Judge in DeLay conspiracy case is removed

Not a great day for the democratic causes...

from JoeUser Forums
Not a great day for the democratic causes. One of their own was removed from presiding over the DeLay case, thanks to his (the judge's) contributions to John Kerry, MoveOn.org and other such causes.

The news can be found here.. Headline originally read:

Judge in DeLay conspiracy case is removed

Former House majority leader's attorneys allege Democratic judge is biased


Later in the same day, the Democrats in the Senate also forced the Senate into a closed "secret" session. They gave a variety of reasons, including claiming that they want to get to bottom of the pre-Iraq War claims.

Persons with brains could fairly easily read the situation as the following:

* only got one guy indicted in the Bush Whitehouse (Libby): not good
* didn't get Rove: not good
* didn't get Cheney: not good
* couldn't get Bush: not good
* watched Miers withdrawal her own nomination: not good
* saw Alito named as next Supreme Court of the U.S. nominee: really not good
* saw DeLay win a small victory: not good

All of the above adds up to NO GOOD for Democrats, so they dug into the bag of tricks and held the Senate hostage for a few hours so they could demand more be done in the fishing expeditions on the facts in the pre-Iraq War intel area, especially since they are still fuming over Plame being outted, and still claiming it was done in retribution against Wilson's botched trip and report which still does more to support the claims that the White House was making than it does to deny and debunk them.
politics
3,551 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I heard a snippet about this "secret session" on the way to work, the gist of it being that it is just a stunt - be interesting to get the full skinny on it. You can bet that the selective crap the Dems want us to hear won't be "secret" for long.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
more to the point of the article...will justice be better served by having a republican judge try the case? or will an acquittal be seen to prove only that while one judge might have not have been impartial, another is definitely corrupt? no matter what happens, no one really wins. certainly not citizens of texas.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

more to the point of the article...will justice be better served by having a republican judge try the case? or will an acquittal be seen to prove only that while one judge might have not have been impartial, another is definitely corrupt? no matter what happens, no one really wins. certainly not citizens of texas.

I have a radical idea.  How about an IMPARTIAL judge?

What a novel concept!  I wonder why no one has thought of that before??????

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about an IMPARTIAL judge?


who says the first one wasnt?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
who says the first one wasnt?


I did.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
who says the first one wasnt?


Anyone that wasn't a partisan could tell that the first judge was far from impartial.

The *right* thing to have done would have been for that judge to recuse himself and have another judge assigned to the case.

For the record, I have no issue with a judge that is a Democrat handling the case, provided the judge isn't as obviously partisan as this judge has shown himself to be. An independent would also be fine, and gee, how about a fair minded judge that might even be a Republican?

I'll admit, it looks much less political if the judge for the case doesn't have obvious political leanings in either direction. The more activist the judge in the political area, the less likely the judge can be impartial and fair minded.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did.


well there ya have it, sports fans. guess we can all go home now since the mighty island pup hath spoken.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
An independent would also be fine, and gee, how about a fair minded judge that might even be a Republican?


any judge who wasn't likely to have received campaign funds directly or indirectly from or thru delay would seem to be a better choice. that would very likely rule out republicans as well as independents. remember texas judges run as partisan candidates.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

who says the first one wasnt?

Maybe his donations to moveon.org?  That goes a little beyond being just a democrat.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

mighty island pup hath spoken.

Going Dabe on us????

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe his donations to moveon.org


at least you gotta reasonable expectation he wasn't benefitting from delays fund-raising
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Going Dabe on us????


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahah you call col gene what? alla time? anyway his claim that he'd decided the first judge was biased was both egotistical and arrogant. surprised you didn't notice that.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
You gotta love it when the Democrats shut the doors, turn off the microphones and the cameras, kick out all non-Senators and demand, demand...

what they already have: Link

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahah you call col gene what? alla time? anyway his claim that he'd decided the first judge was biased was both egotistical and arrogant. surprised you didn't notice that.

I did notice, and I just laughed.  But for you to start name calling.   Now that was a shock!  As for Col Klink (note he is the only one), how can you take him seriously?  He is a one trick pony.