Arkansas Blog

There's a pretty heated debate going on re Dist 37 race in an unrelated thread way down near the bottom (Sierra Club endorses Herzfeld for AG). Can we get a new thread just for folks who want to talk about the Dist 37 race?

The best person for our Supreme Court is the one who has respect for the current Code of Judicial Conduct. THAT IS NOT JUDGE GRIFFEN. He has repeadedly enganged in conduct detrimental to the administration of justice and the integrity of our judicial process. His lack of experience at the trial court level makes it hard for him to understand and appreciate the effect his statements and conduct have upon the administration of justice. We carefully screen our jurors from things which could unduly influence their verdicts but Judge Griffen spouts off about all kinds of subjects - like endorseing the constitutional amendement, being pro-abortion, etc etc- knowing full well such an issues would likely come before the Supreme court. The other conduct is likewise outrageous and demonstrated a bias and a person with an agenda. If a white person ever said some of the things Judge Griffen had said he would be vilified beyond belief. Griffen gets away with it because its good press. However, its NOT GOOD JURISPRUDENCE AND NOT GOOD JUDICIAL TEMPERMENT. I will vote for the Judge who is highly respected in the legal community and whose reputation of being fair and impartial has never been questioned. I'll vote for the one who is NOTcurrently under investigation for SEVERAL ethical violations. I'll vote for Judge Paul Danielson and trust that most other Arkansans will do likewise.

Ah, White Makes Right! That was easy.

The only reason I'm participating next Tuesday is to vote against Wendell Griffen. We don't need a loud mouth biased judge on the Supreme Court.

Apparently Judge Griffen thinks he can UNILATERALLY dispense with the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct - or maybe it just doesn't apply to HIM. The Code of Judicial Conduct is alive and well in Arkansas and Judge Griffen has violated by speaking out on issues likely to come before the court. He somehow feels he is only a part time Judge and things he says off the bench are okay. I prefer a Judge who acts like a Judge 24/7, who follows the existing rules (like all of us are supposed to do) and has some semblance of judical restraint. Judge Griffen apparently enjoys the spotlight so much he cannot see the damasge he is causing to our judicial system. He would lead us right down the path to appointed judges who dance the tune of a politician. In fact why doesn't he run for an office where speaking out on issues is commonplace. For me, I want a Judge who is fair and impartial and who does not have ethical problems.

The only thing more humiliating for the state than Supreme Court Judge Griffen is Huckster drinking his own kool-aid, pissing it out and drinking it again on the national stage.

The Leader endorsed Suskie for AG, what about Lt. Gov?

The Leader endorsed Suskie for AG, what about Lt. Gov?

I don't think THE LEADER has endorsed any Lt. Gov candidates, but they DID endorse Suskie. Here's the link:

http://www.arkansasleader.com/2006/05/wed-5-10-6-editorial-ag-suskie-by-nose.html

It took nine students willing to UNILATERALLY dispense with segregation at Central High for us to correct a constitutional wrong there. Unconstitutional statutes always stand until challenged.

Hey moron-

It took an decsion by the Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education)and the 101st Airborne to "unilaterally" dispense with segregation and Central High.

Perhaps you should look up the word unilaterally. I am not sure you know what it means.

What those 9 students did took guts and they should be appladued for it.

However comparing what they did to loud mouth Wendall Griffen is a disservice to them.

Griffen is not fighting some big racial injustice, the rules apply to all judges be they black or white. It's not a race issue at all.

It saddens me that your think is no more advanced than a KKK member.

Just because someone involved is black does not mean it is a race issue.

Perhaps you should re-read the writings of Dr. King, he wanted us to Judge men by the content of their heart.

You seem to be quicker to judge (or take sides) based on the color of ones skin.

...Dr. King said we should "judge men by the content of their CHARACTER!...

Ask Dustin McDaniel what Dr. King said; he's quoting him all over black radio in the Delta.

I guess when paying "consultants" isn't enough, you try to convince folks of the "content of your character."

Re initial post:
1. Doing a job and doing it right are two different things.
2. The Arkansas Courts are ALREADY implementing a court automation program.
3. How does Griffen know what his opponent believes? Maybe his opponent is exercizing his right to not speak on issues likely to come before the court, like a Judge should.
Judge Griffen is getting more desperate as the election day approaches. It might be fun seeing what comes from him next, but it probably won't be good for the judicial system in Arkansas.

Max, just read the new Times. Are you really endorsing Griffen for SSC because of his race? I find him sadly lacking in restraint, objectivity and detachment.

Well put Jim Kata- could not think of three better words to describe his lack

Three things.

