Tag Archive for 'judges'

Right to Life on the Wrong Road: The Politics of Judicial Elections!

When people start messing with the courts and the judicial system, I get upset, very upset. Why? Because courts and judges are supposed to be above the politics and partisanship that we have become accustomed to. In some respects, it is very difficult to avoid political tampering in Supreme Court (US) appointments because those judges are appointed by a politician, the president, and approved by politicians, the Senate. But, I consider state court judges to be sacrosanct. Leave them alone, let them campaign and get elected on the basis of their legal qualifications, not their political viewpoints.

Enter, Georgia Right to Life and its “judicial questionaire”.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of organizations on both sides of this issue, the abortion issue. However, when they make the fight about courts and judges, they are misguided. No court in Georgia will ever, ever decide the abortion issue. It does not matter what any judge or candidate for judge believes about the issue or about any of the other issues on their judicial questionaire.

So, why have such a thing? Why ask a candidate to fill out something that is irrelevant to being a judge? Why?

There is only one reason that I can think of. There are questions you can’t ask candidates. You can’t ask judicial candidates if they favor business over the individual. You can’t ask them if they will give any legislation passed by the representatives of the people the benefit of the doubt, and declare it okay (constitutional), even if it really isn’t. You can’t ask them if their basic philosophy is conservative or liberal. Well, actually, you can ask all the questions, just not in public or at least you can’t expect them to answer them in public.

But, you can certainly ask them if they prefer life over choice, or life over death. You can certainly ask them anything you want about abortion, and if they answer that one, you know their answer to the rest of the questions which aren’t on the questionaire. This one answer will tell you all you really want to know about their political orientation, their leanings, liberal or conservative. For example, if you ask someone if they watch Fox News, you can take their answer and reasonably decide whether they are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Sad, but true.

And I should point out that it might not even be Georgia Right to Life asking the questions in their judicial questionaire. My first interview regarding judicial questionaires was with Sadie Fields, the head of the Christian Coalition of Georgia. If you listen to the interview (circa 2006), you will find that Sadie did not have a clue about her organizations questionaire. It was prepared by a lawyer in another state. Sadie and her CC was nothing more than a pawn, a willing pawn, unfortunately. By the way, Sadie hung up on me!

What really got me in this interview with Dan Becker is his response when I asked him which of the candidates for the Georgia Court of Appeals had filled out the judicial questionaire. He wouldn’t tell me! He said it was a secret! A secret? Well, that seals it for me. Dan, you and your organization, ought to ashamed of yourselves. You cloak yourselves with the mantel of religion, of godliness, and at the same time deal in secret. When Dan told me that, I just lost all respect.

I have other problems with Georgia Right to Life when it proclaims the sanctity of life from “conception to the grave,” and yet, apparently has no position on the death penalty. I can’t think of any reason that the life of an innocent man facing the death penalty is not a concern of an organization that has “Right to Life” in its name. You would think they would at least have some concern for innocent lives lost in places other than an abortion clinic. The fact they apparently don’t says a lot, none of it good.

You should take a look at the questionaire and see the questions concerning whether or not someone should be able to sue for the wrongfull birth of a child. These suits have been raised in Georgia and have never been allowed and will never be allowed unless the constitution of Georgia is amended, which is unlikely. So, why is Georgia Right to Life asking a judicial candidate an opinion about an issue that has already been decided in Georgia, years ago, if my memory is correct? I suspect it is because this questionaire was not prepared for Georgia, but other states by outsiders.

And then, what really gets my goat is while Georgia Right to Life doesn’t want any fetus or embryo aborted, it doesn’t mind if the doctor just happens to kill it, negligently. If you don’t know it, you should, but the law in Georgia prohibits parents from suinig doctors for negligently killing a fetus before it is viable, capable of living outside the womb, usually around 23-24 weeks.

In the very least, I expect Georgia Right to Life to put some effort into changing the law so that physicians are held responsible for negligently killing fetuses after conception. Dan, let me know when you have the rally on the steps of the state capital. I will be there and I will bring thousands of parents (and their lawyers) with me.

 
 Dan Becker, Georgia Right to Life [28:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (129)

Michael Meyer von Bremen, Candidate for Georgia Court of Appeals

Michael Meyer von Bremen is accoustomed to political campaigns. A lawyer by profession, he has been a State Senator from the 12th District (Albany) since 1998. Even though he is a Democrat in a Republican dominated legislature, Michael was appointed Chairman of the Special Judiciary Committee in 2005-06.

Michael graduated from Mercer Law School 7 years after i did. He has practiced a wide range of law over in Albany, everything from criminal law, to representing injured plaintiffs, but his primary experience is as a defense attorney representing insurance companies and their insureds in lawsuits filed by injured people. Not too long ago, Michael joined the firm of Hall, Booth, Smith and Slover, one of the biggest defense firms in the State of Georgia.

