Judge dropped from delay case - donated to leftist groups

[Hell's Bells]

a republican with b@@@

now hopefully delay goes after earl

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051101/D8DJUIA80.html

[SonomaCat]

Strange. You're cheering on a guy who is clearly unethical as opposed to wanting that sort of person out of the party you cheer for. Rather than asking your party to aspire to something better, you want them to just keep playing partisan politics in order to score some strange political points that just drag the whole system down. No wonder ethics are so lacking in government. If partisans have no desire to police their own and are only worried about increasing their power by any means necessary, the result is corruption.

Gee, I guess I shouldn't be shocked at the level of unethical activities in the news these days by politicians.

And before you recite the DeLay-written talking points that declare that the charges against DeLay are just partisan attack job on a noble and incredibly honest and upstanding man ... check out some nonfiction literature for a change of pace.

It's also strange that you consider this a victory for DeLay of some sort. He's getting a new judge ... but the facts haven't changed, and who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law. If he's guilty of a crime, he'll get convicted. If he's merely guilty of unethical activities, then he'll resume his post in the House and be protected from the ethics committee by his party ... and the whole nation will be worse off for it.

[Ponycat]

I'm not a fan of Delay's at all, and I haven't followed this that much so could you explain why you think he is unethical.

This is an honest question. He seems sleezy to me but I don't have anything to back up why I think that. (Same way I thought about Daschelle)

[SonomaCat]

He has a long list of censures (I'm not sure if that's the right term, but it amounts to getting a ) from the ethics committee for stunts he's pulled in the past. He plays dirty pool, and everyone knows it. I believe he stopped the ethics committee from reprimanding him by getting the committee shut down or otherwise limited its power.

He's also good at playing dirty pool, so he keeps his job running the show despite the sleaze factor.

This last event seemed relatively minor, but it just happened to be illegal (allegedly) under Texas law. It's not a case of isolated bad behavior, though.

[Grizlaw]

a republican with b@@@

now hopefully delay goes after earl

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051101/D8DJUIA80.html

I'm a little confused by this as well. A judge who may or may not have been biased against Delay was removed from the case, and not by reason of any alleged wrongdoing on his or the prosecutor's part. How exactly do you think that's going to help Delay "go after" the prosecutor?

--GL

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

Strange. You're cheering on a guy who is clearly unethical as opposed to wanting that sort of person out of the party you cheer for. Rather than asking your party to aspire to something better, you want them to just keep playing partisan politics in order to score some strange political points that just drag the whole system down. No wonder ethics are so lacking in government. If partisans have no desire to police their own and are only worried about increasing their power by any means necessary, the result is corruption.

Gee, I guess I shouldn't be shocked at the level of unethical activities in the news these days by politicians.

And before you recite the DeLay-written talking points that declare that the charges against DeLay are just partisan attack job on a noble and incredibly honest and upstanding man ... check out some nonfiction literature for a change of pace.

It's also strange that you consider this a victory for DeLay of some sort. He's getting a new judge ... but the facts haven't changed, and who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law. If he's guilty of a crime, he'll get convicted. If he's merely guilty of unethical activities, then he'll resume his post in the House and be protected from the ethics committee by his party ... and the whole nation will be worse off for it.

Delay is a slimeball but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding your assessment regarding "who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law". This is all partisan fueled regardless of who's being prosecuted, who's defending, and who's presiding over the case. In my opinion, it's hard to find a judge these days who doesn't at least slightly legislate from the bench and impose their ideological slant. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a former lawyer with the ACLU (I think that was her role with that group) and well known for her liberal beliefs and tendancies. On the other end, you have Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito who are of the right fringe. I don't have a detailed source of all of their written decisions, but they didn't become known as "being from the left or being from the right" for nothing. If there was no impact on the law, then you wouldn't be seeing the democrats raising oh holy hell over the nomination of Alito.

[Grizlaw]

He has a long list of censures (I'm not sure if that's the right term, but it amounts to getting a ) from the ethics committee for stunts he's pulled in the past.

Just thought I'd mention that I almost had a "coffee on the monitor" moment because of censure being referred to as a from the ethics committee. Thanks BAC; I needed that.

[SonomaCat]

Strange. You're cheering on a guy who is clearly unethical as opposed to wanting that sort of person out of the party you cheer for. Rather than asking your party to aspire to something better, you want them to just keep playing partisan politics in order to score some strange political points that just drag the whole system down. No wonder ethics are so lacking in government. If partisans have no desire to police their own and are only worried about increasing their power by any means necessary, the result is corruption.

Gee, I guess I shouldn't be shocked at the level of unethical activities in the news these days by politicians.

And before you recite the DeLay-written talking points that declare that the charges against DeLay are just partisan attack job on a noble and incredibly honest and upstanding man ... check out some nonfiction literature for a change of pace.

It's also strange that you consider this a victory for DeLay of some sort. He's getting a new judge ... but the facts haven't changed, and who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law. If he's guilty of a crime, he'll get convicted. If he's merely guilty of unethical activities, then he'll resume his post in the House and be protected from the ethics committee by his party ... and the whole nation will be worse off for it.

Delay is a slimeball but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding your assessment regarding "who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law". This is all partisan fueled regardless of who's being prosecuted, who's defending, and who's presiding over the case. In my opinion, it's hard to find a judge these days who doesn't at least slightly legislate from the bench and impose their ideological slant. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a former lawyer with the ACLU (I think that was her role with that group) and well known for her liberal beliefs and tendancies. On the other end, you have Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito who are of the right fringe. I don't have a detailed source of all of their written decisions, but they didn't become known as "being from the left or being from the right" for nothing. If there was no impact on the law, then you wouldn't be seeing the democrats raising oh holy hell over the nomination of Alito.

We're not talking Supreme Court here, though. This is just a criminal case. If they were debating legal theory, then yes, I agree that ideology matters a great deal.

Whether a person donates to a Democrat or a Republican for President should not have a huge impact on a criminal case, however. I think this is just a show being put on by DeLay to play up his attempt at convincing people that this is a partisan witchhunt and is hoping that people lose sight of the fact that he broke the law.

[Hell's Bells]

if the judge donated to any cause that wanted to go after delay then yes the judge should be banned....and for the record if the judge gave money to a pro-delay group id be saying the same thing. judges should be impartial as possible

and btw dont kidd yourself in thinking that the D.A. has no adjenda at all with going after Delay

[Hell's Bells]

Strange. You're cheering on a guy who is clearly unethical as opposed to wanting that sort of person out of the party you cheer for. Rather than asking your party to aspire to something better, you want them to just keep playing partisan politics in order to score some strange political points that just drag the whole system down. No wonder ethics are so lacking in government. If partisans have no desire to police their own and are only worried about increasing their power by any means necessary, the result is corruption.

Gee, I guess I shouldn't be shocked at the level of unethical activities in the news these days by politicians.

And before you recite the DeLay-written talking points that declare that the charges against DeLay are just partisan attack job on a noble and incredibly honest and upstanding man ... check out some nonfiction literature for a change of pace.

It's also strange that you consider this a victory for DeLay of some sort. He's getting a new judge ... but the facts haven't changed, and who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law. If he's guilty of a crime, he'll get convicted. If he's merely guilty of unethical activities, then he'll resume his post in the House and be protected from the ethics committee by his party ... and the whole nation will be worse off for it.

Delay is a slimeball but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding your assessment regarding "who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law". This is all partisan fueled regardless of who's being prosecuted, who's defending, and who's presiding over the case. In my opinion, it's hard to find a judge these days who doesn't at least slightly legislate from the bench and impose their ideological slant. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a former lawyer with the ACLU (I think that was her role with that group) and well known for her liberal beliefs and tendancies. On the other end, you have Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito who are of the right fringe. I don't have a detailed source of all of their written decisions, but they didn't become known as "being from the left or being from the right" for nothing. If there was no impact on the law, then you wouldn't be seeing the democrats raising oh holy hell over the nomination of Alito.

We're not talking Supreme Court here, though. This is just a criminal case. If they were debating legal theory, then yes, I agree that ideology matters a great deal.

Whether a person donates to a Democrat or a Republican for President should not have a huge impact on a criminal case, however. I think this is just a show being put on by DeLay to play up his attempt at convincing people that this is a partisan witchhunt and is hoping that people lose sight of the fact that he broke the law.

it does if your donations are a potential cause for conflict and you know it

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

Strange. You're cheering on a guy who is clearly unethical as opposed to wanting that sort of person out of the party you cheer for. Rather than asking your party to aspire to something better, you want them to just keep playing partisan politics in order to score some strange political points that just drag the whole system down. No wonder ethics are so lacking in government. If partisans have no desire to police their own and are only worried about increasing their power by any means necessary, the result is corruption.

