In the wake of Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears’ retirement June 30th, many were eager to see who Sonny Perdue would appoint to the Georgia Supreme Court to replace her. Nominations flowed in to the Judicial Nominating Commission, and about a month ago the JNC forwarded to Perdue a 9 member “short list” of candidates it considered qualified for the role. The list included current U.S. Attorney for Atlanta David Nahmias, five Georgia trial court judges, and three attorneys in private practice. The smart money was on Nahmias, and some considered Fulton County judge Craig Schwall to be a potential darkhorse. But after a member of the Judicial Nominating Commission decided to air the Commission’s dirty laundry, all bets may be off. Perdue may be looking to the one name on the hot list whose experience and qualifications were dwarfed by the others’.
In Monday’s Fulton County Daily Report, Judge Robert Reeves, a member of the Judicial Nominating Commission, made public his discomfort with alleged improper pressure from the Governor’s office to include on the hot list a Macon attorney who “not one of the members” of the Commission believed was qualified. (Unfortunately the FCDR article is available online by subscription only, but I’m sitting here reading the hard copy so you’ll just have to trust me that these quotes and such are all in the paper article.)
The allegedly unqualified member of the short list was not named directly by Reeves in the email to the rest of the Judicial Nominating Commission that was obtained by the FCDR, but Reeves referenced the “first name on the list,” which was Macon attorney Stephen Louis A. Dillard in both the JNC’s press release and an AJC story on the short list. While few outside of the Macon legal community have heard of Dillard, he apparently has built up quite an online following through his Southern Appeal blog. A sample quote for which he is famous: “Stare decisis is fo’ suckas.” I invite you to check it out for yourself and make your own decisions about what it might mean for his qualifications to sit on this state’s highest court.
While Perdue’s spokespeople and JNC Chairman Mike Bowers both denied any pressure from the Governor to the JNC, Perdue’s spokesperson did indicate that his office communicated with the JNC about the attributes Perdue sought in a candidate and may have given examples of “folks who they might think would be a good model.” It sounds as though Dillard was one such example candidate put forth by the Perdue folks, and somehow made it onto a list in which he seems underqualified compared to the rest of the field. (While he was a federal appeals court clerk and reports 26 appellate cases under his own belt, Dillard is far younger and less experienced than the other hot list candidates, though I don’t know that I would say this alone disqualifies him from the appointment. Here is his application, and he does appear to have significant trial and appellate practice experience.)
If Perdue really wanted to select Dillard, he could have done so even without the JNC list, but he presumably would have expected far fewer complaints about appointing a virtual unknown if that person had been recommended by the JNC after the full vetting. That may indicate that Perdue or his legal advisers are giving serious thought to appointing Dillard, though they may also be considering him for lower court appointments that may arise in the future instead.
In addition to airing the JNC’s dirty laundry about the current selection process, Reeves’ email also listed other examples of “failures” of the JNC that resulted in appointment of unqualified or insufficiently vetted candidates. He was again careful in this portion of his email not to name names with his examples, but did provide enough detail to allow astute observers to figure out who he was referencing. One of them was defeated last fall, while the other is still sitting as a Superior Court judge in South Georgia and was probably none too displeased to be mentioned.
Whether this FCDR report will end up affecting Perdue’s selection remains to be seen. I have to believe that this is the first time that a person’s blog has become an issue in their candidacy for an appellate court position, but no doubt it will not be the last. (And this demonstrates yet again why people who intend to seek judicial appointments should resist the urge to take public positions about controversial legal issues that they might later be asked about at confirmation hearings. I won’t be stating that ANY constitutional principles are “fo’ suckas” anytime soon.)
Leave a Reply