Georgia's courts aren't for rent
An editorial by Tom Barton from The Savannah Morning News:
A wise old lawyer once told me that it's better to know the judge than to know the law. That's something they don't teach in law school.
Or business school, apparently.
But things have changed dramatically, judging from this year's only competitive race for a seat on the Georgia Supreme Court.
Normally, these down-ballot races for the state's appellate courts generate the same level of interest and excitement as worm racing or the latest news about Eva Gabor (still dead). And that's too bad.
The 12 jurists on the Georgia Court of Appeals and the seven justices on the Supreme Court interpret laws that the legislature approves and governor signs. They make sure that trial judges follow correct procedure in criminal and civil cases. Members of the high court also discipline lawyers who lose their ethics - or their pants - in their dealings with clients.
But this election year, there's a lot more tenderness in this rarefied, stuffy courtroom air. As in legal tenderness.
A group that calls itself the Safety and Prosperity Coalition has raised a boatload of money (around $300,000) to knock Justice Carol Hunstein from her perch on the judicial hierarchy after 14 years of service. Big contributions ($50,000 each) have come from DaimlerChrysler, Georgia Hospital Association and Independent Agents of Georgia Political Action Committee, with the Georgia Medical PAC kicking in 100 grand. Even the Coca-Cola Bottlers Association ponied up $25,000.
Meanwhile, a group that wants to keep Hunstein on the state's payroll has raised a bigger boatload of money (around $700,000), largely from individuals. That means more than $1 million likely will be spent on a race that used to attract pocket change.
Should the average Georgian care that the bucks are being tossed around like Paris Hilton's underdrawers at a Hollywood night club? Absolutely. Otherwise, they could wind up with the best judicial system that money can buy, which works best for those with the fattest wallets.
I don't have a problem with contested judicial races. Or even campaign contributions, as long as it gets reported. Making incumbent judges come down from the bench and mix it up with the common people (and no, local bar associations don't count) helps deter "robe-itis" - an affliction that can make a jurist behave like a spoiled rock star or your average British royal.
But voters must do their part. They must weigh records and qualifications.
And they must follow the money.
I'm not saying that the judiciary is for sale. A million dollars doesn't buy what it used to. But it might be enough to rent it out for special occasions.
The knock on Hunstein from the group supporting her challenger, attorney Mike Wiggins, is that she's too left, too soft on crime and too pro-plaintiff in liability cases. In the words of Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, she "represents a significant threat to our state's prosperity."
I like Home Depot. I made three separate trips there Sunday while doing a plumbing project. But Marcus's words don't square with Hunstein's solid record. The Fulton Daily Report, a respected newspaper read by Georgia's lawyers, examined her votes in 99 close criminal cases since 1992. She sided with prosecutors in 64 cases, or two out of three times. So if she's got a bleeding heart, so does Judge Frankenstein.
Maybe Hunstein is a closet Pepsi drinker or buys her plumbing supplies at Lowe's. But appellate court judges aren't supposed to retry cases or rehear evidence. Their main job is to look for disorder in the court at the trial level.
Bernie and his pals should look at it this way: If they've got a problem with Georgia's courts, they can't fix it on the wholesale level. They've got to fix it on the retail level in every Superior Court and State Court in Georgia. It's sort of like the way Home Depot goes after Lowe's or Coke challenges Pepsi.
It's up to the voters, meanwhile, to make sure the courts stay on the level - or the fix may be in.
A wise old lawyer once told me that it's better to know the judge than to know the law. That's something they don't teach in law school.
Or business school, apparently.
But things have changed dramatically, judging from this year's only competitive race for a seat on the Georgia Supreme Court.
Normally, these down-ballot races for the state's appellate courts generate the same level of interest and excitement as worm racing or the latest news about Eva Gabor (still dead). And that's too bad.
The 12 jurists on the Georgia Court of Appeals and the seven justices on the Supreme Court interpret laws that the legislature approves and governor signs. They make sure that trial judges follow correct procedure in criminal and civil cases. Members of the high court also discipline lawyers who lose their ethics - or their pants - in their dealings with clients.