1. I am personally more comfortable with judges that have low-profile public personas. Most lawyers and the public want judges who "act" like judges (whatever that means -- the judges in Law & Order, to use a pop-culture example, run the gamut.) The US Supreme Court case unleashed free speech on the bench however. Be that as it may,

2. According to the understanding of the judicial canons voiced by Oh Yeah et al., isn't Justice Corbin's opponent is doing something even worse than Griffen? From what I understand he is voicing his opposition to the Lake View decision?

Lake View is still a pending case, is it not? It could come back to the court.

Judicial free speech about general issues like race relations is a grey area because of the U.S. Supreme Court case, but commenting on a case that might come before you is definitely barred.

Yet there are no calls of outrage in the comments here (or anywhere else) about that.

Why could that be? Any of the commentators above care to address this (especially WrongTheo?)

I realize that Harrod has expressed his opinion that agreeing with Justice Hannah's dissent that the court shouldn't take the case (Judicial candidates not sticking to election script,
Sunday, May 14, 2006, Arkansas News Bureau), but that doesn't really wash with me.

That said I also think that things change for people once they get on the bench. Harrod would no doubt be a fair judge (although I favor Corbin who is much more experienced).

It is the disconnect between people saying "boo to Griffen for talking about stuff!" while silent on Harrod who is also talking about stuff that seems inconsistent to me.

3. Lacking restraint, objectivity and detachment are cardinal sins for a judge, sitting on the bench deciding your case. Has anyone ever complained about Griffen's decisions *as a judge*?

I haven't heard of anyone ever saying he is too biased to decide cases (and wouldn't you think his opponent would be harping on any ethics complaints based on bias in particular cases?)

From what I can tell his opinions, they seem supported by restraint, objectivity and detachment. (Not to say that he is not feisty sometimes, but so are all judges about the right issue.)

I'm just sayin'.

Query is as uninformed as all the other Griffen bashers on this blog's comment pages. The Arkansas Court Automation Project as currently constituted calls for pilot automation programs in a handful of district and circuit courts--i.e., the trial court level. Judge Griffen is proposing a system to allow appeals to be filed electronically. Considering the current cumbersome process for filing appeals--briefs on even a simple appeal can produce tens of thousands of pages of briefs when one takes into account the seventeen copies parties must file--moving to an electronic system would certainly reduce costs and make filing an appeal an easier task.

Also, it's interesting to me that Query, Commentator, and the other semi-literate Griffen-bashers don't ever mention Roger Harrod, a candidate for a different seat on the Arkansas Supreme Court, when they bawl over judicial ethics. While campaigning, Harrod has actually stated how he would rule on a particular case (Lake View) that is currently active before the Court. If it's unethical for Judge Griffen to state his opinions on general topics, surely Harrod has leaped over the same line by discussing how he would rule on a case, yet we don't see the same level of vitriol heaped upon Harrod. One gets the feeling that the defenders of the Code of Judicial Conduct--but not the constitution--might have more of a problem with the content of Judge Griffen's comments than with whether the comments should be made at all.

I was not aware of Harrod's comments, though I look forward to learning more about them. I know about Griffen's because he keeps racking up complaints. He is in the news far too often for my taste. Judges, to my mind, should be damn near invisible off the bench. They certainly shouldn't indulge in the kind of inflammatory orations Mr. Griffen has. And if his public spouting is in direct oppostition to his opinions, well, I haven't read his opinions. I'll take your characterization of them, but I am not comfortable in him being one person in public and another on the bench. We should be careful of whom we give such a lofty soapbox.

Wonder if any of you have ever expressed your concerns to Judge Griffen? I have and I was very pleased by the results. I received an email from his campaign, called to inquire about the source of my data and received a return call from the Judge. He was very thoughtful, admitted that while he didn't know exactly, he was glad I had called to express my concern. We discussed the issues of the campaign and I was very impressed. He didn't ask "are you going to vote for me? Are you a Dem/Rep? Have you read about me in the papers?"
What he did do was take the time to listen to my concern and helped me resolve it in a way that made me feel good and didn't violate the NDA with his email provider. A good balance, all in all. Can't say that I've EVER had that happen with any other office holder and I call quite a few of them.

I got your state Supreme Court candidate endorsement right here: just say NONE OF THE ABOVE until all the dogs are gone! Lake View my ass!

Judge Griffin really wants a career change. He wants to be a politician, not a judge. His actions and advocacy for "judicial free speech" make this clear. I think the only person who doesn't see this, amazingly, is him!
I generally lean toward Judge Griffin's political views, but because of his position on judicial free speech, I would oppose him 100% of the time for the bench.
We ALL have a vested interest in a courthouse full of judges who are most focused on administering justice, not talking/promoting politics. Want to politic Judge Griffin? Then run for another (political) office!!!! Be the politician you really want to be.
Your bio and that of your opponents is all anybody should need to decide whether or not to vote for you for the bench. Why does anyone need to know your stand on abortion, gun rights, gay rights, or anything else if you're supposed to blindly administer justice? It simply isn't relevant.