Sen. Adam Driggs such a jokester: Favors chairs wearing robes

In a ridiculously skewed article in which the newspaper vents its fears of the legislature “politicizing” Arizona’s judicial selection system, the takeaway is this peculiar quote from state Sen. Adam Driggs (R-Dist.11):

“The goal is: How do we get the best judge in that chair with the robe on?”

Driggs, a lawyer, is a member of the senate judiciary committee. He was one of the turncoat Republicans who voted with the Democrats on all five bills addressing the continued illegal invasion of our state by foreign nationals routinely breeching the porous southern border. 

It might seem a lawyer would have a better command of the English language. But Driggs’ legal specialty is immigration law and he highlights his proficiency in Portuguese and Spanish on his business website. It’s a good bet his immigration practice isn’t geared to assisting those who are legally immigrating using the orderly and legal process the United States generously provides.

That Adam Driggs opposes transparency and the party’s grassroots organization is bad enough. But being unable to articulate his inane vantage point makes his comment the joke of the week.

21 Responses to Sen. Adam Driggs such a jokester: Favors chairs wearing robes

  1. Stanford says:

    Obtaining an advanced degree is not necessarily an indicator of high intelligence. Driggs comes from a very privileged family. Having the resources to pay for schooling, and the luxury of time to devote to the pursuit without basic worries of paying the freight, makes it possible for the Adam Driggs’ of this world to gain stature. There are many who work at both jobs and school, struggling to make ends meet. Driggs is not one of them. His father was Phoenix mayor and his family owned the highly profitable Western Savings and Loan. Such connections give even the mundane a leg up. But don’t confuse those tentacles with intelligence.

  2. PV Voter says:

    I’m a conservative Republican living in Paradise Valley. Sen. Adam Driggs is supposed to be representing me. He doesn’t.

  3. Overtaxed1 says:

    Immigration lawyers make their money off illegals.
    He doesn’t care anything about the Rule of Law when he votes against bills that would enforce the laws.

  4. Jon Altmann says:

    There we go again. First, I will readily admit Adam is a friend and someone who I have supported. Let’s put some of the postings to bed that lack foundation in fact.
    Adam works for his own money. I know Adam and his Dad, both very honorable people. There is no “family wealth” – Adam lives in a very modest home with his wife and four children. He goes to church regularly and I have never once heard a profane word from him.
    Second, Adam does not defend illegal immigrants, as the “story” seemingly implies. So to say his practice isn’t geared to those immigrating illegally – how do you know? Or is this the concept of just throwing some stuff on the wall and see what sticks?
    Third, Adam does represent many folks in LD11 and the vote totals out of three races validate it. The SR crowd may not like him, but I give you that the district does and they are the ones deciding who they want for representation. I’d like to think we elected a Statesman, not just a partianship player. I can say one thing with great confidence, I doubt I will ever have to defend Adam for bad public behavior.

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      Mr. Altmann:
      You have posted numerous comments on this site tearing into everyone from former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi (AZ CD1) to state Sen. Scott Bundgaard (R-LD 4) extending well beyond the facts available at the time. While you are entitled to your opinions regarding these men and others, so are we. You take us to task for anonymity, as you post comments here under countless aliases, exposing a consistency flaw.

      You obviously don’t align yourself with Seeing Red AZ. This is a conservative political forum, but all viewpoints are welcome. However as you know, we reserve the right to moderate comments at our discretion, including removing those we deem inappropriate or not in keeping with the tone of this site. That does not make us communists, as you have complained. This is our site. Since you appear to have plenty of time on your hands, you are free to start your own.

      Please refer to our “About’ page regarding Seeing Red AZ’s policy concerning links to personal websites. If you continue to post comments, please adhere to this standard.

