Family Court Judge Drew Crislip is a blogger. In his latest entry he speaks from the heart on his feelings about losing the Primary Election.
It is worth reading just to remind ourselves that many office holders and candidates treat their pursuits with genuine sincerity and with a desire to serve. The rejection at the polls is a big disappointment to them personally. They put out a tremendous effort in time and money to educate the public and to seek the public’s permission to continue their work.
The losing candidates also deserve our thanks for making the effort.
Filed under: A Few Great Men, Elected Officials, Voting
boo hoo hoo for drew
we should play nice.
He is a good man who deserves respect.
After reading the Judge Crislip blog, there appears to be a discrepancy in the amount of dollars expended for the election and reported on his blog. No one spent over $100,000.00 so the statement that his opponent (C. Reep) did this does not appear to be accurate. All candidates must file with the WV Sec of State the expenses incurred. $100,000.00 is a far cry from the actual expenditures submitted by C. Reep.
Dandy, You made me do a quick check. The post Primary Election financial reports must be filed with the Secretary of State between May 26 and May 30. The pre-primary reports would have been filed by now, of course.
In his mind, Judge Crislip can do no wrong. His loss had to be because of Ms. Reep’s campaign expenditures, not the fact that he tortured litigants and attorneys alike with his longwinded diatribes, hateful cross-examinations (yes, not usually the role of a judge), and pontifications on morality. I am confident that more than 50 percent of the people leaving his courtroom were unhappy, and it has little to do with his application of the law but with his condescension and disrepect. It was time for this demigod to leave the throne.
Yes, how dare anyone bring morality into a Family Court. Yes, 50% of the people leaving the court are probably unhappy because they didn’t get their own way. Had they applied some moral code of ethics to their own lives, perhaps they would not have been in need of family court in the first place. From my perspective, I believe Drew Crislip has been a fair judge and has always acted in the best interest of children.
We don’t need to bring morality into any government court. Keep morality at home and in the community. The courts have a job to do.
We need courts to look at contracts, or understandings, and the facts of the circumstances.
“We, the people” further compromised our moral bearings when we took up the state’s kind offer to care for our families’ matters. Our values then became pasteurized, homogenized, and indistinguishable from the state judges fortified by an army of state licenced and court appointed physicians, economists, social workers, puritans, psychologists, and educators. All the viilage elders get a swing at the pinata — your family and your values –with their pseudoscientific club laced with the ‘best and latest family practice protocols’. The state injures and controls all involved — one side moreso than the other. Wow, that sounds attractive.
And exciting — like gambling at the slots. So, guess who comes out ahead at the casinos?
Keep the villagers, with their proxy holding the pitchforks and feelings and textbooks, away from the courtroom and the jury — their heavy, dirty boots are stepping all over understandings and values and families.
As one who is aware of Mr. Crislip’s degrading treatment of others in his court, it amazes me to read his blog. Apparently he has no idea how he has impacted people. Ask him about the video tapes that mysteriously disappear when he doesn’t want people to see how he has spoken offensively to those who have appeared in his court to the point of tears. There may be some legal ramifications he needs to answer to as as well as grieving his defeat.
Let me tell you, I have been in the court room on business, and I personally think Drew was extremely fair. I filled in as a judge a few times after I went to law school, and trust me, It changes your perspective. He has never spoken offensively to anyone. It may sound like it when you are in court or you have talked to someone that was in court, but trust. He wouldn’t let anything slip from his mouth that is truly offensive. When you’re in court, you’re only happy if the judge rules in favor of you. So naturally, if you lose you are unhappy, and the other way if you win. However, sometimes WINNING involves coming back to court, where other results may unfold, making that person unhappy. Probably 30% of people who go to any judge are happy. The other 70% will be a mix of the good people (“He/she was fair, did a good job, etc.) and the ungrateful people (“He/she should go to hell, is extremely disrespectful, does a horrible job, should lose elections, etc.) In all respect, people should actually learn something true about the courts before they say something. Its logic.