountability for judges (they’re called elections) then you have sitting on the bench leftwingnuts chosen by The Florida Bar. this is the very same organization that Scott Rothstein had wormed his way into and was sitting on its grievance committees.

    Sorry, Buddy, we don’t need more Scott Rothsteins.

  10. Here's How says:

    Finally. We have someone of caliber, in this case a former US Supreme Court Justice, and the first woman no less, talking sense about how to appoint judges.

    Here is the way I think it should be done to protect fairness.

    Judges should be appointed or reappointed on the basis of recommendations made by randomly selected panels of retired judges.

    If you are a retired judge (plenty of them) and if you are willing to help in the judicial nominating process (make it worth their while)you get to go into a lottery. Every time a vacancy comes up, three of them are picked at random. There is also guidance provided about the caliber of lawyer we’re looking for, diversity, etc.

    The panel selects a finalist and the governor has two choices: Appoint or not appoint. If Gov says no, another panel comes forward to start the process again.

    This is not a perfect system. There is no such thing as a perfect system. If the criteria for change is to have a perfect system there will never be change. Clearly, however, this system is much better than what we have in terms of getting more qualified people to the bench and getting diversity on the bench over the long run.

    Voters are cheated right now by being forced to vote for judges who can’t under the existing rules campaign in any reasonable way. They can’t discuss issues as candidates, they can’t distinguish their views from their opponent’s views. It’s a joke trying to figure out which would be a better judge. That is no way to make a decision about something as important as who our judges become.

    Sandra Day O’Connor is right and we in Florida should change in accordance with that advice.

  11. ann says:

    I’m not so sure the current system is about who is able to get out there and get the most contributions.

    If you look at many of the campaign finance reports in judicial elections, you’ll find that candidates are loaning HUGE amounts to their campaigns.

    As a result, we are ending up with not necessarily the most politically connected candidates, but certainly the wealthiest.

  12. fred says:

    I think Ann has hit the nail on the head.

    Who can forget Arlene Simon Campione buying her group 31 seat in 2006 because she was able to loan her campaign $600,000.

  13. The Times They are a Changing says:

    Ah Buddy. Look at the campaign reprts from the candidates who took out incumbents in 2008 and you’ll see what $25k or $50k will get you.

    Who was the consultant that controlled Ian Richards, or Ellen Feld, or Bernie Bober? – I didnt see payments to Dave Brown, Judy Stern, Barbara Miller, etc. by those candidates.

    And which consultants are “controlling” Klitzberg, McLawrence or Sokoloff? I don’t see that either. Dont know all of them well, but they didnt go after a low-hanging hispanic target and they don’t have the $500k you think is necessary to run a campaign. They are just lawyers who think they can do better than the judges they are running against. And there will be many many more of them in 2010 also. And I’ll wager that they’ll be batting at least 500 against sitting judges while being outspent 5 to 1.

    FROM BUDDY: You said it yourself: The three candidates you mentioned picked off “low hanging hispanic” judges. They won because their names were not Hispanic. Period. Bottom line.
    Feld, who ran twice before and spent mucho dinaro in those races, couldn’t get elected against an anglo. Bober is Hispanic, but most of the voters didn’t know that. Richards was the black candidate who hid from everybody during the campaign.
    Feld ran before. She knew something about campaigning.
    Bober’s brother is mayor of Hollywood. He got help from some colleagues who developed campaign skills when the PD Office was a political machine. He also was paying political consultants Jack Shifrel and Ilana Entin.
    Nobody is controlling the three current candidates you mentioned, but they haven’t won yet, either. I hope they can win without professional help. It remains to be seen.

  14. Paul Corbin says:

    The problem is that with Judges coming into office via elections is that there is simple coincidences can lead to perception problems.

    Buddy, you yourself touched on this recently when you wrote about the perception created when Rothstein donated money at the same time Judge Hurley and others were appointed. As you were clear to point out, you know of and made no direct correlation between the two events, the perception of impropriety is still there. In this world unfortunately perception can many times become reality.

    Another example is the case of Defendant John Wachter, Broward County Case #09-5304MM10A. Mr Wachter was represented by Boca Raton attorney Ken Ronan, Esq.

    Mr Wachter was arrested for DUI with a blood alcohol level OVER a 2.0, driving on a rimless tire, open container and failure to obey traffic device. This was Mr. Wachter’s THIRD DUI in 10 years!!!


