One could say that Judge Neil Biggers and I grew up together in a southern sort of way – a generation apart and never knowing one another. Yet, because I knew some of his “people” and rather suspect he knew some of mine, he’s been a public presence for as long as I remember. In a sense, he’ll will remain one for generations to come because he settled Mississippi’s landmark higher education desegregation case.
I came to “know” him rather well then though only through the eyes of those actually involved in the negotiations. Publicly they spoke of his perspicacity; but, privately – well let’s just say he showed a bit of LBJ.
Boys, I may not know much, but I know chicken shit from chicken salad.
That certainly was true about the settlement of the historic Ayers settlement – although not the terms of the settlement per se; but, rather what he felt about them – unreasonably expensive, adding to the problem of program duplication, and doing nothing to advance the cause of desegregation – according to one report I recently read.
What I recall finding impressive at the time was reading news stories that indicated the depth of his personal investigation into facts presented by both sides and his obvious mastery of detail.
I didn’t see that in USA v Scruggs; but, had the case gone to trial, I think it would have been evident. I do expect to see some indication of that in the sentencing – what it will be is anyone’s guess.
His comments recorded in transcripts of the pleadings suggest some reservation about the pleas. I doubt they extend to the level of those here, but, the lesson of the Ayers settlement is that he holds both sides of the scale accountable for justice.
Filed under: Dickie Scruggs, Judge Lackey, Judicial Bribery, Judicial Ethics, Legal Ethics, Sid Backstrom, Zach Scruggs | Tagged: USA v Scruggs
nowdoucit