Dirty Politics, Georgia-Style
As another saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" (and no, QD, I am not talking about anyone in your family), and I don't know what
Mike Wiggins did to make Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia Carol Hunstein angry, but it seems her recent campaign ad gets downright dirty. She claims that Wiggins is not fit to sit on the high bench of Georgia because: a)he is not a judge; b)his mom sued him; and c) he threatened to kill his sister.
Now whether any of the above is actually true is anyone's guess unless one actually cares to research the truth behind this apparent smear. Wiggins of course denies that his mother sued him out of malice, and that the disagreement with the sister had to do with the mother's healthcare, not a death threat. This disagreement apparently led to a lawsuit against the sister, which then led to a court order that they never initiate contact with one another again.
A quick reality check would lead one to realize that most lawyers have been involved in personal lawsuits, whether they be the plaintiff or the defendent. Suing people in a court of law is what they do. For some lawyers, it's a benefit to be able to sue people for financial gain, even if they have little or no stake in the outcome, just because they can. They see it as a benefit, kind of like a mechanic being able to fix his own car, or a plumber unclogging his own toilet.
After all, the law is for lawyers, or at least the way in which the system of litigation is structured.
But what really strikes my attention about this ad is the charge many other political ads mount against their opponents, regardless of party affiliation. The charge is lack of experience. This little jab has always bugged me.
By way of the structure of the bicameral legislature, the Founders did not seem to intend for politicians, especially in the House, to have a lot of governmental "experience". They anticipated that since originally being a member of Congress was not a lucrative job, that serious citizen statesmen, who held positions in the community, would serve as a civic duty for two years in the House, then go home. Most if not all states are patterned after the federal legislatures. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote, but were meant to be senior statesmen who would review the mounds of legislation that would ensue from the many House members, compromise the legislation, weighing the bests interests of the nation as a whole, and acting as a balance to the Congress, whose sentiments would lie with the interests of their own state.
In short, someone with experience in government is not necessarily the best candidate for a popularly elected office under our representative republic.
I also believe that those who have served as lawyers of judges are not necessarily the best candidates for judgeships, based solely on the fact that they have "experience". Especially in courts today, I had rather see citizens other than lawyers filling the benches. Incumbent judges should be voted out every term, just to keep the court system with a semblance of freshness.
A local candidate for a judgeship called my home to solicit my vote. His name not being familiar, I asked who he was up against. When he told me that it was an incumbent judge, I told him that he had my vote. When he asked why, I simply told him that considering that the office is judge, you not being the incumbent is a good enough reason for me.
Mike Wiggins did to make Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia Carol Hunstein angry, but it seems her recent campaign ad gets downright dirty. She claims that Wiggins is not fit to sit on the high bench of Georgia because: a)he is not a judge; b)his mom sued him; and c) he threatened to kill his sister.
Now whether any of the above is actually true is anyone's guess unless one actually cares to research the truth behind this apparent smear. Wiggins of course denies that his mother sued him out of malice, and that the disagreement with the sister had to do with the mother's healthcare, not a death threat. This disagreement apparently led to a lawsuit against the sister, which then led to a court order that they never initiate contact with one another again.
A quick reality check would lead one to realize that most lawyers have been involved in personal lawsuits, whether they be the plaintiff or the defendent. Suing people in a court of law is what they do. For some lawyers, it's a benefit to be able to sue people for financial gain, even if they have little or no stake in the outcome, just because they can. They see it as a benefit, kind of like a mechanic being able to fix his own car, or a plumber unclogging his own toilet.
After all, the law is for lawyers, or at least the way in which the system of litigation is structured.
But what really strikes my attention about this ad is the charge many other political ads mount against their opponents, regardless of party affiliation. The charge is lack of experience. This little jab has always bugged me.
By way of the structure of the bicameral legislature, the Founders did not seem to intend for politicians, especially in the House, to have a lot of governmental "experience". They anticipated that since originally being a member of Congress was not a lucrative job, that serious citizen statesmen, who held positions in the community, would serve as a civic duty for two years in the House, then go home. Most if not all states are patterned after the federal legislatures. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote, but were meant to be senior statesmen who would review the mounds of legislation that would ensue from the many House members, compromise the legislation, weighing the bests interests of the nation as a whole, and acting as a balance to the Congress, whose sentiments would lie with the interests of their own state.
In short, someone with experience in government is not necessarily the best candidate for a popularly elected office under our representative republic.
I also believe that those who have served as lawyers of judges are not necessarily the best candidates for judgeships, based solely on the fact that they have "experience". Especially in courts today, I had rather see citizens other than lawyers filling the benches. Incumbent judges should be voted out every term, just to keep the court system with a semblance of freshness.
A local candidate for a judgeship called my home to solicit my vote. His name not being familiar, I asked who he was up against. When he told me that it was an incumbent judge, I told him that he had my vote. When he asked why, I simply told him that considering that the office is judge, you not being the incumbent is a good enough reason for me.
Labels: Georgia politics, judges, political ads
posted by Badbeans | 6:23 PM
1 Comments:
The Wiggins campaign and its allies in the business community made Carol Hunstein (and the State Bar of Georgia) mad precisely because they have articulated the idea that, perhaps, people other than lawyers ought to have a say in who sits on the state's highest court. The legal community supports a full and fair debate only if they are the only ones who get to speak.
When insurance companies, small business people, Fortune 500 companies, and doctors contribute money to a judicial candidate, the legal community pretends that it is a sinister conspiracy against liberty and democracy. But such public participation in the electoral process is precisely the definition of liberty and democracy.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an attorney. And I am embarassed, though sadly not surprised, by the pretentious attitude of the State Bar that only its members are qualified to talk about what a judge ought to do. I, for one, think that the victims of criminals put back on the streets by "progressive" judges, the entreprenuer who is faced with the threat of frivolous lawsuits, the doctor whose high malpractice insurance premiums drive him from his practice, and every person who is summoned to waste their time as a juror on an asinine case that any competent judge would have tossed out on a motion to dismiss ought to have a say too.
Mike Wiggins has been assailed by the Hunstein campaign, the academy, the press, and the legal establishment for accusations made by his sister in the context of litigation over the guardianship of their comatose mother. In their recent debate, Hunstein said that Wiggins, if he had applied for a nomination as a judge, would have been required to disclose these matters and, on investigation, would have been deemed unqualified to serve. I do not know whether there is any truth to the accusations in his sister's affidavit. In any event, they do not concern me much. Mike Wiggins served in high level positions in the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security that required presidential appointments, extensive FBI background checks, and classified security clearances. Even with all the failings of the federal government, I cannot believe that the Judicial Nominating Commission of Georgia conducts a more searching background check than does the FBI for such sensitive positions. The FBI apparently had no concerns about his integrity. I don't either.
I will vote for Mike Wiggins on Tuesday. And anyone who wants to send a message to the legal community that the courts belong to the people, not just the lawyers, ought to vote for Wiggins too.
Post a Comment
<< Home