Replies

<>In a move that baffled and later angered Judge Pickering, Civil Rights Division prosecutors early on decided to make a plea bargain with two of the three suspects. The first, Mickey Thomas, had an unusually low IQ, and prosecutors decided to reduce charges against him based on that fact. The second bargain was with the 17-year-old. Civil Rights Division lawyers allowed both men to plead guilty to misdemeanors in the cross-burning case (the juvenile also pleaded guilty to felony charges in the shooting incident). The Civil Rights Division recommended no jail time for both men. (from article)

Just wanted this highlighted as it goes to the heart of the story. Two men get off but Schumer and Co., wanted the 3rd man sentenced to the maximum for a crime committed by all three. This is absurd! This needs widespread dissemination IMO!

Pickering set a sentencing date of January 3, 1995. As the date approached, he waited for an answer from the Justice Department. He asked in November, 1994 and received no response. He asked again in December and received no response. He asked again on January 2, the day before the sentencing, and still received no response. He delayed sentencing, and on January 4 wrote a strongly-worded order to prosecutors demanding not only that they respond to his questions but that they take the issue up personally with Attorney General Janet Reno and report back within ten days.

I thought this was a pretty telling paragraph as well. The Clinton Justice Department asleep at the wheel again.

"Two men get off but Schumer and Co., wanted the 3rd man sentenced to the maximum for a crime committed by all three."

But Chuckie and Company had no problem with Clinton's pardoning of FALN terrorists responsible for over 100 bombings in the country, not to mention the murder of New York City police officers. Among Chuckie's associatates who supported the pardons were: Reps. Jose E. Serrano, Charles B. Rangel, Nydia M. Velazquez and Eliot L. Engel

This needs widespread dissemination IMO!

Don't bother. Judge Pickering's opponents don't oppose him because they are unaware of the facts-they oppose him in spite of the facts.

We, who deal in fact, logic and argument are constantly submarined by the left, for whom fact and logic are relative terms, useful only insofar as they produce a desired result.

They are not opposed to Pickering because he is not a good guy. THEY ALREADY KNOW HE IS A GOOD GUY.

They are not opposed to Pickering because of bad decisions he has rendered. THEY ALREADY KNOW HIS VERDICTS ARE UNIMPEACHABLE.

They are not opposed to Pickering because he lacks judicial temperament. THEY ALREADY KNOW HIS JUDICIAL DEMEANOR IS EXCELLENT.

It is a waste of breath to try to convince Schumer et al of the facts which they already know.

Our energy should be devoted to the same vigorous political combat that the other side excels at.

Ask yourself this: When President Xlinton nominated the radical left activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court (not a Circuit Court, mind you-to the freaking UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!!!)-how much time was spent in floor debate and how many Republicans voted against her?