Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (135)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (74)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (70)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (60)
- Universal health care solves big problems (54)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (35)
- Stuck in neutral? Hardly! (35)
- Words from our forefathers (27)
- City of Lodi staff looking into possibility of limiting number of taco trucks (24)
- Majority cannot deprive the minority (24)
ADVERTISEMENT
Drivon has experience, age on his side
Saturday, May 31, 2008 6:33 AM PDT
We've talked, off the record, to several lawyers and judges about the candidates running for Judge on Tuesday and all agree there are two very qualified candidates leading the field — David Drivon and James Morris.
Those we've spoken to seem about evenly split between these two. We would favor David Drivon for two reasons.
Drivon is the only candidate in the race who has extensive experience in both criminal and civil law. Morris has only limited criminal law experience and would have to do some boning up to get current on criminal court procedures. Drivon is up to speed now.
Drivon, 48, is also considerably younger than Morris, who is 62. Morris would argue he is more experienced because he has practiced law longer than Drivon and he has pledged to serve 15 years in office before retiring.
However Drivon would not reach even standard retirement age for 17 years and has said he'll serve 20, before claiming his pension.
We think David Drivon would be a fine choice for Superior Court Judge.
— Lodi News-Sentinel
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
dogbark wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:48 PM:
It galls me when a judge dismisses the citizens comments by stating "this is a sworn officer" (how can that still be tossed out so blythely after 30 years of complaints about Baxter and his "sworn" cronies finally proving to be the truth?) Or right here in lovable-livable, the top cop gets to say "I can't remember" to shield he and his partner from grand jury probing? The citizen may NOT know the minutia of the law, but often they do know what happened. They should be listened to with impartiality by the judges. "
papercut wrote on May 31, 2008 4:36 PM:
dyan wrote on May 31, 2008 9:45 AM:
judy wrote on May 31, 2008 6:39 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.