    Here is the timeline…

    7-22-09: Candidate McLawrence files to run against Judge Seidman.

    7-23-09: Judge Seidman sentences Mr. Wachter to 180 days in the Broward County Jail but did not have to turn himself in until August 13, 2009.

    8-13-09: Judge Seidman grants the oral motion in court filed by attorney Ken Ronan, Esq on behalf of Defendant Wachter to cancel the Jail sentence and lets him serve his sentence instead at a rehabilitation center.

    8-13-09: On this date according to the campaign contribution reports filed by the Seidman reelection campaign that Mr. Ronan donated $250 to the campaign.


    It appears that Mr. Ronan has never donated to a judicial campaign in Broward County prior to August 13, 2009.

    Based on cursory research, it looks like he has not contributed in his home County of Palm Beach either.

    In reviewing Judge Seidman’s campaign reports that he received numerous campaign contributions from drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers. It is unclear if Mr. Wachter ended up at one of these contributing rehabilitation centers.

    As Buddy mentioned here, Judge Seidman was a former Asst State Attorney. Then he was known around the office as the Adjudicator. He had a dot matrix printout 4 feet long above his desk that said “The Adjudicator”. Since he has been on the bench he has had the reputation of a non nonsense Judge who has no problem locking up the bad guys.

    In light of this, how does some man with multiple DUI’s driving around on the rims of his tires, cocktail in hand one evening in Coral Springs, get out of Jail?

    I am not saying there was a quid pro quo between Seidman and Ronan but because we have politician/judges running for election, a potential coincidence like the one above raises serious questions.

    Buddy mentions about certain criminal defense lawyers trying to change things by getting their own elected. One of these is Kevin Kulik, Esq. Former Treasurer to Judge Bober and current treasurer to Judge Seidman. It has been discussed recently that after Judge Bober’s election that Mr. Kulik was frequently coming on cases a co-counsel with other attorneys who had cases before Judge Bober. It is said that recently the State brought a motion to recuse Judge Bober on a case where Mr. Kulik was co-counsel. As Judge Bober stated aloud he thought the Motion was proper, Mr. Kulik quickly left the courtroom and withdrew from the case so the case would not be removed from Judge Bober’s division. Does Judge Seidman recuse himself from cases involving Mr. Kulik? Is Mr. Kulik coming in as “co counsel” on other attorneys cases before Judge Seidman and if so, why?

    Again, I dont claim Judge Seidman or anyone else is doing anything wrong, but because we have politician/judges running for reelection, circumstances such as these raise interesting and disturbing questions.

    Chaz S. needs to look into this

    FROM BUDDY: I actually looked into the case you mentioned. I determined Seidman acted properly. I agree that these questions will always be raised when judges have to run for election, which is the point I was making in the post.
    The clique of like-minded defense attorneys is much broader than Kevin Kulik, although he has been a leading member. He is backing Seidman, but others are backing Seidman’s opponents.

  15. One More Thing says:

    From Buddy: In Broward, a small clique of criminal defense attorneys are trying to reshape the judiciary through elections. Nobody outside the courthouse cares. And if voters thought about this attempted coup taking place, they would be against it. Voters like judges friendly to the prosecution, not the defense.

    Umm — ok, so which clique is that? Kevin Kulick, Tom O’Connell, Brad Collins, et al? Oh wait, those are the same “clique of defense lawyers” who are running Lee Seidman’s campaign. And that same “clique of defense lawyers” are the same ones that have raised him lots of money from the lawyers that appear in front of him (Santa should check that list twice at least).

    The guys that are opposing him are outside of that so-called clique. They aren’t raising the money he raised (dont think Klitzberg has even done his first fundraiser yet) and are putting their own money in and hoofing it all over town to meetings to talk to voters instead. Given that they are running against a creepy dude with no personality, I suspect that they’ve got a good shot of taking the incumbent down this time around.

    So Buddy, since you’ve shot your mouth off about the “clique of defense lawyers” trying to remake the courthouse – do you intend to name names of who they are and which candidates they are supporting this time around? Or are you just going to slander the candidates running against sitting judges in 2010 (so far we’ve got McLawrence, Klitsberg, Perlman and Sokoloff) with that false innuendo.

