I do not believe I have written a letter to the editor before. However, I am very disturbed and offended by the inflammatory and personal comments being made by experienced and smart attorneys, several who I know personally and respect, regarding the Supreme Court's rulings in the Barrow v. Raffensperger case.

This was a difficult and complex case. Reasonable attorneys can disagree with how the case should have been decided. I read the lengthy opinion and the lengthy dissent and thought both positions were well argued. I will not say whether I agree or disagree with the decision, because that is beside the point. The Supreme Court's responsibility is to decide hard cases, and the court knows very well that any decision it makes is going to make some people happy and other people unhappy. That is the court's job. Its role is not a popularity contest or to curry favor with any particular group or political party.

What is not appropriate is for experienced attorneys to demonstrate such a flagrant disrespect for the Supreme Court and make inflammatory and personal attacks on the justices with whom they disagree. The comments were appalling and serve only to diminish the authority of the Supreme Court. It is similar to the personal attacks made on federal judges by federal government officials. These attacks only serve to harm the judiciary, which is called upon to make important and controversial decisions.  One can disagree with rulings, but to attack the judges personally damages our system of justice and the respect we all should want citizens to have for the judiciary.

I understand the strong feelings about this particular case. But the public disrespect shown the justices is inexcusable. Justice Keith Blackwell has been a very committed jurist and decided to step down for personal reasons after years of public service. He made the decision to step down in a manner which permitted the governor to appoint the successor. As noted in the Supreme Court opinion, justices and other judges have done the same thing from time immemorial in Georgia. (By the way, senators and representatives often have done the same thing. United States Supreme Court justices have timed retirements to allow particular presidents to appoint their successors. This is not unusual or inconsistent with our state or federal constitutions.) When a judge decides to step down at a particular time, it is not depriving anyone of the right to vote but only allows the governor to make appointments permitted by the Constitution and then defers an election to a date set forth by law. Furthermore, judges—like other governmental officials and employees—often time their resignations so that they vest as much as possible in pension plans, which again is perfectly reasonable and appropriate.

Yet, Justice Blackwell had his excellent reputation besmirched by over-the-top and undeserved comments by attorneys who should know better. Comments like the recent one quoted in the Daily Report which accused Justice Blackwell of "manipulating" the election and of "selling the seat on the Court for the price of a judicial pension" are offensive and uncalled for.

Similarly, the decision of whether to recuse is often a difficult one for judges. There was no ethical  canon which compelled required recusal of other justices to hear the case. This was a judgment call, and justices called it in different ways, which attorneys should respect. The case was actually not about Justice Blackwell at all but about the constitutional system concerning appointments and elections. Justice Blackwell was not a party, and any ruling would not affect his retirement in any way. I personally think it was a close call, but I respected the right of the justices to act as they felt was appropriate. All of the justices have a history of taking their ethical obligations very seriously. Yet, three very well-regarded and very ethical justices were castigated for their decision not to recuse. And comments about [Presiding] Justice [David] Nahmias personally—that he is "notorious for his attempts to dominate the court," and was "trying to manipulate the substitute justices" are untrue, offensive, and frankly petty name-calling. Referring to the ultimate decision as "tainted" because the decision of three justices not to recuse is equally inappropriate.  (Interestingly the substitute judges ruled 3-2 with the majority.)

Every lawyer is entitled to his or her opinion. I am very disappointed with these attorneys who should know better. Regardless of one's personal political persuasions (and our law firm is proud to have attorneys with a wide range of views and political affiliations), it is profoundly wrong for members of the bar to make statements which diminish the authority and respect for the judiciary, rather than to express disagreement with particular rulings.

Richard Robbins

Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield

Robbins Government Relations

Atlanta