McFadden Receives Endorsements

Received this from the Chris McFadden for Court of Appeals campaign:

Chris McFadden, candidate for Court of Appeals has received the following endorsements from elected officials in Georgia.

Rep Elect BJ Pak
Rep David Casas
Rep James Mills
Rep Elect Buzz Brockway
Rep Ed Lindsey
Rep Elect Josh Clark
Former Rep Robert Mumford
Rep Jan Jones
Rep Chuck Martin
Rep Joe Wilkinson
Rep Mike Jacobs
Rep Ron Stephens
Rep and Labor Commissioner Elect Mark Butler
Rep Matt Dollar
Rep Earl Ehrhart
Rep Elect Lynne Riley
Fulton County Commissioner Elect Liz Hauseman
Former Fulton County Chairman Mike Kenn
Former Secretary of State Karen Handel
Rep Chuck Martin
Sen Elect Fran Millar
Rep Ben Harbin
Sen Jeff Chapman
Rep Don Parsons
Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren
Fayette Clerk of Court Sheila Studdard
Rep Jerry Keen

Don’t forget to vote Tuesday.


  1. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I am always tickled to find that some people will actually cast their vote for a candidate because of an endorsement.

    All in all, endorsements mean nothing. At best an endorsement means that the endorser will likely benefit, somehow, from the endorsee winning the election. I personally have nothing of importance in common with the above listed group of people that endorsed McFadden. Neither do 99% of Georgia voters.

    Push come to shove, this is just a way to tell republicans who the republican in the “non-partisan” race is.

    McFadden has a ton of experience. There is no denying that. I have no idea where McFadden stands on any issue though. His website offers no assistance in that department. His career before the bench and his publications really do not shed any light on how he will make decisions if elected.

    So…are we just supposed to listen to the demagogues listed above or, as is normatively supposed in democratic elections, should we have any substance upon which to make a decision?

    Come to find, McFadden’s opponent, Toni Davis has no positions listed either.

    I do not know the rules governing judicial elections in GA and it may even be that disseminating positions on issues is not permitted in such elections (in which case we may have another issue to visit)…but given all of this I would advocate that people abstain from voting in this runoff.

    After all, how can a decision be reached? There are no reliable cues to follow. Some endorsements and life stories…neither candidate has any serious baggage that would popularly disqualify them from holding office. Abstain. No rational decision can be arrived at and we all know that if you have no serious rationale for casting a ballot for one candidate rather than another you are not engaging in appropriate democratic practice. It also happens to be anti-capitalistic. Would you really buy stock in a company because a republican sheriff told you it was a good idea or would be collect empirical data and come to a conclusion after careful analysis? Which is the correct behavior?


  2. Word says:

    GC – I don’t think any rational person thinks you should vote for someone based completely on their endorsements. You should however, research the candidates back ground, judicial philosophy and qualifications as well as any baggage they may have. The only time you should ever abstain like you are promoting is if you are too lazy to do the necessary research.

    So I guess you are also promoting laziness.

    • Goldwater Conservative says:

      I agree that no rational person would vote for a candidate based purely on endorsements…which says quite a bit about the rationality of GOP primary voters that base their votes on tweets by sarah palin.

      I am not promoting laziness. The calculus is simple:

      p(B) – C > 0

      The probability of obtaining a benefit from an election minus the costs of informing ones self and casting a ballot must exceed 0 for a vote to be rational. Considering that the probability of your vote deciding the election is very near “0” in an election such as this then the cost will drive the left side of that equation below zero with no hope of bringing it back into positive digits. Of course, this is merely the equation to determine whether or not to participate. Throw in a “civil duties” or “good feeling” variable if you like…you are still better off limiting your consumption of information on elections like this if that is the case.

      There is no prospective evaluation that can reliably be made. Retrospectively, both candidates are well qualified, they have very similar backgrounds, and neither has made much of a statement on their judicial philosophy. In all due respect, judicial philosophy does not really mean anything. Judges do not make decisions based on principles of justice, they make decisions based on their attitudes and policy preferences in light of the facts of a case.

      Applying any calculus as to whom one should vote for if they are to vote is a straight forward expected utility function. Again, there are very few people in this state that will benefit from the election of either of these people to the bench…and those people will likely benefit from either candidate in such a way as to have no ability to discern one as being better for them than the other.

      Come on, Word. Be a heartless calculating capitalist. If you refuse to do so why should we have any faith in capitalism at all?

  3. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    I know nothing about this person…he/she is a person, right?

    Which office?

    This is about as stupid as asking voters to tax themselves….STUPID

  4. Jeff says:

    This brings to mind an internal debate that began with Nahmias’ endorsements:

    Should judges be forced to recuse themselves from cases involving parties who openly endorsed – for or against – in their races?

    To me, there just seems to be the appearance that maybe Lady Justice isn’t as blind as she should be in such cases – even if there is no concrete evidence there. Maybe I’m too much of an idealist there, but I want Lady Justice – the courts specifically – to be both absolutely blind to everything but the facts at hand and absolutely Untouchable.

    • macho says:

      I agree with you to an extent, but in GA, we require our Judges to run for election, so there is more of a political element to the job than in other states. Unfortunately, in GA we are a long way from debating your topic; you have Barnes, and his law firm, pleading cases in front of Judges he appointed, which is more flagrant than an endorsement.

  5. B Balz says:

    Chris is running as an Appeals Court Judge, which means that he is reviewing the work of another Judge. If that Judge was biased or made a legal error, it is the job of the Appeals Court to redress that grievance.

    In other words, unless an Appeals Court Judge is ready, willing and able to replicate a previous judicial error, and get away with it, their pol philosophy is irrelevant.

Comments are closed.