The Aug. 6 Court of Appeals Debate -- You Did Good Debra Bernes
The clear winner in my opinion: Debra Bernes.
Although I think Debra Bernes comes out of top in the debate with Mike Sheffield, hear me out. Unlike past races for appellate seats where a generally uninformed public -- and yes and most definitely this includes the Georgia bar, that is, attorneys -- risks the applicable court getting an weak judge because we voters do not have a clue for whom we should vote, in this case either one of these candidates will do a good job if elected.
Based on the debate, I feel vindicated in earlier casting my lot with Ms. Bernes. As I wrote one of my email buddies yesterday, August 5, I spent a lot of time researching my decision to vote for Bernes over Sheffield.
It is not because I am a traditional Southern Democrat that I reached this decision. Rather it is because I am different from many current liberal Democrats who, just because one candidate sucked up to Sadie Fields in returning the survey with his opinions expressed therein, I automatically opt for the other candidate. Rather my vote is determined by my evaluation of who would be the better judge.
As was stated in the debate by both candidates, when a judge is sitting as a judge, the judge is required to set aside the judge's personal beliefs and follow the law. He or she must take off his or her private citizen hat and put on a judge's hat. If the candidate cannot do this, the candidate should not be seeking a judicial position.
As I opined in one of my earlier posts, saying that a candidate would be required to recuse himself/herself because of previously expressed personal views is hogwash.
Unlike situations where an attorney's campaign contributions to a judge or relationship with a judge (such as the judge having been a member of attorney's law firm) can present circumstances that make it impossible for the judge to fairly decide a case -- or be perceived as being as unable to fairly decide a case so as to bring the integrity of the court into question -- any personal and previously disclosed feelings and beliefs about an issue do not automatically result in recusal unless the judge feels that because of such beliefs, the judge would be unable to render a fair and impartial decision.
I feel very comfortable in strongly recommending a vote for Debra Bernes on Tuesday 10. At the same time, I genuinely congratulate both candidates for a fine and honorable showing at the Atlanta Press Club debate. You both did the bar proud.
Although I think Debra Bernes comes out of top in the debate with Mike Sheffield, hear me out. Unlike past races for appellate seats where a generally uninformed public -- and yes and most definitely this includes the Georgia bar, that is, attorneys -- risks the applicable court getting an weak judge because we voters do not have a clue for whom we should vote, in this case either one of these candidates will do a good job if elected.
Based on the debate, I feel vindicated in earlier casting my lot with Ms. Bernes. As I wrote one of my email buddies yesterday, August 5, I spent a lot of time researching my decision to vote for Bernes over Sheffield.
It is not because I am a traditional Southern Democrat that I reached this decision. Rather it is because I am different from many current liberal Democrats who, just because one candidate sucked up to Sadie Fields in returning the survey with his opinions expressed therein, I automatically opt for the other candidate. Rather my vote is determined by my evaluation of who would be the better judge.
As was stated in the debate by both candidates, when a judge is sitting as a judge, the judge is required to set aside the judge's personal beliefs and follow the law. He or she must take off his or her private citizen hat and put on a judge's hat. If the candidate cannot do this, the candidate should not be seeking a judicial position.
As I opined in one of my earlier posts, saying that a candidate would be required to recuse himself/herself because of previously expressed personal views is hogwash.
Unlike situations where an attorney's campaign contributions to a judge or relationship with a judge (such as the judge having been a member of attorney's law firm) can present circumstances that make it impossible for the judge to fairly decide a case -- or be perceived as being as unable to fairly decide a case so as to bring the integrity of the court into question -- any personal and previously disclosed feelings and beliefs about an issue do not automatically result in recusal unless the judge feels that because of such beliefs, the judge would be unable to render a fair and impartial decision.
I feel very comfortable in strongly recommending a vote for Debra Bernes on Tuesday 10. At the same time, I genuinely congratulate both candidates for a fine and honorable showing at the Atlanta Press Club debate. You both did the bar proud.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 7:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home