Vote for the Minnesota Supreme Court incumbents, NOT Dan Griffith, Tim Tinglestad or Dean Barkley.

What is the hottest political topic in Minnesota right now? You’d think maybe the Nolan-Cravaack race, or the amendments, maybe even the narrowing race between Obama and Romney in the state, right? Well you would be wrong. Based on the elevated number of searches and hits on my site, it is the Minnesota Supreme Court elections in less than two weeks.

I wrote a couple of stories on the problems I see with Dan Griffith before the primary, and both those posts are now number one and number two all-time of my most read posts, each garnering thousands of hits. I hope they are making an impact, because I think the state would be damaged by electing Dan Griffith or Tim Tinglestad. There is another judicial race though that I have not written about, Dean Barkley is challenging Barry Anderson.

Does Dean Barkley intrigue you? He’s the Independent candidate who keeps running and keeps causing problems for Democrats. Barry Anderson may be a former Republican lawyer and appointed by Pawlenty, but don’t forget he ruled for Al Franken against Norm Coleman.

When it comes to judicial races, not just the Supreme Court races, but the 1st District judge races in my area too, I urge voters to just vote for the incumbent judge. I know voting for incumbents goes against many people’s modus operandi, but this year, there are no good challengers for Judge. Dan Griffith and Tim Tinglestad are right-wing hacks who want to use the judicial system to change Minnesota. Dean Barkley doesn’t have the resume. And the local judges in the 1st District are just fine.

If you want more details on each race, check out these stories on:

Dan Griffith: “How Dumb is ‘Shifty Dan’ Griffith

Dean Barkely: “IMHO: Vote for G. Barry Anderson, not Dean Barkley

Tim Tingelstad: “WARNING: Tim Tingelstad is dangerous to Minnesota

Vote for incumbents when it comes to voting for judges on November 6.  Even Republican bloggers are urging that.  See, we can actually agree on something political.


12 thoughts on “Vote for the Minnesota Supreme Court incumbents, NOT Dan Griffith, Tim Tinglestad or Dean Barkley.”

  1. You sound as though you are filled with such venom against Griffith that you can’t see why his incumbent opponent is something of a political issue. What do you have to say about the manner in which she became the Chief Justice in the first place??? Look at who her husband is….T-Paw is also one of her public supporters, according to her election website! . I do not believe that someone should become a judge under these circumstances!

    Furthermore, there is a big difference between “campaigning” WITH/FOR someone and appearing at the same events. Example: perhaps Mr. Griffith was at the same rally or rallies as Tom Emmer, but that doesn’t mean that Griffith campaigned for or with Emmer. (As in, Griffith wasn’t running around promoting Emmer for Gov.)

    Also, do you know much about MN courtrooms? Do you know what judges can be like? I would learn ALL of the surrounding facts re: your accusations of lies by Griffith before slamming him. How about you get his personal response instead of name-calling online? No matter who is right or wrong, that, in my opinion, is very childlike and immature. Sorry, but it is! It does no favors for the side you are supporting. I also think that if Griffith REALLY had such an awful record, surely a major state newspaper, news outlet, or his opponent would have used this information by now.

    Did you know that the Appellate Judge who was Griffith’s opponent in 2010 actually upheld a case where a district court judge took the place of a forensic expert witness and declared that he could tell (just by using his naked ear) whether an audio recording was authentic or not? The district court judge (local level) used this to say the respondent committed perjury. Chief Justice Gildea signed the paper declining a review of this case in the summer of 2010. Look up the case “Freihammer v. Powers” on the MN Supreme Court docket records and also the US Supreme Court records. (This situation also eventually went to Federal Court as well…do a Google search.) There are good judges and bad judges. Until you learn what the courtroom is really like, don’t jump to conclusions about anything a judge says about a particular party or attorney. Oh, yes, and the local judge in the above-noted case also put an HRO on a 20-year-old, in part, because he declared she sent emails–that the judge never saw, the girl never saw, and her attorneys never saw.

    Please go to and read up about Chief Justice Gildea’s opponent. I think we need someone like this man to be our Chief Justice. Especially read the “About Dan” and “Fact vs. Fiction” portions of his website. Among other things in his background which impressed me, he was the winner of the 2008 Legal Services Award for helping the underprivileged. He received strong state-wide voter support in his Appellate race in 2010 (48% of the vote): .

    This is a good read…Griffith responds to criticism (Griffith response is at the end of article): .

    Make an informed choice on November 6!