      • Jon Altmann says:

        SR: you all are the ones providing the website open box – I’m merely filling it in. The quality of your criticisms is validated with your own reasoning. Rick Renzi – there’s a winner. And Bungaard – “beyond the facts at the time” – give me a break. Where did I mis-judge? Now there are 9-1-1 tapes and a police report with detail. Perhaps I learned something after years of work in public safety that made this predictable.
        You all operate the medium, but the invitation to post leaves it open to folks like me who may or may not agree with your viewpoints.
        You all decided to take a shot a someone I think is a good conservative. However, the definition of conservative seems to change with the emotional viewpoints of the holder these days. The definition of conservative I grew up with had more to do with guys like Barry Goldwater, Paul Fannin and John Rhodes. I’m not sure any of them would fit into the standard applied herein this medium.
        Thanks for giving me my 20 kb of fame. However, I stand by my comment that you all are not willing to put names to your site – unlike, let’s say, Sonoran Alliance, where Shane Wikfors is proud to claim responsibility. While I don’t always agree with Shane, he’s tried to put out a fair forum. Or maybe it is because Shane and I both wore the same uniform in our lives – truly it might be a Sailor thing.
        Perhaps I’ll take you all up on that suggestion of breaking into this electronic publishing world. After all, I spent some time as a journalist in this town so maybe it is time to return to my baseline craft. If I do, I’ll be sure to provide you all with some credit – whoever you all are.

    • Sgt. Preston says:

      Winston Churchill was a statesman, Altmann.
      Adam Driggs is a political sellout who blatantly aligns himself with the Dimocrats. He’s a weasel on illegal immigration while playing fast and lose with the facts. Ask around about how Driggs won his first race. It’s a well known and not very savory story. One doesn’t have to use profanity to be a unprincipled jerk.

      • Jon Altmann says:

        Sgt – so you are going to try to tell me that Adam mobilized that huge LDS vote in LD11 and locked out the Don H? Now, I’m not LDS, but I am a saavy Catholic and I know there are not enough LDS members in LD11 to change an election outcome – and I know it is within the ethos of the LDS faith that they not use their faith as part of their promotion for political office. Or did I miss something and maybe Adam’s true grit in the ’06 race was a bit of name ID, a bit of good old fashioned campaigning and some decent mail? What I do know is that the district keeps voting in a Dem and that has little to do with Adam and a lot to do with the demographics. Really, if I’m missing the point, help me out.

  5. 1776 says:

    It is the triumph of hope over experience that we continue to elect people with the expectation that they will always stand up for what is right. A precious few do but in this case, when face to face with the signatures of all those people in the social circles he may hope to one day inhabit and then considering the relatively minor pain of a few weeks of florid blog postings he evidently chose to please the powerful rather than to earn their respect and the respect of his more common constituents.

    Not surprising, just a bit disappointing.

  6. LD20PC says:

    LD 11 is filled with McCain/Kyl supporters, what do you expect. Adam Driggs is just like them, why did he not vote on anything regarding illegal immigrants, period? Maybe that would be the Honorable thing to do don’t you think Mr. Altman?

    • Jon Altmann says:

      LD20PC, not sure I understand your point. Adam helped Russell Pearce revise SB1070 to give it better chance of survival in a court challenge. Adam voted for it. Sen. McCain got re-elected and Sen. Kyl is retiring. We have six more years of one and two left on the other. Find your candidate for the latter and stay at the ready for the change in six for the former.
      Now, if your point is that Adam did not vote for all the bills of recent days, well, none of those bills had absolute support. Sen.’s Klein and Bungaard voted no to one or another of them. Perhaps we are reaching a legislative tipping point. The next two election cycles will be telling. As for the “honorable thing” – I’m proud to say Adam is a friend and I’ll work hard for him again. Had his opponent won in the 2010 primary, I would have worked hard for him in the general, too. Perhaps therein lies your answer.

      • Sgt. Preston says:

        I can readily “help you out.” Telling supporters to single shot you in a primary race when there are two open (presumably GOP) seats is beyond low. I know this as a fact. Voting with Democrats is also despicable. They never stray from their caucus and vote in tandem, but Driggs sided with them on these crucial votes. I think he’s a self-serving snake.

