Not one Day as a Judge ever, and why we should keep it that way!

Most of us that aren’t living full time in fantasyland realize that judges usually evolve from the supply of lawyers. Good prosecutors prosecute people accused of committing crimes and good defense attorneys defend people accused of committing crimes. There are countless other areas of legal specialty but because of Mr. McBride’s employment history, we’ll look at these two areas as background for becoming a judge.

It’s unlikely many would argue that either a competent prosecutor or a competent defense attorney should be prohibited from becoming a judge simply because of their past work history.

The issues that should be examined in deciding who would make a good judge should include knowledge of the law, ability to be impartial in deciding cases, a judicial temperament, honesty, integrity. Since judicial positions are supposed to be non-partisan, the ability to follow the law and make impartial decisions is imperative.

How many times have you heard it said that a judge “went native” after they were elected, usually conservatives talking about judges they believe are acting too liberal. Maybe the judges realize that they are no longer in a partisan position and want to be impartial and apply the law rather than advocate their personal beliefs as they had in their previous lives.

You can observe some of this in the current Attorney General. Some of the wingnuts in the Republican party don’t believe JB Van Hollen is being Conservative enough or Republican enough. A couple of local media or media wannabe personalities come to mind on this.

Two fairly reliable indications of how a person will act in the future are what they said and how they acted in the past. Let’s look first at some of the things Bucher said in the past and see if that gives us any insight into how he would act in the future. Then in another session, we’ll examine some of the man’s actions as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney to see what insight that provides.

And it would be nice if the actions mirror the talk, yes?

Paul Bucher circa 2001:
"I can't imagine why they would think it (the Chmura case) would be a negative," Bucher said, insisting that the only feedback he's received has been very positive. "It depends on what spin you want to put on it."

"The party can do what the party wants," Bucher snapped. "I'm going to do what Paul Bucher wants to do."

He didn't return my phone call Monday, but he once made a public point of saying he'd spend the rest of his career "prosecuting bad guys."


I am not only the most experienced attorney you will find on the criminal overtones of running campaigns, but I was also an elected official for 10 terms, never having an opponent!" (Bucher's emphasis) Does this mean he’s NEVER won an election?

He also said. "if you are running for office for your own personal gain, you do not belong in office."

"A lot of people thought I was going to use it as a springboard to something else," he said. "But I kept telling people, 'This is what I want to do.' "

"When we first started to talk to him," Gatzke said, "I asked, 'Are you going to have any difficulty in handling criminal defense matters? He said, 'No.'

There are so many insightful statements made by Bucher that it may take one more posting to give an accurate portrayal of what he said and then a follow up of what he has actually done and in conclusion a reconciliation of talk and walk.