Ga. Court of Appeals: Bernes, Sheffield & (not Tom, Dick or Harry) Mead, Part I. -- The prior debate, State Bar Poll; "the" questionnaire; etc.
To be careful here, let me be very particular.
Bernes, as in Debra Bernes.
Sheffield, as in Mike Sheffield.
Mead, as in Howard Mead (and not Tom, not Dick, not Harry on any ballots, please).
_______________
With all due respect to Messrs. Bill Shipp, Phil Kent, Jim Wooten and other very knowledgeable and distinguished laymen who are very opinionated about the manner in which the Georgia electorate should choose its judges, the manner in which Howard Mead has conducted his race for a seat on Georgia Court of Appeals makes me long for the days of yesteryear.
But before visiting this current sad state of affairs, this Part I will recall the big news back in August about "the" questionnaire that the Christian Coalition sent to all judicial candidates; the debate between Round 2 runoff candidates Bernes and Sheffield, etc. -- background stuff if you will for Round 3, courtesy of judicial candidate Howard Mead.
_______________
A 08-06-04 post noted the following:
From the 8-6-04 ajc:
The Court of Appeals candidates comment on "the" questionnaire:
Debra Bernes from Marietta:
During the campaign, Bernes declined to answer a Christian Coalition questionnaire that sought candidates' views on U.S. Supreme Court decisions on hot-button social issues such as abortion, homosexual conduct and school vouchers. She said she was concerned her answers might force her to recuse herself if such issues came before the court.
"When you start expressing opinions, it begins to look like you're making campaign promises," she said.
Bernes said she considered herself neither liberal nor conservative. "I'll fairly and impartially decide each and every case," she said."
Mike Sheffield from Lawrenceville:
Sheffield said he would be a conservative judge and called himself the "Georgia values" candidate. He had not hesitated to express his opinion about a number of prominent social issues, such as his opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
He noted he was the only candidate among six in the Appeals Court race to answer the Christian Coalition's questionnaire.
Sheffield said he answered the questionnaire because he believed the issues were unlikely to come before the Court of Appeals. He also cited court decisions allowing judicial candidates to speak more freely when running for election.
"I thought it was important . . . to let the voters know how I stand on these issues," he said.
[Sid comments: I will vote for Bernes, and am proud to have voted for Justice Sears on July 20. Although Sears used the same reason as Bernes for not sending back the questionnaire -- she might have to recuse or disqualify herself from hearing a case if it came before the Court -- I don't buy this. Sheffield uses the same logic by saying he answered the questionnaire because he does not he believe the issues were likely to come before the Court of Appeals. Hogwash on this line of reasoning by Sears, Bernes and Sheffield.The correct reason for not answering the questionnaire is found in the other reason Bernes gave: "When you start expressing opinions, it begins to look like you're making campaign promises."]
_____________
And about "the" questionnaire:
From a 08-05-04 post:
[O]n my website under recent quotables I noted . . .
MORE DEBATES SPONSORED BY THE GEORGIA PRESS CLUB:
-- 7:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 6: The non-partisan runoff for the Georgia Court of Appeals between Debra Bernes and Mike Sheffield. Friends, this race needs our attention.
July 25 -- Seasoned and knowledgeable Dick Pettys of the AP has a good article posted 7-25-04 (I saw it in the Macon Telegraph) entitled "Is Christian right losing its punch in Georgia politics?" that takes us back on memory lane to days of 1988 and Pat Robertson. You need to read this article.
One point that Dick does not make, though, was made in ajc's Political Insider dated 7-22-04 on the Christian Coalition in the context of Court of Appeals candidate Mike Sheffield, and is the reason that this group can never be overlooked:
SAYS SADIE FIELDS: PLAYING BALL WITH THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL GET YOU 200,000 VOTES -- BUT NOT A SUPREME COURT SEAT
Sadie Fields, executive director of the Georgia Christian Coalition, sets her organization's value at 204,899 votes -- roughly 16 percent of all ballots cast on Tuesday.