    FROM BUDDY: I am not slandering anybody.
    I met McLawrence, Klitsberg and Perlman. I believe they would make great judges.
    I don’t know Sokoloff, but I have heard nothing but good things about this candidate, too.
    I remain open to meet with any judicial candidate. I would like to open Browardbeat.com to anyone running for judge (contact me at browardbeat@hotmail.com).
    Kevin Kulick, Tom O’Connell and Brad Collins are surely part of the clique. But it doesn’t stop there. There are lawyers in the PDs office who would like nothing better than to remake the judiciary. There are other lawyers who frequent the courthouse who want new judges.
    This push is largely confined to criminal defense attorneys–a small clique of like-minded people. Sometimes they disagree on which candidates to back or which judge needs removing. By and large, their goal is to change the judiciary.
    This all takes place within the confined of the defense Bar. The public doesn’t care about the judiciary.

  16. The point of it all says:


    After reading the comments by Corbin and your reply the most important thing on this thread is what you said at the top…

    “Maybe you don’t like Lee Seidman. Voters should be able to decide whether he should continue in office.”

    You have made it clear in your reply to Mr. Corbin that you were aware of the the facts of which he spoke and came to your own opinion that nothing improper took place. I do take notice that you dont dispute what Mr. Corbin has written just that in your evaluation of the facts that all is ok. I think this attorney or Seidman should come forward and clear this up and put it to bed. Their silence if any, will only cause speculation to continue.

    FROM BUDDY: Seidman told me he can not comment because the case is still pending before him.
    However, the sentence Seidman imposed was similar to sentences routinely handed out for such an offense, according to three attorneys I questioned.

  17. huy says:

    the public wants fair judges. period. if judges can’t be fair or stand up to the prosecutors? they should be voted out.

  18. nothing improper says:

    So mr nevins
    What journalistic method did you use to confirm that nothing improper occurred when a lawyers first judicial contribution coincides to the day that judge gave his client the break of the year?

    And now that it has your seal of approval, will I start getting calls again from Team Seidman at random (ie, the day before all my hearings in there) asking for donations?


  19. slow news weekend says:

    Buddy is just pulling a jaab. Its a slow news weekend with the xmas holidays and he knows he can pump up his hits and page views writing about seidman. Its a tried and true jaablaw technique.

  20. Someone who knows says:

    Buddy, you are wrong about Sokoloff. She chaged from Rodriguez because she found out that he was competent and well liked. Jack S. is the one who got her to move and told her to go against O’Connor. Nothing but self interest involved.

    FROM BUDDY: I’m not wrong. I wrote that I’ve heard nothing bad about her. Now I’ve heard a different point of view. I don’t know her.

  21. consistent? i think not says:

    Wow, you asked 3 attorneys. Big whoop dee do. Maybe its consistent but how consistent from the adjudicator in any year but election year?

    And still, the sentence being consistent doesn’t address the fact that seidman had already sentenced him to 180 days in jail, a lawyer comes onto the case, the lawyer makes his first judicial campaign contribution ever to this judge, he comes in and makes an oral motion, which gets granted on the same day the donation was made. Stinks like rotten fish. I wonder who made the call to the lawyer and when?

    The sentence isn’t the end issue. Its just the first step in reviewing the contributions.

    I wonder what would be seen if you looked at the other lawyers contributions and their relation to the last hearings they had with the judge. Sounds like a job for chaz stevens, genius, if others don’t want to look into it.

  22. Miami Lawyer says:

    Please we have been talking about getting shanken down in Broward by Steve Melnick and others for Seidman for months on our blog


    Look at 913 pm and beyond.

    Heck being from Dade the only reason we think its so bad is because of the amature way these jokers go about it.

    FROM BUDDY: Excellent point in a very good blog.

    Just one more reason why judges should be appointed and then face merit retention elections.

  23. huh? says:

    buddy what are u talking about in response to miami lawyer’s post? his/her stmt doesn’t support your position. the stmt stands for the proposition that seidman should replaced. God bless Jahra for having the sack to do what all these other cowards in Broward wouldn’t!!!

    No, the comment doesn’t back my position. But if the anonymous comment on the Miami blog is accurate — remember it is anonymous –it is a horrendous example of why judges should be appointed and not run for re-election against candidates.
    The system now is built on campaign cash from lawyers who appear before the same judges who are running. And if Jahra wins, some of these same lawyers will be appearing before him. Does that make for a fair courtroom setting? Won’t he remember that they backed his opponent?
    The system is wrong!