      • Seeing Red AZ says:

        Mr. Altmann:
        There are numerous reasons sites opt not to release the names of those blogging. When you start up your blog, your policies will be of your own choosing. Here, we ask that you abide by our stated policy, which is not to link to your own site. We reserve that distinction for elected officials only. The box is there by default. If it were possible to close it to you, we would have done so long ago. Others abide by this policy. You alone seem to think rules only apply to others.

  7. LEO IN TSN says:

    Despite the passionate affection for Mr. Driggs by his one remaining supporter, the bottom line is that he betrayed his constituency with his opposition to attempts to control illegal immigration. He also betrayed the wishes and welfare of all citizens of Arizona, as well as those of the legal immigrants residing here, most of whom are passionately OPPOSED to illegal immigration.

    Mr. Driggs seems to have cast his votes for the benefit of moneyed parties who aspire to profit from the flow of illegal aliens, including his own. He and the other RINO traitors choose to ignore the terrible impacts of continued illegal immigration on the lives and conditions of the citizens and legal residents who struggle every day. These are the ones who have to cope with supporting their own families and then paying the additional costs being imposed on them by these RINO politicians to support hordes of illegals.

    In response to a remark that the LDS ethos keeps faith and politics separate, I would remind the people of SRA of the recent developments in Utah. There it was the LDS church, looking for a few new illegal-alien members, that caused the LDS state legislature to vacate existing law and then to legalize being illegal. Possibly Mr. Driggs, if he is indeed an LDS legislator and LDS immigration lawyer, wants to re-create Arizona as LDS has done with Utah.

    Conservatives need to stand resolute to protect and preserve Arizona. Thank you SRA.

    God bless America, including Arizona.

    • Kimball says:

      Very astute observations, LEO IN TSN. You nailed this issue, and Adam Driggs correctly! He is a sellout to the illegal labor profiteers and needs to be replaced. I wish I lived in District 11 and could vote against him. You are also correct on your citing of what recently occurred in Utah.
      Utah (where I have generational family roots) is as much a church-run state as Rome is a church-run city. The LDS Church, running counter to doctrine is shamefully turning a blind eye to illegal status in its zeal to recruit new members. Proselytizing is a foundational mission of the church.
      Senate President Russell Pearce is a devout Mormon, and the unwavering patriotic driving force behind Arizona’s law criminalizing illegal entry into our state. It is not in conflict with the LDS Church’s 13 Articles of Faith, specifically Number 12: stresses obedience of the law. (Example: Doctrine and Covenants 58: 21, “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.”)

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      Thank you, Leo. We also appreciate your readership and sound observations.

  8. Overtaxed1 says:

    I think you should check your facts Jon Altmann. Sen Kline voted YES on ALL 5 of Russell Pierce’s illegal immigration bills. Like so many RINOs you are willing to mislead.
    Anyone who voted no has just slapped the voters. Lets hope the Republicans who voted no get tossed out. Conservative means something to those who TRULY are. Votes speak louder than cheap talk.

  9. American Dad says:

    Jon Altmann:
    You’re a self inflated gas bag. Get a life!

  10. Fairfacts says:

    I believe Adam Driggs to be an intelligent, thoughtful legislator. I may not agree with him, but I know that he votes his conscience. We need to acknowledge that reasonable men (and women) can disagree. It doesn’t mean that others are unpatriotic, or unreasonable, or malicious. They just come down on different sides of a decision. It would be nice to give Sen. Driggs the opportunity to discuss his reasons for his votes, rather than merely castigate him because he disagreed with us. There are many reasons to vote against a bill, even when you agree with its over-all purpose. There may be unintended consequences that we are not aware of.

    • Overtaxed1 says:

      Fairfacts…. you obviously do not have any sense of right and wrong. I do not want to hear any excuses for voting against laws that would get the illegals out of here. Either you honor our soverignity and get rid of the illegals or you are guilty of abeting in all the crimes they commit.
      Fairfacts and Altman… both are helping criminals in your approach to this issue. You must be profiting from their presence. The Mormon church certainly see that they will. Reprehensible and dirty politics at best.

%d bloggers like this: