The Georgia Supreme Court race: Hunstein v. Wiggins
If you live in Georgia, you owe it to yourself and your fellow citizens to watch the recent debate between Justice Carol Hunstein and Mike Wiggins, which was sponsored by the Atlanta Press Club.
When you’re done watching the debate, please let me know in the comments section which candidate you believe comes across as having the better judicial temperament.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:45 am
Wiggins is clearly the smarter of the two, and more able to remain calm under very personal attacks. Hopefully this is not a quality a judge will need often. He is also better able to articulate a judicial philosophy.
I think Hunstein is correct to say that she has more relevant experience. She does seem a bit cruel and unfriendly.
Both of them failed to answer questions to which I’d like to know the answers. I thought her question, ‘Why is this out of state bunch of companies willing to pay millions of bucks for you to run for judge in the state of Georgia?’ was a good question. His answer, ‘A lot of reasons,’ was neither informative nor satisfying.
Meanwhile, he repeatedly (indeed, somewhat repetitively) pointed out that she’s been raising money from lawyers with cases before her on the court. I’d have liked to hear a detailed explanation from her as to how that’s acceptable practice, but one was not forthcoming.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:16 am
I do not the keen legal wit and sense than you possess, but my impression is Mike Wiggins. Grim does make valid points in both cases but Judge Hunstein does come across as shrill and desperate. Mike Higgins is more composed.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I second Grim’s reaction regarding both candidates refusing to answer questions. Another example came when Hunstein asked Wiggins to identify trials that he had been directly involved in, and he claimed that it was not relevant because this is an appeals court. Although Wiggins is correct that appellate courts serve very different functions than trial courts, since appellate courts deal with a lot of procedural and substantive errors by courts below, it is imperative that judges understand what it’s like to take a case to trial.