Political Insider

By Joshua

November 3, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Which wife is this? He has Newt’s sense of permanency in the marrying game. Those right wingers talk about family values but….

By NoAmericanTaliban

November 3, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

I actually go that call, but didn’t see it as a right wing thing. I’ve to listen to it again. I’m a libertarian conservative and strongly believe in keeping gov’t out of our live. The moral right wingers want to do just the opposite. They want to use the gov’t to impose their so-called hypocritical morals into everyones life. This is something that Goldwater was completly against. It is amazing how they can follow druggie gay leaders while being against gay marriage.

By Mary

November 3, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Why is so much out-of-state money going into a seriously flawed, inexperienced candidate like Wiggins? Are the insurance companies and corporations funding him just trying to intimidate all judges - vote our way or expect $3 or $4 MILLION to go into your opponents’ campaign? This amount of money should buy them a Congressman. Why spend it on a mere judge unless you are trying to intimidate?

By Pamela

November 3, 2006 1:17 PM | Link to this

This is not the first comment blocked for these two judges. Hunstein has a right to let the people know if Wiggins did something he shouldn’t have. Maybe, Wiggins is being backed by people who want to control and manipulate the judicial system.

By TimBuckTooth

November 3, 2006 1:21 PM | Link to this

Personal Injury Lawyers Still Cling to Idea that “Only Lawyers Know What Judge to Support”

November 2, 2006

By George M. Israel, III President & CEO Georgia Chamber of Commerce

“Lawyers know best,” so believeth the personal-injury-lawyer-led leadership of the State Bar of Georgia.

“If you want to know who to vote for [for Supreme Court], ask a lawyer,” Presiding Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court Carol Hunstein recently said to dropped jaws.

She added: “It’s only lawyers that know what judge to support …”

Houston, we have a problem. Others besides lawyers have an interest in a fair and impartial judiciary.

Here’s a novel idea: If you want to know who to vote for, look at the records of the candidates for Supreme Court and other judicial races; look at their demeanor and temperament.

No doubt, lawyers have a vested interest in our judiciary. But defendants and business folks - often the subject of costly legal fishing expeditions and frivolous lawsuits - have an interest in a fair and impartial judiciary too.

But the State Bar’s mentality that “only lawyers are smart enough to elect judges” is insulting to every businessman and woman in the state, every voter in Georgia. And, it reflects a dazzling sanctimony, condescension and arrogance.

I realize that the leadership of the State Bar is concerned that if others exercise their Constitutional right to participate in judicial elections, their white-knuckle grip on the courts is threatened. No wonder all but 48 of the contributors to the incumbent Supreme Court justice are lawyers.

The election for Supreme Court has demonstrated a relationship that is too cozy between attorneys who represent their clients before the Court and the justices themselves.

One could easily get the impression that after bloody marys in the morning and tennis at the club, lawyers and judges gather in the clubroom (read, courthouse) and decide the fate of the clients. And, just before the gavel bangs to bring the court to session, the attorney gives the judge an envelope containing a check for the maximum contribution permitted by law to the judge’s re-election.

Frankly, there ought to be a law prohibiting attorneys - plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense lawyers - from contributing to a judge before whom they are arguing a case.

At best, it is an appearance of impropriety that undermines the credibility of our judicial system. That incumbent judges accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from the same lawyers who appear before them in court, legally even within hours of their case being argued before that same judge, is really quite troubling.

By law, legislators cannot accept contributions from any source during the time they are in session.

The insurance commissioner cannot accept contributions from insurance companies; members of the Public Service Commission cannot accept campaign money from those they regulate. The reason, of course, is to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Why should judges, from whom we expect the highest integrity, accept campaign favors - even as the judge hears their case - from those who appear before them? If judges and the State Bar aren’t willing to regulate themselves, perhaps the legislature should.

For all their talk about civility and for all their fear-mongering that business supporting candidates for the Supreme Court would trash the system, it’s money from lawyers to protect the incumbent that has fueled the nastiest, maybe least ethical advertising campaign in recent history.

