Hey, there! Log in / Register
Wu makes endorsement in court race, and it's not the candidate who currently shares the fifth floor at City Hall with her
By adamg on Mon, 06/03/2024 - 2:48pm
Mayor Wu today endorsed Allison Cartwright for one of those election positions that long ago ceased having any policy issues on which we could judge candidates: clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County:
In a moment where our independent judiciary is more important than ever, I'm excited to endorse a supremely qualified, honest, and hardworking candidate for Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court.
Attorney Allison Cartwright has decades of legal experience as a lawyer and leader within the court system, ensuring that families have access to justice. From working in the Dorchester District Court during law school, to launching her career with the Roxbury Defenders, to her current work at CPCS, Allison knows the ins and outs of the legal system and its impact on community.
There is no more qualified candidate to undertake this very important responsibility of upholding the law fairly and impartially for all community members.
Cartwright is running against current at-large City Councilor Erin Murphy, whose background is as a BPS teacher and city councilor. Both hope to replace Maura Doyle, who is retiring and who, like Cartwright, had actual legal experience for the job, which involves overseeing managing appeals that, at least initially, are heard by a single justice of the state's highest court, as well as overseeing the management of court records.
In addition to Boston voters, voters in Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop get to pick a new clerk this fall.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why is this position an elected one?
She wants a job on the public payroll but keeps her Tweets protected?
Odd.
Out of all the potential political issues I might care about
The protected status of a candidate's Twitter account has gotta be near the absolute bottom of that list. If anything, it's probably better that individuals aren't using social media to make official statements as public officials.
It's not a political issue
She has no obligation to make her Tweets open to all and she can delete her account tomorrow if she likes, but keeping it protected while seeking public office just makes it suspicious to me.
A Twitter account can tell a lot about an individual.
How many times have we had politicians say crazy shit on Twitter?
Also, my post wasn't trying to convince anyone to care or not, I was speaking for myself.
I really don't see what's 'suspicious' about that
She doesn't want her private Twitter account to be a public representation of her, so she keeps it private, the same way most people don't publish their group texts or their family Christmas newsletter.
Is it possible she's saying some real unhinged stuff there? I guess, but you could say that about literally any candidate who isn't letting everyone read their diary or listen to their phone calls or any other private correspondence.
FWIW
The entire point of Twitter is to be public. If you are using Twitter the same way one might use a family group chat or email, you're being foolish.
I don't care much about this but do question when politicians suddenly want to reset the clock on all their prior public statements. If your views have changed, that's fine, but at least explain why you've changed.
It's very clearly not the entire point
given that Twitter has the ability to lock down your account and posts so that they can only be seen by a private group. If you're doing that, you're clearly using it as intended since it's functionality baked into the product!
I don't use Twitter personally these days, but when I did I had an account that I only used for following other people and very occasionally sharing a post with my close friends and family. The idea that that's somehow suspicious seems extremely bizarre and fairly arbitrary!
well, as you know
since the mayor was mentioned in this story, this comment section is legally obligated to find something to complain about
Thanks, Wu!
.
Cartwright?!?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFKb3wA-qJQ
I love a good proxy war
Erin! Erin! Erin!
Another power grab
Wu now has direct control of the BPDA staff, all aspects of city's development and zoning process, and fired the head of the Landmarks Commission because she called attention to the administration's violation of state law. Her compliant allies on the city council won't even hold a hearing on expanding free admission to museums to charter and parochial school students.
Hearing
Be sure to invite the people who fun the free museum program and decided that it’s for BPS only: not the city but Jim and Cathy Stone, Highland Street Foundation, Barbara and Amos Hostetter, Barr Foundation, and Amazon.
As long as we're discussing
As long as we're discussing the SJC and the Mayor, I'd like to remind everybody how the current sitting justice of the SJC, Kimberly Budd, illegally made a political endorsement of then-City Council President and Acting Mayor Kim Janey in her campaign to become Mayor.
Kim Janey threw herself a transparently messed up campaign event, and Budd obliged by stepping in front of a camera and officially "swearing in" Kim Janey as "Mayor of Boston" which was horseshit in legal terms, and Budd certainly was aware of how the city charter works, but she still participated in the charade.
Allison's a nice lady and a good lawyer
To the extent that the SJC clerk has any discretion, she will make the right decisions.
I love that the position is elected, it's quaint Boston.