Hampton gets a little cynical in column

David Hampton is a good writer, and I generally agree with most of his politics. But not today’s column. In fact, it sounded more cynical than I’ve heard David sound in quite a while.

That David supports appointing judges over electing them is no surprise. I’m still amazed at the people who think we can rid a system of politics by subjecting it to political appointment. It’s an argument that defies logic.

But I digress. What was really bothersome was David’s tone. For example, there was this diddy on candidates who claim not to look at their reports:

As always, follow the money – who gives it and who takes it. Ask the candidates and don’t take “I don’ t look at who gives me money” for an answer. If they say that, don’t believe it. If they truly don’t, that is worse.

Why is that worse? The candidates who truly do not look at their donors — and Kitch does not — are trying to remain above politics. What they are doing is admirable, and David should know that.

More to the point, David wants this race to be about trial lawyers vs. business interests. But this time, the peg ain’t fittin’ into that hole.

Kitch has trial lawyer money behind him, no doubt. But he’s got bankers, business owners and defense attorneys who have donated thousands of dollars as well. And don’t forget the nearly $25,000 we’ve raised to date in small donations from every day Mississippians.

Granted, Jim Smith’s financial backers are not nearly as diverse. He’s got one or two trial lawyers — like Don Evans. And he may have one or two individuals. But his donors are overwhelmingly big oil executives and political organizations.

One last note on David’s column. Here’s another bit of cynisism:

Ask candidates their positions if you wish. Judges shouldn’t discuss pending cases, but should tell you the basis of their beliefs. If they say, “Sorry I can’t ethically discuss that,” tell them “Sorry, I can’t ethically vote for you.”

Legally, they can discuss their ideas and philosophies.

David might like to think it’s that cut and dry, but it’s not.

For one, the Mississippi Code of Judicial Ethics preclude judges from speaking about issues on which they may one day rule. As far as it being legal, that statute has never been struck down in Mississippi. Similar statutes in other states have, and the Mississippi statute might one day follow suit. But as of now, it stands.

Past that, codes of ethics are often about more than being legal or illegal. It’s not illegal for a candidate to look at his list of donors. And one day it may not be illegal for them to speak on issues.

But ethically, they should not.

Look at judicial appointees during their confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate. They speak about their philosophies, their qualifications and any written opinions they have made. But ask them about the death penalty, gun control or abortion, and they will not speak to those specific issues.

They can, mind you. But ethically, it would be wrong to do so.

But I’ll agree with David on one thing: Voters need to take an interest in judicial elections. Stark differences exist between Kitch and Smith.

Take a look at their records, and then make an educated decision about your vote.