I'm voting and need help re: Court of Appeal nominees

I've filled out all but two columns on one side of one page of my ballot,
but I must confess to knowing little about the Court of Appeal nominees in
the second and third columns of the first page of ballot two. (BTW, I
supported Cantil Sakauye and Carlos Moreno and opposed Ming Chin for Supreme
Court, in case you wondered.)

So does anyone have any opinion on the Court of Appeal nominees? I tend to
care only that they be qualified, as judges at this level ought to be
following precedent, as opposed to the Supreme Court that often sets
precedent. But if anyone has any feedback, I'd appreciate it.



  I'm sorry I haven't researched these folks and don't have any advice
on which if any of them deserve your vote. However, my rule is when in
doubt vote NO, not yes! Or if some of the individuals to be voted on
are incumbents and others aren't, vote for the non-incumbents. All
else being equal, frequent turnover among people in positions of power
is desirable.

  Favoring the appointment rather than the election of judges suggests
that you trust politicians to make wiser decisions than voters. All
the shortcomings of voters notwithstanding, that approach seems to me
at odds with what we know about the nature of power.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

I tend to vote against incumbent legislators and executives, even when it
means connecting the line for write-in without having a name to write in.
But I do believe that people are inherently good (I don't think
libertarianism works without that assumption), and that it's the political
process that corrupts them, so getting politics out of the judiciary seems
like the best solution to me. It's not that I think the elected officials
who appoint the judges are wiser. On the contrary, I think they screw up
quite a bit, which is a good thing. So when a Bush appoints a Souter
thinking he'll be a reliable Republican vote, it's possible that he can be
wrong, and once the confirmation is done, and the Souter starts voting with
the Democrats with regularity, there's nothing the Bush or his cronies can
do about it. That could never happen if Supreme Court justices were
elected. For instance, if we didn't have election (or "approval" by ballot)
of state Supreme Court justices in California, we still would not have the
death penalty. Talk about an over-reliance on the "wisdom" of the State...

Anyway, thanks to all for the advice, but I finished my ballot and sealed it
up and mailed it this morning.