The Christian Coalition of Georgia has created a
survey to find out judicial candidates views on various issues.
Posing 37 questions to state Supreme Court candidates about topics ranging from abortion to tax policy, the Christian Coalition of Georgia has reignited the debate over how far judicial candidates should go in talking about disputed legal topics.
The group has asked Presiding Justice Carol W. Hunstein and the lawyer seeking to unseat her, former Department of Homeland Security counsel J. Michael Wiggins, to say whether they agree or disagree with statements such as "The Georgia Constitution does not recognize a right to abortion."
The article focuses on the ethical questions involved with judges announcing their positions on cases that might come before the court.
"It's a fine line between announcing your views on a certain legal or political issue and whether you would rule that way on a case that would come before you," said Fletcher.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, held that the First Amendment allows judicial candidates to "announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues."
Setting aside ethical concerns, separation of church and state, rational public policy considerations, the hypocrisy of decrying "judicial activism" from the left while advocating it from the right, and the dubious theological grounds for some of the Christian Coalition's positions, tell me how these questions are in any way related to Christianity:
18. The federal government has passed various policy resolutions supporting strong federal gun control measures, to include federal licensing requirements for gun purchasers, increased federal taxes, periodic reviews of the eligibility of handgun owners, and waiting periods for the purchase of firearms. As a general matter, I support the federal government's position on handgun control.
19. The state should require the registration of firearms and the licensing requirements of firearms owners.
26. Desecration of the American flag has been determined to be protected political speech under the First Amendment. In order to protect the American flag from desecration, I would support adoption of a federal constitutional amendment to that effect.
27. Georgia voters should provide some form of government issued identification as proof that they are who they say they are before they are permitted to vote.
28. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in BMW v. Gore that due process of law protects defendants from unrestrained punitive damages bearing no reasonable relationship to the harm caused to the plaintiff.
29. As a judge, I would have no philosophical objections to reducing a verdict that is excessive under the applicable law.
30. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Kelo v. City of New London that the power of eminent domain allows the taking of private property for use in a public or private redevelopment initiative. In order to protect the property rights of Georgians, I would support limiting the use of eminent domain for the taking of private property for public uses rather than private redevelopment.
31. While generally the civil decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court in the early 1990s were more favorable to plaintiffs than defendants, the Court's recent trend has swung the pendulum now too far in favor of corporations and against consumers in an activist manner.
32. The class-action device has a legitimate and needed place in deciding the appropriate types of cases amenable to class treatment. Despite recent criticism, its use in Georgia in recent years has not been abusive to defendants subjected to these suits and the courts have adequately protected the rights of the plaintiff classes and the defendants in these cases.
33. Georgia's reputation for "lawsuit abuse" as described some years ago in national publications was harmful to economic development efforts and job creation prior to the passage and signing of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2005.
34. According to the August 2000 issue of the ABA Journal, 33 states have set caps or limitations on the amount of money that juries can award in punitive damages. Placing caps on punitive damage jury awards limits or restricts the jury system.
35. As a candidate for the Georgia judiciary, I should not and will not accept political contributions, directly or indirectly, from any lawyer, law firm or agents representing those whose practice is devoted in whole or in part to the representation of plaintiffs in civil action (routinely described as personal injury trial lawyers).