Gee, I guess I shouldn't be shocked at the level of unethical activities in the news these days by politicians.

And before you recite the DeLay-written talking points that declare that the charges against DeLay are just partisan attack job on a noble and incredibly honest and upstanding man ... check out some nonfiction literature for a change of pace.

It's also strange that you consider this a victory for DeLay of some sort. He's getting a new judge ... but the facts haven't changed, and who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law. If he's guilty of a crime, he'll get convicted. If he's merely guilty of unethical activities, then he'll resume his post in the House and be protected from the ethics committee by his party ... and the whole nation will be worse off for it.

Delay is a slimeball but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding your assessment regarding "who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law". This is all partisan fueled regardless of who's being prosecuted, who's defending, and who's presiding over the case. In my opinion, it's hard to find a judge these days who doesn't at least slightly legislate from the bench and impose their ideological slant. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a former lawyer with the ACLU (I think that was her role with that group) and well known for her liberal beliefs and tendancies. On the other end, you have Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito who are of the right fringe. I don't have a detailed source of all of their written decisions, but they didn't become known as "being from the left or being from the right" for nothing. If there was no impact on the law, then you wouldn't be seeing the democrats raising oh holy hell over the nomination of Alito.

We're not talking Supreme Court here, though. This is just a criminal case. If they were debating legal theory, then yes, I agree that ideology matters a great deal.

Whether a person donates to a Democrat or a Republican for President should not have a huge impact on a criminal case, however. I think this is just a show being put on by DeLay to play up his attempt at convincing people that this is a partisan witchhunt and is hoping that people lose sight of the fact that he broke the law.

Well since it's a criminal case, then ideology might be as much, if not more, important. I only used the example of the Supreme Court Justices as an example that despite some of them having well known ideologies, be they left leaning or right leaning, they still ascended to the highest court in the land.

This is purely a smoke and mirrors attempt by DeLay and his defenders. Having a judge known to donate to Dems is just one of the many reasons and excuses that he will get away with and allow himself to buy time or get off on technicalities. Bring in someone with no known slants (if they even exist) and have them preside over the trial. Having a prosecutor and a judge who are both well known Dem supporters certainly won't help the prosecuting side's cause for this case to actually go to trial within a reasonable amount of time. By doing that, it will only lend "credence" to DeLay and Co. theory that it's a witchhunt.

[Hell's Bells]

Strange. You're cheering on a guy who is clearly unethical as opposed to wanting that sort of person out of the party you cheer for. Rather than asking your party to aspire to something better, you want them to just keep playing partisan politics in order to score some strange political points that just drag the whole system down. No wonder ethics are so lacking in government. If partisans have no desire to police their own and are only worried about increasing their power by any means necessary, the result is corruption.

Gee, I guess I shouldn't be shocked at the level of unethical activities in the news these days by politicians.

And before you recite the DeLay-written talking points that declare that the charges against DeLay are just partisan attack job on a noble and incredibly honest and upstanding man ... check out some nonfiction literature for a change of pace.

It's also strange that you consider this a victory for DeLay of some sort. He's getting a new judge ... but the facts haven't changed, and who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law. If he's guilty of a crime, he'll get convicted. If he's merely guilty of unethical activities, then he'll resume his post in the House and be protected from the ethics committee by his party ... and the whole nation will be worse off for it.

Delay is a slimeball but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding your assessment regarding "who a judge donates cash to doesn't impact the law". This is all partisan fueled regardless of who's being prosecuted, who's defending, and who's presiding over the case. In my opinion, it's hard to find a judge these days who doesn't at least slightly legislate from the bench and impose their ideological slant. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a former lawyer with the ACLU (I think that was her role with that group) and well known for her liberal beliefs and tendancies. On the other end, you have Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito who are of the right fringe. I don't have a detailed source of all of their written decisions, but they didn't become known as "being from the left or being from the right" for nothing. If there was no impact on the law, then you wouldn't be seeing the democrats raising oh holy hell over the nomination of Alito.

