It's now officially over. Without comment today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the removal of former Pulaski Circuit Judge Willard Proctor for ethical violations in operation of the Cycle Breakers probation program. He said his removal, upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court, violated his due process rights and was racially discriminatory.
I'll also use this item to note another interesting U.S. Supreme Court decision today. It upholds a California law school's decision not to give a Christian group the same standing as other student organizations because it discriminated in membership.
Showing 1-6 of 6
The questin is how did this fellow ever end up on the bench?
Was it not obvious from his law school days he was clueless? Was he appointed or was he elected?
I suppose he was elected. Why did the legal community, know of his lack of grasp of law, not come out heavily against him when he ran?
If by some massive failing of the legal system, he was appointed, who do we boot from their position?
How could a person with beliefs that laws did not pertain to him end up as a judge?
You run for election and win. Just like Bush got into office for his second term (I'm discounting the SCOTUS appointment for his first term).
I was involved in a case a few years before he was on the bench. Idiot didn't even show up on time & we got a default judgement. He appealed & lost. Judge racked him over the coals about his no-show & he lost the appeal.
When he got on the bench, I almost puked. This guy has no business on the bench. I also think he has no business with his license. He should count himself lucky that he was able to keep it. The appeal is over Proctor. You lost. Get over it.
Citizen1,
The answer to your question is that the legal community did come out strongly against him. It also came out against his predecessor, who was also removed from the bench.
As opposed to the rest of the circuit judgeships in the Sixth Judicial District, the Fifth Division (Proctor's) and the First Division (held by Judge Humphrey, who's not running again after urging commutation for Maurice Clemmons) are not elected by the voting public at large, but by a subgroup that's by design largely African-American. It appears the influence of the legal community, for better or for worse, is negligible within that subgroup.
What is clear is that this set-up is responsible for the election of 100% of the judges who have been removed from office across the state by the Supreme Court in recent years.
In 1992, in the matter of Eugene Hunt v. State of Arkansas, the state admitted its liability under the federal Voting Rights Act in that the system of electing judges for the Sixth Judicial District in staggered terms by numbered positions in district-wide voting minimized black voting strength and operated to deprive black voters of the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice for circuit judge.
After admitting its existing system violated the Act, the State entered into a consent decree whereby two circuit judge positions, one (then) chancery judge position, a chancery/juvenile court position and a circuit/chancery judge position expected to be approved at a later time were assigned to be elected from judicial subdistricts composed of a majority of black voting age citizens, instead of district wide. The decree contained no requirement that the candidates for these judgeship be black, only that a majority of voting age residents in the subdistrict be black.
(With the State's consent, and pursuant to its admission of liability, other subdistricts were created around the state.)
It is true that, out of these five judgeships in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, and over the ensuing 18 years, two judges have been removed.
I do not believe, however, that one may correctly infer that no other white judges in the state have faced charges for which removal would be an appropriate sanction. I believe such judge or judges chose, instead, to acquiesce in the disciplinary action rather than fight removal.
Also, I believe Judge Humphrey had expressed his inclination to retire well before the Clemmons incident. I believe that lawyers of all races who know the judge well doubt that there is any connection between the two events.
Can't say about the pedicar but I'm betting they could get you around-the-world.
Bill Clinton was their President too. The bigger question is.....can these girls pull a Pedicar?
I don't know, I value Cotton's military service a little more highly than Mr. Hurst's…
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings