Dream a little dream

In my dream world, people wouldn't be allowed to pontificate about legal quandaries unless they could first demonstrate minimal competency in how our legal system works.

If my little dream came true, idiots like Jim Wooten wouldn't be able to rail about the legal fallout of a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court while pretending that the Court won't have the opportunity to shape that falloutthrough its decisions on subsequent appeals. They also wouldn't act like the Genarlow Wilson case introduced the concept of cruel and unusual punishment claims to Georgia defense attorneys, and would instead recognize that mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines that remove discretion from judges and juries have been routinely challenged on constitutional grounds (successfully on several occasions, I might add) since they were first introduced.

These things make me angry because the legalese here is being deliberately and spun to serve a purpose. The purpose is right there at the end for all to see: let's get rid of these judges because we dislike their decision. And you know, as much as I hate the practice of electing judges, that is the law in Georgia and the voters most certainly have the right to replace the Supreme Court if that is their will. But let's not let idiots like Jim Wooten pretend that the Court wrote the dumbest and most dangerous opinion in the history of the universe in order to further their goal of a Court makeover.

It is a controversial decision, but one that is well-grounded in constitutional and precedential support (if you bother to actually read the majority opinion instead of just cribbing from the dissent to fill your article. Ahem.) And the fact that judges make bad decisions and in so doing cite to the Wilson decision does not, in and of itself, invalidate the legal basis for the Wilson ruling. Judges make bad decisions all the time, and cite to whatever law they can find that they think supports their bad decision in the hopes of not being overturned on appeal. There is only one thing that we can do to stop this practice: let the appeals process work itself out. The Court was very clear in its opinion that it was limiting its holding to the facts of the Wilson case and other cases that fit those narrow factual confines. They will almost certainly smack down ill-advised rulings like those of the judge in Macon who has a problem with a 25 year mandatory minimum for kidnapping. It takes time, and yes it costs money due to the legal procedural delays, but this is nothing new in our legal system. Acting like the Genarlow Wilson case blew open the floodgates of cruel and unusual punishment claims is a little disingenous at best, and downright falsely inflammatory at worst.

So Jim, stick to blathering about politics and fat women, OK? Leave the legalese to those who won't deliberately misconstrue how our legal system works or the ramifications of a particular Court decision simply because they'd really love to throw all those "activist judges" out of office and replace them with pro-business drones. Thanks.