We're not talking Supreme Court here, though. This is just a criminal case. If they were debating legal theory, then yes, I agree that ideology matters a great deal.

Whether a person donates to a Democrat or a Republican for President should not have a huge impact on a criminal case, however. I think this is just a show being put on by DeLay to play up his attempt at convincing people that this is a partisan witchhunt and is hoping that people lose sight of the fact that he broke the law.

Well since it's a criminal case, then ideology might be as much, if not more, important. I only used the example of the Supreme Court Justices as an example that despite some of them having well known ideologies, be they left leaning or right leaning, they still ascended to the highest court in the land.

This is purely a smoke and mirrors attempt by DeLay and his defenders. Having a judge known to donate to Dems is just one of the many reasons and excuses that he will get away with and allow himself to buy time or get off on technicalities. Bring in someone with no known slants (if they even exist) and have them preside over the trial. Having a prosecutor and a judge who are both well known Dem supporters certainly won't help the prosecuting side's cause for this case to actually go to trial within a reasonable amount of time. By doing that, it will only lend "credence" to DeLay and Co. theory that it's a witchhunt.

were no talkin about known slants were talkin about conflict of interest here

[Grizlaw]

Well since it's a criminal case, then ideology might be as much, if not more, important. I only used the example of the Supreme Court Justices as an example that despite some of them having well known ideologies, be they left leaning or right leaning, they still ascended to the highest court in the land.

I'll weigh in with a couple posts here. I think BAC's point (which I agree with) is that a judge's ideology is not nearly as important at the trial level as it is in an appellate court, period (regardless of whether the case is criminal or civil). The fact is that, during a trial, the only role the judge plays is: (1) ruling on counsel's objections and otherwise deciding what items will be admitted to evidence, and (2) ruling on the jury instructions. I'm not saying those responsibilities are not important; they are, but the fact is that even the most biased judge imaginable can only have a limited impact on a case's outcome.

That's not to say that a biased judge should not be removed from a case; they certainly should, but the effect of removing the judge will probably not have a very profound impact on the outcome of the case.

--GL

[SonomaCat]

It's a "conflict of interest" for a judge to be an American involved in the political process? Would it also be a conflict of interest if the judge voted for Bush? According to you, it must be. So if a guy murders a family of four, apparently all he must do is make a strong political statement during the trial on way or another, and every judge in the land that has ever cast a ballot or uttered a political opinion must recuse themselves from the case. In that void, the criminal must be freed by default.

Come on ... let's quit fearing the monster in the closet or under the bed. Judges have a job to do, and virtually all of them do it blindly, as they are supposed to do.

[Grizlaw]

were no talkin about known slants were talkin about conflict of interest here

I try not to nitpick about things like this, but because it is relevant to the discussion, I am going to in this case.

PLEASE, PLEASE don't use legal phrases like "conflict of interest" loosely. The fact that the judge made contributions to the Dems might indicate that he is biased, and it might indicate the removing him from the case is appropriate, but it does not, in any sense, create a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest would arise if the defendant was a former client of the judge, or if there was some other legally significant relationship between the judge and a party to the case. It does not arise simply because the judge is a member of the opposite political party, or because he contributed money to the opposite political party, or because he was overheard at a bar one night making comparisons between the defendant's mother and members of the canine world. Those things might be evidence of bias, and they might indicate that the judge should be removed to prevent any appearance of impropriety (although they may certainly be mitigated by other factors), but they do not create a conflict of interest.

The reason I care about this is because insinuating that the judge did not recuse himself in a case where there is a true conflict of interest implies that the judge himself is guilty of some wrongdoing, and there is no indication that that is the case here.

All we have here is a judge that legally made some political contributions, period. I'd have to think about whether or not I think that alone should be grounds for removing the judge from the case (I clerked in two different federal courts, and in federal courts, judges and law clerks are all prohibited from making any political contributions, so I tend to approach the issue from the perspective that judges making political contributions is not a positive thing; however, the fact that it is legal to do so in Texas state courts does change the equities of the situation somewhat). Regardless, though, any discussion of "conflict of interest" does have to be excised from the discussion.

/rant off

--GL

[Ponycat]

Apparently someone with more power than any of us decided that the Judge should be taken off the case, and if judges are to be trusted, I believe it was a former judge who made the decision.

