Justice Fairhurst's ad on the blog horsesass.org claims that she is "committed to protecting everyone's basic rights." But her record would suggest that just the opposite is true, no matter what is meant by the expression "basic rights."
Let's assume that when she refers to her committment to protecting "basic" rights, she means Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court is usually called upon to define and apply the Constitutional rights. They are pretty basic, and as our state Constitution says, a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the preservation of individual liberty and free government.
If basic rights include free speech, which they do, then why did she vote to censor or punish free speech in three cases?
If basic rights include actual notice that the government is going to select your property for condemnation, which they do, then why did she rule that posting an announcement on the agency website was adequate notice?
If basic rights include access to public records, which they do, then why has she consistently voted to conceal public records, and why did she most recently agree to characterize public records as "contraband"?
If basic rights prohibit the government from granting special privileges to corporations, which they do, then why did she vote to approve monopoly rights to two corporations?
And the list goes on. Too often Justice Fairhurst has failed to protect even the most basic of citizen rights. It is time for a change in Olympia. Vote Bond for Justice.