by Sean McManus
Staff Writer
A small turnout didn’t discourage judicial candidates Dan Wilensky, David Gooding and John Cascone from spending almost two hours at a round table discussion at the Neptune Beach Senior Activities Center last week. Gregg McCaulie, who is the incumbent running against Cascone, declined to attend the event.
John Thomas, a political commentator for WJCT, was the moderator. The forum was organized by Leslie Lyne, the director of the Center on Forest Avenue, a single-story building in the woods with pool tables, a juke box and a large screen television.
Before the event , Wilensky said seniors were integral to any political campaign because they, more than any demographic, care about the issues.
“They’ve lived through the political changes,” said Wilensky. “They know the importance of the judiciary.”
But that was really the last of any discussion on specific senior issues. There was a brief introduction by Lyne, a former Neptune Beach City Council member who reminded the audience that the position of judge, from her perspective, is the most powerful position in politics.
Thomas opened the program by telling the audience that judicial candidates are confined by what they can say during a campaign, that they are required not to affiliate with a particular party and that while some of the rules have relaxed recently — such as identifying yourself as pro-life or pro-choice — discussion of any current pending law is out of bounds. Any campaign promises or pledges are also not allowed.
Gooding identified himself as a conservative who believes in “traditional American values.” He believes that judges should not be legislating from the bench and that “common sense” needs to be reintroduced into society. Gooding’s father, Judge Marion Gooding, became well-known when he censored an Elvis Presley concert at the Florida Theatre in 1956. Gooding said he aspired to be like his father, before rattling off a list of endorsements that included City Council president Jerry Holland and former mayor Ed Austin.
Wilensky was a clerk for Florida Supreme Court Justice James Adkins and has worked in private practice. He has been a mediator and said he has handled over 1,000 mediations, mostly in the field of family law. Wilensky is the recipient of the Tobias Simon Pro Bono Service Award, which is the highest honor given in Florida for time spent providing free legal services.
Wilensky also made a point to tell the audience he was a founding member of the Grove House, a home for mentally disabled seniors. He currently serves on the board there.
John Cascone, who is a lawyer in Fernandina Beach, said he’s been called everything from a “flaming liberal” to a “far right conservative.” He’s practiced mostly criminal defense law for the last 18 years and some family law, he said. One major case he cited as evidence of his experience was when he sued the Nassau County Sheriff’s Office for not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“We brought them screaming into the courtroom. And we won,” said Cascone. “I believe in family values, law enforcement and good government. And I love practicing law, so if I lose, I’ll still love what I do.”
Thomas asked the panel to comment on whether it was a difficult decision to run for judge because an attorney can potentially make more money than a judge.
Each candidate replied they would be more fulfilled working for others, rather than themselves.
“One of my first cases many years ago was suing Ford because of the defective Pinto,” said Wilensky. “And many times these suits are a way to use the law to help people. But I know that I can do the greatest good as a judge.”
Gooding said he would rather be significant than successful — something he learned from his dad, while Cascone said life should be about service.
Judge Frederick Tygart’s recent decision to reverse the jury’s verdict in the case of former Jacksonville Jaguars offensive lineman Jeff Novak, was referenced as an example of the power of the judiciary and raised questions about what happens when a judge disagrees with a jury.
None of the candidates were able to take a stance regarding specific cases, but each indicated that every case must be examined carefully before a decision is made. The case of the dog mauling death in San Francisco, the death penalty and immigration also were discussed.
One audience member said she thought it was ridiculous that people who can’t read or write are allowed to vote but not “play Little League.”
“That’s what I’m talking about with common sense,” said Gooding.