[Johnny]Sutton to join Ashcroft's law firm

San Antonio Express-News ^ | 04/22/2009 | Guillermo Contreras

[CharlesWayneCT]

And there were some who, realising that you don’t really know a person simply because you’ve read about them on the internet, simply noted that the actions taken in a particular case were not irrational, as proven by the number of otherwise reasonable people who agreed with those actions, and the rulings of the courts.

One of the reasons conservatives can’t win elections right now is because too many of us are so sure we are right about everything that we are more likely to throw conservatives (like Ashcroft) under the bus than to entertain the notion that we are wrong about someone.

We have entered a period of “toxic conservatism”, where a person can be labeled as “evil”, and then any conservative who sides with that person becomes toxic.

[CharlesWayneCT]

One day, when we are all in heaven, Sutton will walk up, and a group of Freepers will storm off, and post how God has become a liberal.

[1rudeboy]

I'd read the book, if he wrote one. (I don't think he will).

One thing I particularly found interesting (and somewhat disappointing) about this case is the way assumed facts became facts in evidence. One example: Ramos and Compean followed procedure.

Even after Ramos and Compean (or one or the other, I don't remember anymore and don't feel like looking it up) admitted on the stand that they didn't, people still clung to the notion that they did. And it's permissible to infer that they clung to the notion simply to score political points. All the while clinging to another notion that the prosecution was political. It made a dispassionate conversation about the case impossible.

[1rudeboy]

Oh, and another one (even bigger): §924(c) does not apply to law enforcement officers. The Fifth Circuit says it did. Heck, the Fifth Circuit upheld it.

That should have been the end of the story. But it wasn't.

[CharlesWayneCT]

There were great discussions to be had, like whether 924(C) SHOULD have applied or not, and if we as conservatives should push our representatives to change the law.

But those conversations were drowned out.

[1rudeboy]

I think Minimum Sentencing Guidelines are an unconstitutional legislative infringement upon the judicial branch. It doesn’t appear that enough people care.

[1rudeboy]

But those conversations were drowned out.

And it is now apparent that the politicians who claimed the Section should not apply were merely grandstanding.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I completely agree with you, and it’s sad that MSG are mostly a result of a branch of conservatism who decided to fight liberal judges by taking away judicial power, rather than targeting the liberal judges.

We now see that MSG opens the door to leniency in sentencing, along with complaints about racism and oppression which would not happen if judges could allow juries to reach the correct criminal convictions, and THEN take into account circumstances when imposing judgment.

If C&R had gotten reasonable sentences, the outrage over their case wouldn’t have spilled over into damaging attacks on good conservatives who simply disagreed with those who thought C&R were innocent of all charges.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I really thought we’d at least see a concerted push by those politicians to amend the law to make it clear they didn’t expect it to apply.

[AndrewC]

I think Minimum Sentencing Guidelines are an unconstitutional legislative infringement upon the judicial branch. It doesn’t appear that enough people care.

Is it then your viewpoint that the punishment to be meted out for a crime is an entirely judicial decision? IOW, the legislature has no business setting the punishment for a crime or even whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor?

[SwinneySwitch]

Never doubted for a second.

[muawiyah]

Chucky, that Sutton is disgraced is to say the least. Now, can he make money? I certainly never doubted that ~ but can he hold onto it.

Was just looking up some stuff on Ramos and came across this particular thread (that I posted on at the time) and wanted to see what had been added since a month and a half ago. Intriguingly none of these guys have popped up in the news since then except in regard to one item about Eric Holder moving the statue over at DOJ ~ thought it interesting that Ol'Eric was not ridiculed over that. Guess the "newsiest" fear him ~ he is a tad unstable yhou know.

Now, what's going on with Sutton. Is he working, or is he sitting around a partially furnished office still trying to figure out how to use the switch for the money calls?

[muawiyah]

BTW, back on the case, something I'd missed in earlier discussions is that some folks appear to be disputing the effect of "minimum sentencing guidelines".

I thought it more important that the added time was derived from the fact the guys had a gun or guns.

All I wanted was for the INDIVIDUALS in the chain of command over these guys who'd ordered that he guns be present in the first place ALSO BE PROSECUTED.

Best I could tell that would have included Bush, Ashcroft, Sutton and quite possibly the Secretary of Commerce (have to look at the dates on that one).

Just to clarify where I stood. (and not that I wanted Bush prosecuted here, but simply wanted to forcefully remind how NUTS it is to decide to send cops to jail simply because they have guns).