I represented insurance companies for 20 years and had a few cases in which Michael was also involved, but I don’t think we ever tried a case together.

Listen to the interview and make up your mind! AND VOTE!!!!

 
 Michael Meyer von Bremen, Candidate, Georgia Court of Appeals [26:51m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (668)

Tamela Adkins, Candidate for Georgia Court of Appeals

Seven lawyers are running for the position of Judge on the Georgia Court of Appeals. One of them is Tamela Adkins, who practices in Lawrenceville, GA. Tamela began practicing law in Georgia in 1993 and has specialized in family law. If there is one area of law that touches most Georgians it is family law: divorce, child custody, domestic violence. Unfortunately, these problems are not receding, but increasing.

Tamela has one of the most important qualifications for a judge: experience in the trenches. Lawyers that go to court regularly, day in and day out, know the importance of good judges, expecially appellate judges. The cases that appellate judges consider involve real people with real problems trying to obtain the ultimate prize: justice. Some do and some don’t. When a judge reviews a case it is important to know that the judge has been there, has engaged in the same struggle, suffered the same defeats and hopefully, has the same thirst to do better.

Listen to the interview and decide for yourself. And VOTE!!!!

 
 Tamela Adkins, Candidate, Georgia Court of Appeals [26:17m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1537)

Judge Charles W. Pickering: “A Price Too High”

You may remember Judge Charles W. Pickering, whose recess appointment by President Bush to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals infuriated liberals, since the Senate had already rejected his nomination. He wrote a book about his experience in the nomination process, “A Price Too High,” which I heard him discussing on C-SPAN a few weeks ago. While he was accusing his opponents of distorting his record on civil rights etc., I was intrigued by his opinions about liberal activist judges and their failure to properly interpret the Constitution according to its true meaning. My goal in interviewing Judge Pickering was to try to understand exactly how conservative judges achieve this ability of interpretation and liberal judges don’t or can’t or won’t.

Unfortunately, I do not think I accomplished my goal. I simply could not follow Judge Pickering’s logic. This is about all I could discern from his argument: If conservatives agree with a court’s decision, then the interpretation is in accordance with the true meaning of the Constitution. If they don’t agree, then an activist liberal judge has hijacked the Constitution and legislated a liberal philosophy. He did admit that conservative judges made bad decisions in 1857 (Dred Scott on slavery) and 1896 (Plessy v Ferguson on separate but equal).

This interview convinces me that Kipling was right: “Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet…” Even though I am a lawyer, I will be the first to admit that I am very naive when it comes to the judicial system. When I went to law school I was impressed with the wisdom of the Warran Court when it made controversial decisions back in the ’60s. I, like a lot of people, thought that at some point the Supreme Court went a little too far in protecting the criminal from being convicted, but that is why I thought over a period of time the Court would swing like a pendulum, back to the middle. I am sure, just like Judge Pickering, I am a product of my upbringing. Liberal or conservative, I always thought that judges could or should transcend their personal views and rule based on the idea that the law is the law. Even though Judge Pickering espouses the same belief, I don’t think he and I are talking about the same thing.

Judge Pickering and I did agree that the mistake America made as a result of Roe v. Wade was to politicize the nomination of judges, to establish abortion as a litmus test for judges. Over the years the litmus test has been expanded to include gay marriage, prayer in schools, the pledge of allegiance and a few other things. However, Supreme Court appointments were, at times, controversial even before Rowe.

Judge Pickering does have a solution to this problem and I agree with him for the most part. The solution: amend the Constitution! Truthfully, that is exactly what the Constitution provides. If you don’t like Rowe v Wade, don’t politicize the judiciary, get your supporters together and pass a constitutional amendment to overrule the Supreme Court. Congress has passed many laws to overrule Supreme Court decisions; it is just that abortion would require a constitutional amendment.

Judge Pickering points out that until the 1970s the US averaged passing one amendment to the Constitution every 11 years. He also said that there had been no amendments since 1971 (26th Amendment, Voting Age 18), but the 27th Amendment passed in 1992 restricting pay raises for Congress. I am sure we all remember the Equal Rights Amendment that was submitted to the states for ratification and failed. Funny, but that was a liberal proposal.

It all makes me wonder why in all these years since Rowe, the Congress has not submitted to the states a constitutional amendment on abortion. I am sure there may be many reasons, but I think there is a good chance that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want this issue resolved. Just keeping the controversy stirred up and focused on judges and the courts insures that certain segments of the voting population will be lined up on one side or another.

Can you imagine the important things we could focus on in this country if the abortion issue went away?

 
 Judge Charles W. Pickering, Author [30:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (274)