Delay's Judge Donates to moveon and other leftwinged radicals

[Pabster]

You seem to misunderstand the difference between an appointed judge and an elected one.

 

[her209]

So no jury?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

this whole thread is a waste of time. nothing of meaning or value in here. just because he has donated to left-wing organizations has absolutely NO bearing on how he will preside over this case. if what your implying is true, then the only judges we should have in any case are those with no political affiliation whatsoever.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: Pabster
You seem to misunderstand the difference between an appointed judge and an elected one.

Uh, I don't know how a judge gets to be a judge then, if not elected or appointed.

1) If elected, then they answer to the people
2) If appointed, then this means they are chosen by the Govenor (who is elected by the people), and confirmed by the legislature (also elected by the people).

So, I guess I don't see how you can say that a judge (either elected or appointed) does not answer to the people. The people are always part of the process!

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: Pabster
You seem to misunderstand the difference between an appointed judge and an elected one.

Uh, I don't know how a judge gets to be a judge then, if not elected or appointed.

1) If elected, then they answer to the people
2) If appointed, then this means they are chosen by the Govenor (who is elected by the people), and confirmed by the legislature (also elected by the people).

So, I guess I don't see how you can say that a judge (either elected or appointed) does not answer to the people. The people are always part of the process!

wow, you beat me to the pwnage.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Pabster
No, in fact, most of them aren't elected. Hence the current horrid state of our judiciary, what with all the activist judges out there who have no one to answer to.

Well, I don't understand. First you're complaining because of this judge's party affiliation which any elected judge is going to have. But then you say that, its the lack of elections that have resulted in the horrid state of our judiciary. So do you want elections and all the party partisnahsip that results (but makes them answer to the people) or not? Maybe, you should elaborate a bit more on your position, as you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Seriously, what's the deal? Are judges not allowed to vote and participate in the democratic process?

Judges are certainly allowed to engage in the democratic process, so long as such engagement does not impose on their mandate of impartial and fair judicial review.

While this judge may certainly be capable of performing his duty in a professional manner, his contributions do suggest or at least introduces the potential that his political leanings could influence his ability to remain inpartial.

To carry your point even further should Judges who are Republicans recuse themselves fron the trial too? How about Jurors?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: tss4
Well, I don't understand. First you're complaining because of this judge's party affiliation which any elected judge is going to have. But then you say that, its the lack of elections that have resulted in the horrid state of our judiciary. So do you want elections and all the party partisnahsip that results (but makes them answer to the people) or not? Maybe, you should elaborate a bit more on your position, as you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

You've misinterpreted my points.

I haven't said anything about this particular judge's affiliations. I don't know this judge...

My point was against Earle.

As for the horrible state of the judiciary overall, that is correct. That doesn't mean each and every judge is an activist trying to disregard the law -- regardless of how they came to be on the bench.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: tss4
Well, I don't understand. First you're complaining because of this judge's party affiliation which any elected judge is going to have. But then you say that, its the lack of elections that have resulted in the horrid state of our judiciary. So do you want elections and all the party partisnahsip that results (but makes them answer to the people) or not? Maybe, you should elaborate a bit more on your position, as you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

You've misinterpreted my points.

I haven't said anything about this particular judge's affiliations. I don't know this judge...

My point was against Earle.

As for the horrible state of the judiciary overall, that is correct. That doesn't mean each and every judge is an activist trying to disregard the law -- regardless of how they came to be on the bench.

So do you agree with the OPs position that this judge should be removed beause he made donations to democratic organizations?

 

[judasmachine]

in a country split 50/50 how the h*ll do you expect anyone to get a fair shake? oh yeah it's that whole integrity thing no one possesses anymore.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
My point was against Earle.

The only "point" you tried to make about Earle was to call him "a blind partisan." That's totally refuted by his own record, per my previous post, and you have yet to post any links to anything to refute it.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? If not. everything you've said in this thread is... well.. pointless.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
The only madness going on in America is a product of the radical right.

Man I'd like to see that pair of blinders you've been wearing!

You'd prefer to be blind?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: sandorski
Wow! The guy hasn't rendered a verdict yet and is already being smeared. It's icky dealing with scum.

In what world is listing a person's publicly-available campaign contributions considered "smearing?"

How is it at all relevant?

Suppose I say: "Shut up, Hafen. You only have ~1600 posts here."

Was that at all relevant? No.
Is it "smearing" you? No.

Small difference, perhaps, but the cries of "smear campaigning" are just as much of a stretch as the OP's conclusions.

Then I would say to your statement: is that a logical fallacy? Yes. Rudeness? Certainly.
Another nice example of an Ad Hom from this very thread:

Like I'm going to take the word of the LA Times or the Christian Science Monitor (two extremely liberal publications) for Earle's supposed fairness? ROFLMAO.

However that doesn't really address the revelance issue. Was this information distributed just for the sake of trivia? Given the reactions/responces of the usual kneejerk-conservative suspects in this very thread (Zen, Pabster,) I think something more nefarious could be suspected.

Is something like this expected in a public political fight? Sure, but don't try and dismiss such motives as benign.

 

[dmcowen674]

It's WAR

10-29-2005 Texas Prosecutor Subpoenas MoveOn.org Director

WASHINGTON - A Texas prosecutor has subpoenaed the head of a liberal activist group and records of political contributions from mostly Republican state judges in advance of a hearing Tuesday to decide who should preside over former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's criminal case.

Almost all Tarrant and Dallas judges whose records were subpoenaed have made federal political contributions to Republican groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Wow! The guy hasn't rendered a verdict yet and is already being smeared. It's icky dealing with scum.

He has already rendered his verdict with his donations. Many of the other judges in the area have made no political donations. He stands out in that he has and does.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice bit of slime you're spreading, yourself, condor- "He has already rendered his verdict with his donations. "

I keep hearing about how Delay is innocent until proven guilty- maybe that same criteria should be applied to showing alleged bias by this judge. If anything, I suspect that being of the other party will compel him to conduct the trial in a very fair manner, not wanting his rulings overturned on appeal... The trial judge is not the final authority in such matters, at all, and I'm sure he's very well aware of that.

I also have to call you on this bit of unsubstantiated assertion-

"Many of the other judges in the area have made no political donations. "

That seems unlikely, at best, and irrelevant, anyway, considering that Texas judges are generally elected, and that they usually run on party affiliations... If they haven't made any political donations, then they've obviously received some, nonetheless...

Who is more likely to be beholden to any outside biasing influence- the giver, or the receiver of funds? Or can Delay only be judged fairly by his repub compatriots, those who have likely received funding from one of Delay's front organizations? The way that DeLay, Inc. operates, it'll but very tough to find any repubs in Texas who haven't benefitted financially from his efforts...