    1. I’m not sure where you get “venom,” but I’ll just respond that I have met him. I invited him to appear at an event I held. I gave him a few minutes to speak, but I let him talk for almost 15 minutes. Then he stayed after and talked to individuals. He had ample opportunity to impress me, but didn’t.

  2. Perhaps I should have further explained why I said “venom”–you gave a link promoting one of the most insult-filled, name-calling, venom-filled articles I have yet to read during this election year (about “Shifty Dan” on Progressive Project). In all honesty, I would have respected the anonymous person’s opinion more (even I didn’t agree with it) if not for the ridiculous personal insults. Such tactics just don’t sit well with me. I am sure you are an intelligent person and mean well, but I just can’t respect articles like that (I realize you are apparently not the author). Since you gave this link and encouraged people to read it, then I can only assume that you approve of it or at least aren’t bothered by it.

    That’s great that you gave Griffith a chance to speak. You are entitled to your opinion, but I hope we can all agree that civility and respect is needed on both sides of the fence.

  3. Is the left ever interested in a judge who just interprets the law rather than makes it up? This commentary is sad and is an indictment of an educational system that has not taught the basics of american civics and the proper role of our judicial system as the founding fathers envisioned it.

    1. and that is the truth! That is why we need judges like Griffith & Tinglestad…..we need judges that interpret it & we need to dump these judges that make it up as they go along!

  4. After doing some research for Election DayI also plan to vote for Barkley. I also will vote for Griffith…I don’t want a political appointee as my Chief Justice. The MN Constitution says judges “shall be” elected by the people of MN. But the retiring judges have a habit of timing their departures so the gov. has to make an appointment (this info. is per the Star Tribune)…then they also most never get voted out…and they get that “incumbent” tag on the ballot. That’s just wrong, in my opinion. I may not agree with all of Barkley’s personal ideas (and perhaps this could be said about ANY judicial candidate), but personal ideas and feelings, in a good judge, stay OUT of the courtroom. Everyone has some belief system. That includes judges. Their job is not to make laws, but merely apply the existing law, personal beliefs aside. I read on Griffith’s Facebook page that apparently earlier this year, he said in an interview that because of his view of the role of a judge, he could be put the position of deciding a case that goes against his personal beliefs, because the he can only strictly apply the law and not go on personal beliefs. The legislative branch makes the laws.
    I must say that there were at least parts of the marriage amendment/voter ID Supreme Court case that didn’t make sense to me. (For instance, I understood the statute to read that the Sec. of State/Attorney Gen. decides the title on a proposed amendment…didn’t get the why the majority on the Court disagreed? If I could see that-not being a lawyer-then I think that’s scary…really, really scary.) I will vote for Barkley because I appreciate the fact he agrees that judges should be elected by the people, and that it’s just not a good idea to have so many political appointments by govs. on our higher courts. I agree with what Barkley said in this article.

  5. Tim Tingelstad dangerous for Minnesota???!? Tingelstad is what Minnesota needs – a judge who stands for family, Christians, banning abortion & homosexual marriage – the principals America was founded on….we need to get rid of the judges & other politicians who want to get rid of the “In God We Trust” that America was founded on. We need to get rid of Obama & socialism – we need to vote YES on the marriage amendment & the voter ID & YES to Tingelstad!!!!

      1. …”the principals America was founded on”…
        Among those principles is the Freedom of Religion and freedom from religion, which translates into separation of Church and State. Because many of the early colonists came here from England to escape religious persecution, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that didn’t happen here. Maybe you need to go back and study the real history of this country, not history from the Christian perspective.

  6. Hey, just so you know, this “citizen” isn’t me, the original “Citizen” on here. 🙂 Glad to have you “citizen” joining the discussion…just wanted to clarify in case you post in the future. My personal opinion? I think government should stay out of “marriage” all together. COMPLETELY. That’s something probably BOTH sides of the debate might agree on. Since when should government have their nose in what to many people is a religious institution? Seriously? If government stayed out of it (meaning TOTALLY out of both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage) and let the people’s individual religious beliefs/congregations decide what defines “marriage,” that would take care of this debate and the mess that could go along with it. Just a thought and an opinion, nothing more. Maybe take the whole “spouse” thing out of Social Security, benefits, insurance, etc. People could just put down what they wanted…be it your husband/wife (as you see it), sibling, parent, or pet. 🙂 Neither side would be pressured into accepting the personal beliefs of the other. Each person/religious group would have to decide what they believe is morally right or wrong, because government, and therefore the country as a whole, would not be forced into deciding people’s beliefs for them. Just an idea…maybe not a very good one, but an idea.

Comments are closed.