Posted on 10/17/2005 2:12:47 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
BOB PERKINS IS TOM DELAY'S "JUDGE" IN HIS "BOOKING" HEARING--BOB PERKINS COULD ALLOW TOM DELAY TO NOT BE "BOOKED" WITH A MUG SHOT. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THAT HAPPENING, NOW THAT WE SEE BOB PERKINS' POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ACCORDING TO OPENSECRETS.ORG?
|
6 records found in 0.7656 seconds.
Total for this search: $1,775
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
no kidding. it'd be like trying to get a fair trial for some Shiite accused in Sunni Ramadi. Austin and Sugarland could not be more polar opposite. the fact that someone from "enemy territory" can extradite people like this should be cause for alarm for people outside the long liberal arm of Austin. Because they may not, in fact, be immune.
I guess at the end of the day the liberals feel kind of like, scr3w it, DeLay overplayed his re-districting hand and broke the omerta code amongst politicians, so why should they feel restrained from acting unethically in order to get even.
zero...but I can't do it alone.
"...Also, you don’t win legal cases pissing off a Judge over $200 bucks."
Good point. He has to be able to continue to argue cases before this judge for other clients. As much as I don't like it, I understand.
---"LOL... President Bush nominates to the USSC a person who may be the most conservative and constructionist justice ever and you're left numb?... LOL... what a great soldier for the cause you are."---
LOL is right. The most Conservative judge ever?
This soldier has walked the walk, buddy. That insult won't ever fly with me - I work hard to help.
Now for the good news. Today's questionaire shines Miers in a more positive light; but the "most Conservative judge ever" would not openly support Affirmative Action. She was a big part of watering down White House opposition to the Michigan Affirmative Action case; she was and is of the position that the Supreme Court should uphold Affirmative Action.
That being said, today's new info has me a lot less hostile and a lot more curious. This is perhaps the first rallying point I've found for Miers, thanks to a bumbling and stumbling White House up until now on the issue.
For the first time we have solid information that she is Pro-Life. Not conjecture and second-hand references, but words from her own mouth and written by her own hand. That, combined with a satisfactory explanation of the role of the Judiciary on social issues, and a public statement that she would favor outlawing abortion except for life and death situations (1989), is a very big step in the right direction.
I am now 95%+ sure she is currently Pro-Life,
75% sure she'd vote to overturn Roe v. God,
and 90%+ sure she'd uphold Affirmative Action.
That being said, a Stevens or Ginsberg retirement could remedy Affirmative Action by reversing a 5-4 decision if Bush appoints a true Conservative to replace either of them. Miers may well be a step in the right direction on Roe, but we still need a Stevens or Ginsberg retirement to remedy that activism. That being said, it looks like Miers might be a small noodge to the right for the Supreme Court, which would make her acceptable, though still not anywhere near what we could have had.
For the first time, I have moved from the "stop Miers now" camp to the "let's hear more" camp. I still think we could do better; but making a gain, at least on Roe, would turn out to be a net positive for the Conservative movement.
Unlike National Review, et al, I would be satisfied with a solid Conservative vote for 15 years. I don't need a movement Conservative to replace a swing vote; I need that movement Conservative when the overall direction of the Court changes, which would be with one of the next retirements of a liberal justice.
That being said, I am holding my breath and listening right now. The leaks about the secret meeting are very interesting; it is beginning to look more and more like a White House arranged leak that is untraceable. Smart move, if true.
We'll see......we'll see.......
I've never listened to them, why bother, I don't even think they're on in Los Angeles.
see this thread and post #11
Ping. This should shock nobody.
Wonder what the chances are that this judge is one of the signers?
*ping*
I'd like to know how to look at the petition signers ---- but I cannot figure out how to do that.
Being a republican.
BTTT...
"All of the criminal defendants that I have represented in the twenty plus years that that I have practiced law claim that the charges are trumped up and that the cops/prosecutor is out to get them. They all think that the charges should be dropped and they all claim they are innocent."
Does not matter if he signed it or not. THE JUDGE GAVE MONEY TO MOVEON.ORG! MOVEON.ORG RAN ADS AGAINST DELAY.
THE JUDGE MUST GIVE THE CASE TO ANOTHER JUDGE!!
FURTHER MORE...and I am checking this on Thursday.....
I sat in on a lecture recently...by two judges...who are the judges that judges have to go before when they get in trouble in the State of Texas.
One of the rules they mentioned sounded like it is against the judicial cannon of ethics for a Judge to give to a PAC.
Doesn't "shock" me at all, but it is VERY interesting.
Great info!
I also didn't mean to insult all liberal arts majors. I respect history majors, political science majors, and others. The BS majors I was thinking of were things like Women's Studies, various ethnic studies, sociology, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.