But this election year, there's a lot more tenderness in this rarefied, stuffy courtroom air. As in legal tenderness.
A group that calls itself the Safety and Prosperity Coalition has raised a boatload of money (around $300,000) to knock Justice Carol Hunstein from her perch on the judicial hierarchy after 14 years of service. Big contributions ($50,000 each) have come from DaimlerChrysler, Georgia Hospital Association and Independent Agents of Georgia Political Action Committee, with the Georgia Medical PAC kicking in 100 grand. Even the Coca-Cola Bottlers Association ponied up $25,000.
Meanwhile, a group that wants to keep Hunstein on the state's payroll has raised a bigger boatload of money (around $700,000), largely from individuals. That means more than $1 million likely will be spent on a race that used to attract pocket change.
Should the average Georgian care that the bucks are being tossed around like Paris Hilton's underdrawers at a Hollywood night club? Absolutely. Otherwise, they could wind up with the best judicial system that money can buy, which works best for those with the fattest wallets.
I don't have a problem with contested judicial races. Or even campaign contributions, as long as it gets reported. Making incumbent judges come down from the bench and mix it up with the common people (and no, local bar associations don't count) helps deter "robe-itis" - an affliction that can make a jurist behave like a spoiled rock star or your average British royal.
But voters must do their part. They must weigh records and qualifications.
And they must follow the money.
I'm not saying that the judiciary is for sale. A million dollars doesn't buy what it used to. But it might be enough to rent it out for special occasions.
The knock on Hunstein from the group supporting her challenger, attorney Mike Wiggins, is that she's too left, too soft on crime and too pro-plaintiff in liability cases. In the words of Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, she "represents a significant threat to our state's prosperity."
I like Home Depot. I made three separate trips there Sunday while doing a plumbing project. But Marcus's words don't square with Hunstein's solid record. The Fulton Daily Report, a respected newspaper read by Georgia's lawyers, examined her votes in 99 close criminal cases since 1992. She sided with prosecutors in 64 cases, or two out of three times. So if she's got a bleeding heart, so does Judge Frankenstein.
Maybe Hunstein is a closet Pepsi drinker or buys her plumbing supplies at Lowe's. But appellate court judges aren't supposed to retry cases or rehear evidence. Their main job is to look for disorder in the court at the trial level.
Bernie and his pals should look at it this way: If they've got a problem with Georgia's courts, they can't fix it on the wholesale level. They've got to fix it on the retail level in every Superior Court and State Court in Georgia. It's sort of like the way Home Depot goes after Lowe's or Coke challenges Pepsi.
It's up to the voters, meanwhile, to make sure the courts stay on the level - or the fix may be in.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 3:03 PM
1 Comments:
It is striking that the article identifies a number of trade and industry organizations that supports Mr. Wiggins but simply says that the supporters of Justice Hunstein -- who contributed approximately half-a-million dollars in the most recent reporting period -- are mostly a group of "individuals." More precisely, they are mostly individual lawyers.
The organized bar pretends that, before business organizations became interested in trying to influence the outcome of judicial elections, judges were elected without the involvement of special interests. It would be far more accurate to say that, before business organizations became involved, judicial elections were controlled by a single special interest, namely lawyers. Perhaps it is dangerous for special interest groups to have the influence that they have in elections. But it seems far more dangerous to have elections that are influenced by only one special interest group. And although the legal community is hardly homogenous in its political views, it does have a unifying interest in the law being complex, complicated, beyond the reach of the layperson, and favorable to litigation of disputes.
The coverage of this election shows that lawyers are interested in open and free debate about the roles of the courts only to the extent that the only participants in the debate are part of their select number.
Although I think he would be a far superior justice in any event, I would support Mike Wiggins for the sole reason that we already have a Supreme Court beholden to the organized bar. One justice who offers a different perspective would be a welcome relief.
Post a Comment
<< Home