LITTLE ROCK — Paul Greenberg writes in an editorial on February 16th that the reforms advocated by the Judicial Election Task Force, which I chaired, would be tax-supported.

He should know that is not the case.

The major proposal advocated by the task force was an independent response to false political ads. It would be implemented under the umbrella of a nonprofit corporation supported solely by private donations. Why should he know? Because he sat in on an important conference last March 14 where that point was repeatedly made by the presenters.

Following the conference, he misstated that fact in a column in his paper by suggesting all reforms would be supported bytax dollars, and he continues to do in his recent editorial, saying I had suggested a state-funded commission to police judicial campaigns.

It certainly appears that Greenberg does not want judicial-election reform, and for that reason he is misleading about what has been proposed.

———

In the same editorial, he also took issue with United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to extend a judicial courtesy to an Arkansas Supreme Court justice whose husband was one of multiple attorneys in a case being argued before the highest court. Such judicial courtesy to state Supreme Court justices is a practice that is routinely afforded, and Justice Scalia, knowing the circumstances, decided to do so in this instance by providing the justice a seat for the argument and greeting her afterwards.

Paul Greenberg, without directly attacking Justice Scalia’s actions, found it easier to launch a personal attack on me for exploring with Justice Scalia’s office if the justice would provide the traditional seat and greeting under these circumstances.

That illustrates a modus operandi that is personally vindictive, as well as misleading. If Greenberg opposes the whole notion of United States Supreme Court justices deciding to make seats available and greeting state Supreme Court justices under comparable circumstances, he should say so.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is not to respond to Greenbergbecause he has ink by the barrel, can be exceptionally mean-spirited, and will hound you to death on his editorial page. So I brace myself.

But if responses are not forthcoming to call his hand, he has carte blancheto be an unguided missile. That is why I championed courageous responses on different issues by those like Judge Bill Wilson in the past.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that Greenberg wants to stir the pot and sell newspapers. But in this fashion, he becomes a major purveyor of the rancor that afflicts this country, from Washington, D.C., to Little Rock.

More people need to speak up and challenge him when his facts are wrong or when his statements are so misleading. In short, it is Paul Greenberg, who is a major part of the problem, just as his mentor, H.L. Mencken, was when he reveled in describing Arkansas as a hillbilly backwater and did what he could to make Arkansas a laughingstock. He, too, sold newspapers.

I respectfully dissent from what sometimes goes on on this paper’s editorial page.

Robert L. Brown retired from the Arkansas Supreme Court at the end of 2012.

Editorial, Pages 19 on 02/27/2013