I’ll be on Miss Martha’s radio show tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. discussing a poll recently conducted by the Federalist Society here in Georgia. So, tune in if you get a chance.

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.

takes a nasty turn for the worse.

You can read Mike Wiggins’s response here, and read the AJC’s take here.

Update: The left-leaning Daily Report has the latest on the race, along with a link to the Wiggins response ad.

Nothing beats winning.

From the AJC:

A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order Friday preventing authorities in Columbia County from enforcing a provision in the state’s new sex offender law that bans sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop. He denied requests for restraining orders in Richmond and Burke counties, saying those requests were premature. The three counties are located along Georgia’s border with South Carolina.

The Act is being challenged on a number of grounds, including the ExPost Facto Clause and the Due Process Clause.  The Brief in Support of the Motion for a Temporary Injunction can be found here. 

This is excellent news.

Now, let me give you the back-story to this opinion (which, by the way, was unanimous). 

The Georgia Chamber of Commerce hoped to target for defeat three of the four justices up for reelection this year:

Carol Hunstein, a 14-year veteran of the bench; George H. Carley, who has served since 1979; Hugh P. Thompson, a 12-year veteran

In the GCC’s view, all three justices are hostile to the business community, especially Thompson and Hunstein. And since February or so, a certain (and well known) political operative has been making phone calls to conservative, Republican attorneys, encouraging them to challenge these sitting justices.* 

Notwithstanding these efforts, only one name has surfaced as a challenger: Michael Wiggins, “a former Kilpatrick Stockton associate, Justice Department lawyer and, until recently, the No. 2 legal officer at the Department of Homeland Security.”

For the record, I know Mike from my involvement with the Federalist Society, consider him a friend, and believe that he will be an excellent justice if elected [It appears as though he will be challenging Justice Hunstein].

So, what does all this mean? It means that I am not at all surprised that the decision was unanimous, given the political implications of ruling the other way. Indeed, there would have undoubtedly been a public outcry here in Georgia if any of the justices had dissented in this case.

In short, I believe the GCC’s willingness to target certain justices this election cycle, as well the overwhelming margin by which this constitutional amendment was passed, likely influenced the Court’s reasoning in this case to some degree.

*Confession time: I know very little about Justices Hunstein and Thompson. I am, therefore, not in a position to either confirm or take issue with the GCC’s characterization of their respective jurisprudential philosophies. I have heard that they are both quite personable, and that is all I know about them (which isn’t a whole heck of a lot). I realize, of course, how sad this is; but the vast majority of my state appeals have been at the Court of Appeals level, and I just haven’t gotten a distinct feel for most of the Supreme Court justices; other than Justices Melton and Carley (both of whom I admire greatly). As for Justice Carley, I am not quite sure why the GCC views him as being hostile to the business community. I’ve always considered him to be a judicial conservative (e.g., he was the sole dissenter in the Powell decision, which struck down the state’s anti-sodomy statute), and I don’t know too many conservatives who are hostile to free-market principles.   

Update: Here’s the opinion.

Good.

(LvBlawgfather)

This doesn’t surprise me much. I haven’t read the opinion (as superior court opinions are not available on Westlaw), but my guess is that this decision is typical penumbra clap trap from our more enlightened judicial lawgivers.

One thing to note though. Judge Constance Russell is a superior court judge in Fulton County, which means that her decision is only binding in that county, and not statewide.

That having been said, this case is heading straight for the Supreme Court of Georgia, and it will be interesting to see what it does with the decision.

Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, I strongly suspect Judge Russell’s decision will be affirmed. Here’s hoping that’s not the case.

Update: Hmmm. This is interesting. It appears as though Judge Russell may have struck the constitutional ban down on fairly narrow grounds. Here is what the AP is reporting about the basis of her decision:

A judge has struck down Georgia’s ban on same-sex marriages, saying the measure that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 had violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule for ballot questions.

“Procedural safeguards such as the single-subject rule rarely enjoy public support,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell wrote. “But, ultimately it is those safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law.”

Update II: Here is some background information on the lawsuit. And more here and here.