That's the number of votes that Mike Sheffield got in the six-way state Court of Appeals race. Sheffield and Grant Brantley, the unsuccessful candidate for the state Supreme Court, were the only two statewide judicial candidates who cooperated with the Christian Coalition's summer questionnaire. Their glossy photographs appeared on half a million fliers distributed in hundreds of churches across the state.
Brantley had his own problems, but he had his own resources, too, so it's difficult to determine what oomph the Coalition provided.
But Sheffield is a Democrat, who had no money and little other exposure in the campaign, other than the Christian Coalition fliers.
'That's the watermark for me,' Fields said.
_______________
And then the Debate, discussed in a 08-06-04 post entitled "The Aug. 6 Court of Appeals Debate -- You Did Good Debra Bernes."
I am going to post the 08-06-04 post in its entirety because of its relevance -- in particular the last sentence saying "You both did the bar proud." -- to what is going on now in what has been deemed unethical conduct by a candidate. It follows:
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.
_______________
And of course we all recall the rest, leading up to Round 3 that has been going on this past week and will conclude (supposedly) on Nov. 2.
But before leaving this post to do Part II, let's recall the State Bar polling results posted on a 08-05-04 post entitled "The facts ma’am, only the facts -- Part I (Court of Appeals race)" (WITH THE ADDITION TO SUCH POST OF THE DATE ON HOWARD MEAD):
The State Bar of Georgia polls its members in contested appellate races to aid Georgia voters in making informed decisions.
The complete results of the poll can be seen at this website. Attorneys rate the judicial candidates under four categories -- well qualified, qualified, not qualified and lack of sufficient knowledge to express opinion. These results are hereby incorporated (OK, this is for legal reasons), but below I give the names of four candidates, followed by the number of well qualified each of the four candidates received:
Grant Brantley 10702
Leah W. Sears 328
Debra H. Bernes 650
Michael M. Sheffield 267
Howard Mead 175*
(* As noted above, this post is updated, and the results for Howard Mead were not included in the initial 08-05-04 post since he was not one of the top two vote getters that we anticipated would be in the runoff.)
Bernes, as in Debra Bernes.
Sheffield, as in Mike Sheffield.
Mead, as in Howard Mead (and not Tom, not Dick, not Harry on any ballots, please).
_______________
With all due respect to Messrs. Bill Shipp, Phil Kent, Jim Wooten and other very knowledgeable and distinguished laymen who are very opinionated about the manner in which the Georgia electorate should choose its judges, the manner in which Howard Mead has conducted his race for a seat on Georgia Court of Appeals makes me long for the days of yesteryear.
But before visiting this current sad state of affairs, this Part I will recall the big news back in August about "the" questionnaire that the Christian Coalition sent to all judicial candidates; the debate between Round 2 runoff candidates Bernes and Sheffield, etc. -- background stuff if you will for Round 3, courtesy of judicial candidate Howard Mead.
_______________
A 08-06-04 post noted the following:
From the 8-6-04 ajc:
The Court of Appeals candidates comment on "the" questionnaire:
Debra Bernes from Marietta:
During the campaign, Bernes declined to answer a Christian Coalition questionnaire that sought candidates' views on U.S. Supreme Court decisions on hot-button social issues such as abortion, homosexual conduct and school vouchers. She said she was concerned her answers might force her to recuse herself if such issues came before the court.
"When you start expressing opinions, it begins to look like you're making campaign promises," she said.
Bernes said she considered herself neither liberal nor conservative. "I'll fairly and impartially decide each and every case," she said."
Mike Sheffield from Lawrenceville:
Sheffield said he would be a conservative judge and called himself the "Georgia values" candidate. He had not hesitated to express his opinion about a number of prominent social issues, such as his opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
He noted he was the only candidate among six in the Appeals Court race to answer the Christian Coalition's questionnaire.
Sheffield said he answered the questionnaire because he believed the issues were unlikely to come before the Court of Appeals. He also cited court decisions allowing judicial candidates to speak more freely when running for election.
