Judge Russell Fagg May Say He’s not “Running” for Senate, but the Internet Says Differently

You need a magnifying glass to see the fine print

As frequent readers of this blog know, I have a fundamental problem with a sitting judge running for a partisan office.

As a lifelong Democrat, I am inherently fearful of coming before a judge who may or may not be looking for a partisan donation, letter to the editor, or endorsement.  I’d be happy to trade my endorsement for less parking tickets, but I don’t think that’s what “Equal Justice Under the Law” etched above the Supreme Court means…

I was watching the news the other day when I saw KXLH’s Mike Dennison’s story on sitting District Court Judge Russ Fagg.  You see, despite raising money, giving campaign speeches, marching in parades, and sitting down for interviews with top political reporters, Judge Fagg continues to claim he is just exploring a run for Senate.

If he’s “exploring” a run for Senate, I am exploring being a blogger.  Just look at his sleek campaign wesbite:

You need a magnifying glass to see the fine print

Let’s ignore, for a second, the ethical lapses.  Let’s ignore the fundraising.  Let’s ignore the speeches.  Heck, let’s ignore the interviews.  If President Trump has taught us anything it’s that  only Twitter can dispel the #FAKENEWS.

Well, Russell seems to be showing his hand a bit on the social media front.  Russell can insist he’s not made up his mind all he wants, but twitter tells a different story.

Maybe tweet at him and he will tell you the truth.


4 Comments on "Judge Russell Fagg May Say He’s not “Running” for Senate, but the Internet Says Differently"

  1. So post a link to his twitter feed and we can annoy him easier. I mean…his last name could pose a problem with the twitter search thingy.

  2. There was a crooked man, and he had a crooked smile.

  3. First of all, any of the biases real or perceived exist when a judge runs for a non-partisan position, like say an elected judge. If you want to eliminate that problem you need to appoint judges, it has nothing to do with partisanship.

    Second, this game of running/exploring/not running is played by poli’s on both sides of the isle and unless you want to condemn the next Dem that does the same thing I have a problem calling someone out for standard practice even if I don’t agree with his viewpoints. Let’s focus instead on his record and positions for his inevitable run instead of wringing our hands and complaining that he might be a candidate.

  4. Fact! Nine years of Republican control . Do we need anymore FACTS?

Comments are closed.