Git Real’s only point is that all these judges care about is the only thing other politicians care about---- keeping their incumbency and keeping their own gravy train. What happens to the judicial system or America in thirty years doesn’t matter a damn to these people. Mr. Hobbs you seem quite enamored with the politics of Justice Hunstein and offended by challenger Michael Wiggins. I would submit that this places you distantly outside the values of this community. You suggest that Wiggins was influenced by special interests, such as the business interests trying to limit our gross judicial system (Example: two years after his videotaped assassinations, the courts have not even decided what county to try Brian Nichols in). Tell me why you have such opposition to tort reform ? This is central to the Republican platform. Are you a Republican? How can you have voted for Hunstein? She is pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty and anti-tort reform, just like Sears. Hunstein has a history of doing what she predicted Wiggins would do--- judicial legislation. Same sex marriage was long prohibited in Georgia. Hunstein led the way, for her special interest homosexual supporters, in creating a split decision declaration of rights where none had previously existed. Here come the domestic partner benefits.

Git Real is right. Sears created the monster yet she now complains due to her own fear of a threat to her incumbency. This is why neither Sears nor Hunstein will speak no evil of any other incumbent. They are all about protecting incumbency. Even you local politicos do the same--- you refuse to speak evil of any incumbent because it is all about special interest. Consider Sears own race. She decries “the involvement of the parties”. And yet she accepted a $150,000 boost from the Democrats right before the election.

Politicians, especially incumbents act like incumbents do whether its for County Commissioner, Dog catcher, or Supreme Court Justice.
Yes, I agree its disgraceful, yet part of our democratic system.
Some States do not even allow the election of Justices and some only allow an up or down vote. I didn't think that the Supreme Court election was as bad as I've seen in other elections.

So again, I don't understand the surprise. It may be somewhat new, but thats because of the changes that have occurred in the rules of judicial canons.

As to tort reform, I dare say that you care not to know my opinion on this. I will say that the general public is sadly mis-informed. The reason tort reform is a political issue is because Newt figured out back in the late 80's early 90's via polling that people distrusted lawyers. They also discovered that trial lawyers often supported Democrats by a margins of 7-1. So, as a political strategy, not as a means of righting a real wrong, they tried to cut off the Democratic soft money from Trial Attorneys. The way to do that is to that is to use the misconceptions of tort reform and use that as a wedge.

I represented a young boy a few years ago whose HMO doctor was more concerned with "not treating" my client's son than with treating him. After pleading with the doctor repeatedly, to do a cat scan of the boy's brain for almost one year, she was finally given one because a new physician began treating the boy.

He immediately ordered the test which of course showed the tumor and under today's laws, this boy's loss of eyesight in both eyes will now net him only $350,000.00.

That's right, he is now blind because of an incompetent HMO Doctor. The National GOP wanted to make it $250,000.00. Our State agreed to make the limits $350,000.00.

So although Tort Reform may "sound" enticing, I again will state that both the average citizen has no idea what it is really about, and the average Trial Lawyer is so paranoid, that they can't argue about it with any degree of unbiased honesty.

There is room for true tort reform, but not the draconian measures that the GOP has decided will benefit their business community contributors, nor is there not room to make changes as the Trial Lawyers often contend.

I'm biased but I'm also attempting to be honest. Trial Lawyers and Doctors both have benefited from our current insurance industry. We both make huge incomes from the current system. To not permit those injured by the incompency of a professional who has such enormous wealth from that very system is not fair, nor just. Why should doctor's be immune from the responsibilities from the very system that help make them so very wealthy?

I've suggested that we consider limiting tort recovery to a percentage of what the Doctor earns. That way if a doctor is giving care to the poor and working in communities or in areas of medicine that are not "profitable" then he can not be sued for enormous amounts. But if he is in a practice, such as plastic surgery, for example, and he is making millions, then in limiting an injured person's recovery to $250,000.00 is plain stupid.

But hey, thats what the public wants. Is that what you think is fair?

So???? Are you disagreeing with me on the fact that these races are going to become hotter and nastier in the coming years due to the scenario I've laid out. I'm not debating the issue of activism. I'm simply stating that we are going to see more monies poured into these races because of the increasing tendancies of judges that are legislating from the bench these days. Look at the trends in the Northeast and even here. The trend is undeniable and the fact that Leah Sears' true issue in this regard is to protect her incumbancy. It has nothing to do with how nasty a race gets.

GR,
I don't know what your argument is. You say you aren't debating the issue of judicial activism, yet your entire blog talked about how the elections are turning and getting nasty because of judges "legislating from the bench". So I'm a bit lost as to what your argument is.

Last election, EVERY Superior Court incumbent won, save that of one, who was appointed by Sonny a short time before the election and who was up against the Mayor of that community.

Elections do get nasty for one good reason, it works. Judges are not immune now from such attacks since the Supreme Court, several years ago, deemed that the canons of judicial ethics could not preclude a hearty and negative campaign. Previously, you could not say anything harsh about a sitting judge without getting your bar card pulled.

As to judicial activism, that is a debate unto itself. I am obviously opposed to it, yet the definition is somewhat ambigious. Some considered the Bush v. Gore opinion whereby the U.S. Supremes overruled a Florida Supreme Court decision, as being activists. I dared to disagree.

My general take is that activism is when the Judge allows his preconcieved and desired opinions to interfer with his/her decisions. Sometimes their goals are laudable, but we are a nation of laws and we need to have a recognized means of getting to that goal without having men in black robes telling us how to do it.

Harry Blackmum was a prime example of this. For many years he publically stated his disdain for the death penalty yet, opinion after opinion came down from his pen, in which he continued to support the numerous death penalty cases that came before him. He respected the law over his personal opinions. Then, he finally said, enough. And just as he did in Roe v. Wade, he began to summarily throw out every death penalty case he saw and instead, interjected his personal desires into every opinion he wrote.

Again, I'm not against judges overruling laws or fixing poorly worded ones, I'm however, against judges making the law their very own kingdom where they make all the rules with impunity.

I'm also against political action committees that are funded with millions of dollars from business interests, attempting to smear a Supreme Court Justice as being an activists, all the while they are trying to put their hand picked activists on the bench in her stead.

Behavior like this sickens true conservatives. Activism is either right or wrong, you can't have it both ways, and the State GOP needs to learn that lesson.