"I thought it was important . . . to let the voters know how I stand on these issues," he said.
[Sid comments: I will vote for Bernes, and am proud to have voted for Justice Sears on July 20. Although Sears used the same reason as Bernes for not sending back the questionnaire -- she might have to recuse or disqualify herself from hearing a case if it came before the Court -- I don't buy this. Sheffield uses the same logic by saying he answered the questionnaire because he does not he believe the issues were likely to come before the Court of Appeals. Hogwash on this line of reasoning by Sears, Bernes and Sheffield.The correct reason for not answering the questionnaire is found in the other reason Bernes gave: "When you start expressing opinions, it begins to look like you're making campaign promises."]
_____________
And about "the" questionnaire:
From a 08-05-04 post:
[O]n my website under recent quotables I noted . . .
MORE DEBATES SPONSORED BY THE GEORGIA PRESS CLUB:
-- 7:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 6: The non-partisan runoff for the Georgia Court of Appeals between Debra Bernes and Mike Sheffield. Friends, this race needs our attention.
July 25 -- Seasoned and knowledgeable Dick Pettys of the AP has a good article posted 7-25-04 (I saw it in the Macon Telegraph) entitled "Is Christian right losing its punch in Georgia politics?" that takes us back on memory lane to days of 1988 and Pat Robertson. You need to read this article.
One point that Dick does not make, though, was made in ajc's Political Insider dated 7-22-04 on the Christian Coalition in the context of Court of Appeals candidate Mike Sheffield, and is the reason that this group can never be overlooked:
SAYS SADIE FIELDS: PLAYING BALL WITH THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL GET YOU 200,000 VOTES -- BUT NOT A SUPREME COURT SEAT
Sadie Fields, executive director of the Georgia Christian Coalition, sets her organization's value at 204,899 votes -- roughly 16 percent of all ballots cast on Tuesday.
That's the number of votes that Mike Sheffield got in the six-way state Court of Appeals race. Sheffield and Grant Brantley, the unsuccessful candidate for the state Supreme Court, were the only two statewide judicial candidates who cooperated with the Christian Coalition's summer questionnaire. Their glossy photographs appeared on half a million fliers distributed in hundreds of churches across the state.
Brantley had his own problems, but he had his own resources, too, so it's difficult to determine what oomph the Coalition provided.
But Sheffield is a Democrat, who had no money and little other exposure in the campaign, other than the Christian Coalition fliers.
'That's the watermark for me,' Fields said.
_______________
And then the Debate, discussed in a 08-06-04 post entitled "The Aug. 6 Court of Appeals Debate -- You Did Good Debra Bernes."
I am going to post the 08-06-04 post in its entirety because of its relevance -- in particular the last sentence saying "You both did the bar proud." -- to what is going on now in what has been deemed unethical conduct by a candidate. It follows:
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.
_______________
And of course we all recall the rest, leading up to Round 3 that has been going on this past week and will conclude (supposedly) on Nov. 2.
But before leaving this post to do Part II, let's recall the State Bar polling results posted on a 08-05-04 post entitled "The facts ma’am, only the facts -- Part I (Court of Appeals race)" (WITH THE ADDITION TO SUCH POST OF THE DATE ON HOWARD MEAD):
The State Bar of Georgia polls its members in contested appellate races to aid Georgia voters in making informed decisions.
The complete results of the poll can be seen at this website. Attorneys rate the judicial candidates under four categories -- well qualified, qualified, not qualified and lack of sufficient knowledge to express opinion. These results are hereby incorporated (OK, this is for legal reasons), but below I give the names of four candidates, followed by the number of well qualified each of the four candidates received:
Grant Brantley 10702
Leah W. Sears 328
Debra H. Bernes 650
Michael M. Sheffield 267
Howard Mead 175*
(* As noted above, this post is updated, and the results for Howard Mead were not included in the initial 08-05-04 post since he was not one of the top two vote getters that we anticipated would be in the runoff.)
posted by Sid Cottingham | 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home