This will be the Adler line. But it is true only as far as it goes. Adler has somewhat more experience but in no way is Devin inexperienced nor is Adler so spectacular that he blows Devin away. In essence you are correct that Adler has more experience, but you exaggerate his experience and under-rate Devin's. I am honest. Adler has an edge when it comes to experience, though they are both qualified. But this is the one single advantage Adler has over Devin.

Not to put too fine a point on it, though, one also has to look at what KIND of experience. No matter how extensive his record of advocating against marriage equality (one of his touted amicus briefs) or defending Clarence Norman (who is now in jail) I don't consider that experience that I want in a judge. Are you including these in the judicial experience you are touting? Sure, the Conservative Party went to him when they wanted to knock down marriage equality. And becuase he wanted help from them (by his own admission) he paid the contributions and did the work. Sure, Clarence Norman went to him when he was arrested on corruption charges. And because he wanted help from the machine Adler paid the price and took the case, though even Adler's "extensive" experience couldn't get Norman off. I don't want a lawyer who is experienced in this kind of case.

Nor do I want someone who is so tied up so completely with what most people admit is a corrupt political process in Brooklyn, paying to play in a sense. I was reasonably kind regarding his service for the Conservative Party and Clarence Norman as well as his admission that his donations are linked to who can help him. Others interpreted his answer to my question regarding his contributions as a bald admission that he is trying to buy a judgeship. I am willing to go easier on Adler and blame the system as much as I blame Adler himself. But it is still an ugly admission on his part, basically admitting he is willing to go along with a bad system if it gets him where he wants to go. Is this the experience you are touting? Is this kind of back scratching what you see as making a good judge? Personally, I don't. I see it as a real problem.

As to "judicial temperment," since I have only seen the workings of a court twice, both times as a juror, I can't judge this as well as others. So I am going on my gut reaction that Adler behaved impatient amd arrogant while Devin is well recognized for his ability to listen to people and be fair. Again, what kind of judges do we want? Adler came off poorly while he was asking for our help. How will he come off when people are intimidated by the whole process and, plaintiff or defendent, need a reassuring judge to get them through it?

Yes I am biased. I am up front about that. But that is why I wanted to hear the guy out and find out others' reactions to him before I wrote this. I have had the story on the contributions (sent to me by others but then checked by me) for weeks. But I waited to hear him out.