It seems we are putting our own slants into this discussion and why and why not it should have happened. Maybe the former judge who ruled to remove the other judge just wants no hint of bias.

And in the long run this is just partisan BS IMHO. Dirty pool and all.

I still don't like/trust Delay but its for reasons I can't explain and no one else has been able to either.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

It's a "conflict of interest" for a judge to be an American involved in the political process? Would it also be a conflict of interest if the judge voted for Bush? According to you, it must be. So if a guy murders a family of four, apparently all he must do is make a strong political statement during the trial on way or another, and every judge in the land that has ever cast a ballot or uttered a political opinion must recuse themselves from the case. In that void, the criminal must be freed by default.

Come on ... let's quit fearing the monster in the closet or under the bed. Judges have a job to do, and virtually all of them do it blindly, as they are supposed to do.

Look BAC, don't get all pissy just because someone has an opinion that differs from yours.

NO ONE is dismissing the job of the judge. Since you're clearly a person who seems to be well-read in the political arena, you can certainly attest that the two main political parties hate each other and that it is at an all time high. Just for the sake of being against each other, if Party D chooses 1, then by default Party R will choose 2.

Bush could miraculously create world peace and give up on his quest for outlawing abortion but his political contrarians would find fault in his decision as they have on everything else. It's no different when a democrat makes a decision either.

With that trend, you certainly can't be surprised that DeLay's lawyer as well as his supporters will charge that these charges filed against him are politically motivated by democrats simply because he's a republican.

With the recent tone of your posts in the political area, is it safe to ask whether you have replaced the (L) on your voter's registration card and replaced it with a (D)?

[Hell's Bells]

were no talkin about known slants were talkin about conflict of interest here

I try not to nitpick about things like this, but because it is relevant to the discussion, I am going to in this case.

PLEASE, PLEASE don't use legal phrases like "conflict of interest" loosely. The fact that the judge made contributions to the Dems might indicate that he is biased, and it might indicate the removing him from the case is appropriate, but it does not, in any sense, create a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest would arise if the defendant was a former client of the judge, or if there was some other legally significant relationship between the judge and a party to the case. It does not arise simply because the judge is a member of the opposite political party, or because he contributed money to the opposite political party, or because he was overheard at a bar one night making comparisons between the defendant's mother and members of the canine world. Those things might be evidence of bias, and they might indicate that the judge should be removed to prevent any appearance of impropriety (although they may certainly be mitigated by other factors), but they do not create a conflict of interest.

The reason I care about this is because insinuating that the judge did not recuse himself in a case where there is a true conflict of interest implies that the judge himself is guilty of some wrongdoing, and there is no indication that that is the case here.

All we have here is a judge that legally made some political contributions, period. I'd have to think about whether or not I think that alone should be grounds for removing the judge from the case (I clerked in two different federal courts, and in federal courts, judges and law clerks are all prohibited from making any political contributions, so I tend to approach the issue from the perspective that judges making political contributions is not a positive thing; however, the fact that it is legal to do so in Texas state courts does change the equities of the situation somewhat). Regardless, though, any discussion of "conflict of interest" does have to be excised from the discussion.

/rant off

--GL

true

but appearantly somebody with more knowledge of the texas legal code kicked that judge off of the bench for the delay case for the reasons that the delay legal team had concerns about him. i have no qualms that the judge participated in the political process, i am just conecrned that one of those donations went to a group *moveon.org* that wants to see delay kicked out of the senate. therefore we have our conflict of interest

[Grizlaw]

therefore we have our conflict of interest

ugh...must...resist...no...can't...

Just stop using the phrase "conflict of interest," and I'll agree (more or less) with everything you've said. The judge was removed because his impartiality was called into question, NOT because there was a conflict of interest. Those two might seem the same to you, but they are not...

We're arguing over semantics here, but the misuse of the phrase "conflict of interest" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

[Hell's Bells]

therefore we have our conflict of interest

ugh...must...resist...no...can't...

Just stop using the phrase "conflict of interest," and I'll agree (more or less) with everything you've said. The judge was removed because his impartiality was called into question, NOT because there was a conflict of interest. Those two might seem the same to you, but they are not...

We're arguing over semantics here, but the misuse of the phrase "conflict of interest" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

arent they along the lines of the same darn thing