I thought we were doing so well, engaging in an intelligent debate instead of a guttural, verbal street brawl. Yet again, you have lept to a conclusion and resorted to the politics of personal attack rather than legitimate debate. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Your writing suggests that you are capable of doing so much better; I certainly hoped for more.

Upon what basis have you concluded that I am a “gay benefits supporter”? Is it because I want to actually read the Court opinion written by the Justice you are opposing? Call me crazy (or “trial lawyer,” as you prefer) but in analyzing the legal skill of a justice, I get the impression I should read the actual opinion authored by the justice rather than accept the second-hand analysis of the ACLU and the Queer Resource Directory (two organizations with an obvious axe to grind). I guess I just prefer not to have my information pre-digested.

Your response, however, begs the question: what are you afraid of? Why shouldn’t I do more research? What is it that bothers you so about my wanting to read the primary source of your information? Is it possible that you’re afraid that I might tell the unadulterated, un-spun truth here for all to read? Perhaps I will prove that Wiggins is nothing more than a political opportunist, that his candidacy has been bought by rich would-be puppet-masters and that the basis for his candidacy has no substance behind it. Things that make you go, “Hmmm . . . .”

You will see my actual analysis in another post but I needed to address this one separately. You wrote, “Either you agree with Judge Hunsteins leadership in giving mandatory benefits to gays and lesbians and legislating law from the bench or you are opposed to subsidizing this chosen lifestyle.”

Ah, the old you’re-either-with-me-or-you’re-against-me. I will digress long enough to point out that there is a vast spectrum that lies between those two ends. The Court’s decision did not “give” mandatory benefits to anyone, nor did it mandate benefits to anyone. (Footnote: the author of any Supreme Court decision is writing on behalf of the majority of the justices on the Court and not on their own behalf.) The Court’s decision was that the City of Atlanta pension plan was not inconsistent with State Constitutional law, nor was it outside of the authority granted to local governments under Georgia law. The Court did not legislate anything; indeed, the Court’s job is to interpret legislation . . . and that is exactly what the Court did, as announced in a decision written by Justice Hunstein.

[C]an I have multiple homosexual partners and provide them with lucrative benefits courtesy of the Georgia taxpayers and the Social Security Administration.”

No you cannot and neither can any retiree of the City of Atlanta. The Court’s decision – a nine-year old decision, no less – was solely to determine if the contractual retirement benefits of a local government can be expanded to include a class of employees who have registered dependent, domestic partners. Like health benefits or dental benefits, City of Atlanta taxpayers – the ones who elected the Atlanta City Council – will pay for those retirement benefits; State of Georgia taxpayers will not pay a penny of that employee benefit, nor will the Social Security Administration, as the City of Atlanta has no authority to establish a category of beneficiaries under a federal program. So, again, your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions. And, by the by, it has been nine years since this decision; in that time the State Assembly has failed to change the law so that the City of Atlanta could not offer that employee benefit. So, Justice Hunstein isn't really to blame, now is she? But again, I digress . . . .

This issue is being championed by the ACLU and other left wing gay and lesbian Democrat organizations.

And the significance of that is??? I have never known anyone who “won” in court to be quiet about it; so, the fact that the ACLU and the Queer Resource Directory see the Court’s decision as a victory is neither surprising nor offensive. It’s human nature. Every loser thinks the judge has been bought off (or, in this case “liberal”) and every winner thinks that the judge was in their corner. Rarely is either assumption correct.

Where does the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association stand on this issue? Are they supporting Judge Hunsteins landmark decision giving homosexuals access to lucrative benefits paid for by our taxpayer’s dollars?

I don’t know where they stand on the Court’s decision; again, I am not a trial lawyer. And, again, the Court’s decision does not mandate taxpayer dollars from anyone who is not a resident of the City of Atlanta and a constituent of the Atlanta City Council.

Is this something you support?”

I support judges who support and defend the State Constitution and are faithful to the rule of law. Otherwise, my position on the underlying issue is irrelevant to this discussion – and, no, it’s not what you think it is.

I don’t want a Supreme Court Justice who lunches at fancy lawyer seminars trying to teach them ethics. I want a Supreme Court Justice who is roaming Georgia Court houses enforcing ethics laws on judges and trial lawyers.

Sorry but, what you want is illegal. Supreme Court Justices are not sheriffs. They do not “roam” Georgia Courthouses enforcing ethics laws. They are not empowered to seek out ethics violators. The Supreme Court only becomes involved in ethics matters after ethics complaints are received and investigated by (and upon recommendation of disciplinary action from) the State Bar. This is to avoid any allegation against the Justices of croneyism or retaliation against political enemies. What you are asking for is a Supreme Court potentially mired in corruption.

Inflammatory, vitriolic and ill-informed rhetoric is only effective when you don’t have an educated constituency. I give Georgians credit for being smarter than Wiggins and his rich friends would have you believe. The funny thing is that you've had to dig back nine years to find something bad to say about Justice Hunstein. True, there's nothing to say about Wiggins . . . because he brings nothing to the table -- no appellate court experience, no judicial experience, nothing.

Re-elect Justice Carol Hunstein to the Georgia Supreme Court.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.