The State Bar’s plaintiff-bar leadership and a million dollars from a who’s who of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association launched the A-bomb of demeaning political advertising, an ad that stunned even the sometimes-jaded media for its recklessness and ugliness and willingness to stretch the truth. It is the kind of personal attack and distort-the-facts ad that diminishes the public’s confidence in the court and raises concerns about the court’s ability to uphold the truth.

As important as the Supreme Court is, the contested race for the high court is so far down the ballot, most voters will never get to it. Some election experts predict half of all voters who vote in the gubernatorial race won’t stick around long enough to vote for Supreme Court.

Look down, way down your ballot, after all the races for county commissioner and school board, ah, there’s the race for Supreme Court.

A recent survey found that most Georgians don’t even know that justices to the Georgia Supreme Court are elected. Eighty-five percent of those questioned didn’t know the name of a single justice or judicial candidate. Yet, three out of four voters surveyed agree the court should be elected “because elections hold justices accountable for their decisions and rulings.”

Two candidates, with different records and different judicial philosophies, are running for our Supreme Court. There may not be a more important race on the ballot. First, vote. Second, vote the entire ballot.

By Wahhhh Wiggins

November 3, 2006 2:58 PM | Link to this

And the head of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce needs to shut up about Judges and go back to promoting Delta or peaches or whatever else he’s supposed to be doing.

Never mind the lawyers having a say. Let’s not forget, DaimlerChrysler and State Farm Insurance need to be fairly represented on the Georgia Supreme Court. And they’re trying to buy a Justice by sinking so much money into Wiggins.

Oh, and let’s not forget the GOP, which is spending $1 Million in a “non-partisan” race. They need someone partial to all their child molesters and meth/gay sex addicts.

By John Malcolm

November 4, 2006 5:16 PM | Link to this

I have known Mike Wiggins and Erika Birg for many years and am one of the out-of-towners (although I lived in Atlanta for 16 years, from 1985 to 2001, which is where I first met Mike and Erika) who supports Mike’s candidacy for the Georgia Supreme Court. I am also proud to have served with Mike in Bush Administration at the Department of Justice, where I was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice from 2001 until 2004.

Mike Wiggins is an outstanding lawyer and an even more outstanding individual, traits shared in equal measure by his wife Erika, by the way.

I was friends with both of them when Mike’s mother was still alive and remember the care and concern he showed for his mother, even though she was in a coma and it was clear she was never going to come out of it, making frequent trips to Alabama to be with her. I also remember hearing about the unfortunate legal entangelements with Mike’s troubled sister, which pained Mike deeply. He could not believe or understand that his own sister would literally steal money from their mother, who lay helplessly in a hospital, for her own benefit at the sacrifice of their mother’s continued medical care. Not only did Mike do his duty, he did it with dignity and honor, and has nothing to be ashamed of or to apologize for. And with respect to Mike’s alleged threatening behaviour towards his sister, those who know Mike Wiggins don’t believe it for a second. He may (justifiably) refuse to shake the hand of somebody who has slandered him (as Justice Huntstein has done), but I have never seen him threaten to harm anybody either in his public or private life.

Regarding Mike’s qualifications to serve on the State’s highest court, I can think of very few people (and Justice Huntstein is certainly not among them) who are more qualified. In addition to his impeccable academic pedigree, his pre-law business experience, and his prestigious federal clerkships at both the trial and appellate levels, Mike has been an outstanding lawyer at one of Atlanta’s most prestigious law firms and a dedicated public servant occupying senior positions in both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Mike’s legal acumen, sound judgement, and dogged determination have been relied upon by individuals who have been discriminated against, by business leaders under attack from overly-zealous regulators, and by national security officials looking to keep us safe from attack while being mindful of important civil liberties that we all cherish. Those who chose to listen to Mike’s sound advice were better for it.

While Mike may have his personal views about controversial topics of the day (as do we all), he will interpret and apply the law as it is written and will not act as a “super-legislator in robes” by discarding the views of those who have been elected to serve the people and who have entrusted by them with making important policy judgements that affect their daily lives.

I have every confidence that, as a Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, he will serve with honor and distinction and will dispense justice equally to all who appear before him, including those who now shamelessly attack him by saying that they are being “forced” to engage in character assassination (something, by the way, which one is never forced to do).