The Hunstein Ad

You know the ad I’m talking about. It’s on as I type this. It is all over cable tv in Macon, bashing Wiggins. It’s his fatal wound.

I have thought all along that Hunstein would win. I don’t think Wiggins is serious competition, despite the potential of that outside money. So why attack him?

I’m actually of the mind that this is bigger than Hunstein. For two elections in a row, outside groups and the GOP have sought to defeat a sitting member of the Georgia Supreme Court. Last time and, I think, this time the GOP has been unsuccessful.

These Hunstein ads, I think, send a message. In addition to curtailing any effect that million dollars could have against her, I think these ads put the Chamber of Commerce, GOP, and others on notice. If you want to fight about the Supreme Court, you’re going to get a fight. I think everyone thought Hunstein would be easy pickings — the old gal won’t throw a low blow. Well, she did. And it was a fatal shot to Wiggins’s testicles.

Game over.

11 comments

  1. dogface says:

    Lawyershave to win this race else their world comes crumbling down.

    Conservatives, Republicans and business folks only have to give Wiggins a good showing to send the clear message that no judge who strays will go unchallenged.

  2. richardr says:

    While Hunstien is not the only candidate to sink to a new low this election cycle, she is a prime example of how far down it is getting. There was a time when the judiciary was though highly of and they kept themselves out of the muck. If this is a foretelling of future elections I guess that will be one delusion shattered.

  3. mercergirl says:

    Did you hear the radio ad that Shirley Franklin did here in Macon? It was on 107.1- obviously for Hunstein.

  4. Tommy_a2b says:

    When Wiggins was recruted or when he came to the powers that be, did anyone ask him where the skeletons were located? If he had come ouot with the thing on his mom first and explained it I think this could have been used as a positive instead of a negative. This is why it is important to know the candidates weaknesses before the race starts. If Wiggins looses it is his fault on this one (or at least his consultants fault.) He should have Terri Schiavo’d this issue to the Conservative base.

  5. JRM2016 says:

    Hunstein has earned this attorney’s enduring opposition for her gutter politics that is unbecoming of someone who pretends to have a judicial temperment.

    Many of us in the Republican party have not been terribly interested in judicial politics as it is non-partisan and the Court has not done much in the state to anger voters.

    But this race has me on board. From here on out I will strongly support anyone that wants to get rid of these liberal and it turns out incredibly dirty judges.

  6. For all of you who don’t like judges running attack ads, this is the result of one thing: someone trying to politicize the courts and the election of judges.

    I will go ahead and say I am a lawyer. Bash if you will, but dogface doesn’t get it. Sorry, dogface, I do not mean that as a personal attack. I do not know what your experience is with the judicial process or even with lawyers, but I don’t like being stereotyped anymore than the next guy. Unless you have some experience with the judicial process it is very hard to understand it or to understand how important it is to have a judge that is fair and impartial.

    Sure, tort reform affects my pocket book. However, for it to affect me, it first has to affect a person, a citizen, someone who has rights irrespective of my being a lawyer. Until you are the one affected by a law, it is very difficult to appreciate whether it is a fair law or not.

    Why would a candidate for the Supreme Court of Georgia gets more than a million dollars from a Washington D. C. organization, if their campaign was based on being “fair and impartial.” Saying you will be fair and impartial is totall different than actually being fair and impartial. I don’t think anyone believes that Justice Hunstein, since she is one of seven Supreme Court Justices, is so influencing the fair administration of the law in this State that some organization from DC would spend that kind of money just to replace her with another person whose only commitment is to be fair and impartial, no more and no less.

    There is not a judge anywhere who cannot be criticized for some opinion. Hunstein has not been singled out for any legitimate reason other than that someone wants their boy on the Court so that when their issues come before the Court, they can count on one vote. If they get one vote with these kind of tactics, they get another one in two more years and then another and before long any law they want approved gets approved.

    JRM, I don’t know who you are or what kind of a lawyer you are, but for you to assert that Hunstein is a liberal and dirty judge suggest that you are either some sort of plant for these corruptors of justice or stupid enough to be swayed by a TV ad. Sorry, for the insult, but your attitude is a disgrace for someone educated in the law, if you are?

    I could go on, but rather than doing so, you can read my thoughts on the Hunstein/Wiggins race at http://www.whatisgoinon.com.

    The courts are supposed to be independent. You may think it hilarious that a judge can be intimidated by having someone run a campaign against another judge.

  7. RepublicanGaLawyer says:

    WRSmith, I read with interest your comments at http://www.whatisgoinon.com. I do find it funny that so many Georgia lawyers, yourself included, say that Mike Wiggins is unqualified to serve on an appellate court because he never has been a trial lawyer or a trial judge.

    But perhaps before you draw such a conclusion, you should check your facts. Plenty of appellate judges started their judicial careers on the appellate bench. Justice Carley first took the bench on the Georgia Court of Appeals. Justice Melton first took the bench on the Georgia Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all began their judicial careers on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And the late Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, first held judicial office when he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    That is not to say that being a trial court judge is not a useful experience for an appellate judge to have had. But it certainly is not an indispensable one. The idea, perpetuated by the Hunstein campaign and many Georgia lawyers, is inconsistent with history and tradition. So, when you tell your readers at What Is Goin’ On that, to be on the U.S. Supreme Court, “you definitely have to have some experience being a judge,” you are misleading your readers. You do a disservice to your South Georgia fans when you talk about things that you obviously know nothing about.

    Likewise, the State Bar perpetuates the misconception that, to be a good appellate judge, you must have “tried” cases in the lower courts. To be sure, jury trial experience is not a bad thing for an appellate judge. But it also is not an essential prerequisite to service as an appellate judge. I do not know, and will not presume, that Justice Scalia never has tried a case. But I would bet that he has not tried many, if any, cases in a trial court. Yet, the ABA and the U.S. Senate found at his confirmation hearings that he was well-qualified to sit as an appellate judge, and like his politics or not, he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices of all time. Likewise, I doubt that many of the other U.S. Supreme Court justices have tried many cases.

    In summary, I do not think that trial experience, whether as a lawyer or a judge, is a bad thing for an appellate judge to have. But it obviously is not essential that he have either, and it is not a good indicator of how he would perform on the appellate bench.

    As a lawyer, you should know better than to make such misstatements. Shame on you.

  8. Republican GaLawyer, what kind of law do you practice?

    While you are entitled to your opinion, I don’t think you will get many trial lawyers to agree with you. How would you like to hire a lawyer to represent you and find out you were his first case? Would you hire a contractor to build your $1M new house knowing he had never built a house before? Of course you wouldn’t.

    I don’t know why you couch my opinions as misstatements. You are free to disagree, but please don’t imply I am misleading someone by giving my opinion.

    If you want to discuss this further, I invite you to be on the show. Say when.

Comments are closed.