  24. Nate & Jahra says:

    Actually, I think that Jahra and Nate both recognize the lousy system and are trying to go outside it.

    I know from talking to both of them that they don’t begrudge the fact that there are a number of lawyers that feel that they are “required” to cut a check to Seidman in this election, and they both seem like they will let that fact go by when one of them beats him in August or November of 2010.

    I know that I’ve seen Nate at a number of bar events recently even though a major piece of his campaign is that he won’t take money from the lawyers that have appeared in County Court over the past year. He was talking and laughing with some of the same lawyers that wrote a check to the incumbent. I asked him about why he was at events with people he wasn’t taking money from — he said that he’d rather have our votes in August than our checks in December.

    I hope there are 20 Nates and Jahras that decide to run in 2010 and try to change the system. If they all have the passion and desire, I’d give them all a good chance of beating an incumbent.

    Yes, money helps. Yes, TV time would help. But there is a double-edge to those swords. Some judges can spend all the money in the world and have all the time on TV that they want. But if they come across as smarmy, sarcastic, unsympathetic bastards, the name recognition won’t help. I mean, how many “human torch” snafus can you do before people start equating you with negatives, rather than positives. Some elected officials would be better served hiding out rather than being out in public.

    Go Jahra – Go Nate – Go ANYONE with a good mind and soul that wants to rid our county of some jufidical deadwood.

  25. Hanidcapper says:

    Seidman retires from the County bench, gives the seat to the JNC and serves as a reitred judge for a year and then runs against Mike Satz.

  26. annon. says:

    Compare judges that were elected vs appointed. Will you find good judges in both groups? Will you find poor judges in both groups?
    There is no perfect system. We have the best and worst of both systems.

  27. Broward Lawyer says:

    If Seidman retires his seat he is the weasel we all know. Further, if he retires it won’t be to come back to run against Satz. Seidman is a weasel who thought he had a lifetime appointment. Now he is panicking.

  28. Communist Plot says:

    This is just a ploy by attornies to keep the whole thing as a good old boy network. Judges should be held responsible to the electorate. They are not above everyone else.

  29. Dear Communist Plot says:

    Following your logic, US Supreme Court Justices should be on the ballot. They can’t even answer the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questions for good and sound legal reasons. What makes you think they could successfully campaign against an opponent?

    The sad reality is that voters are not informed enough given the rule of law to participate thoughtfully in the election of judges. Judges should be above all independent and ethically beyond reproach. Making them raise campaign funds mostly from the lawyers that would later practice before them is an impossibly unethical proposition.

    Our nation’s founders understood this. That’s why our constitution requires federal judges to be appointed on merit, with advice and consent review. There is no better way to establish a judiciary than in this manner.

  30. disenchanted says:

    judges should be elected in the general election not the primary. the present system lends itself to a small group of condo voters determining the election based more on ehtinicity than ability. if it a 2 person race it should be decided in the general election, only the primary if it more than 2 and the winner needs fifty percent. buddy check with most about the abilities of those who won the last elections and how they are performing on the bench.

  31. annon. says:

    Federal Judges are for life. Florida mandates age retirement.
    Big difference.

  32. not a Sokoloff supporter says:

    No you don’t know Sokoloff. She is nice person, good talker (need boots to walk in the ankle deep talk), and horrible attorney.

    She has tried to get backing from RRA before it crashed by meeting with Ken Jenne for bagels now she is in the circle with the defense attorneys mentioned above.

    We do not need another judge sitting on the bench in Broward County knowing nothing about the law. Is Sokoloff going for family law court? that is all she knows and that is questionable.

    Vote NO for Sokoloff

  33. Lawyer says:

    I thought Sokoloff is running against the hispanic judge rodriguez?

  34. Hey Annon says:

    Yes, federal judges are for life and in Broward they are elected. True.

    So, what are you saying? That it makes sense to appoint judges if they serve for life, but if they serve for terms we should elect them? What kind of logic is that?

  35. Jack Mahogoff says:


    Please go and see Seidman in action one day anonymously. The guy is a power hungry meglomaniac who does not deserve to be on the bench, a fact that you could see for yourself if you spent some time in his courtroom. The fact that he had “The Adjudicator” sign in his office when he was a prosecutor shows his lack of maturity.