Replies

Joe, it's interesting to note that many of the posters defending this out of control judge are the same ones that support and defend our government's open borders agenda and all the lawlessness, crime, fraud, and mayhem associated with it. Apparently Party affiliation trumps all common sense and sense of fairness.

Nice straw man. Too bad it won't stand up on its own.

To help it stand, you'll have to cite examples of the "many of the posters" that take these conflicting positions. If you're right, it should be easy to do.

You also shouldn't confuse "supporting an out-of-control judge" with "in the absence of more information, siding with a judge over a confirmed drug-abusing scofflaw".

Besides, as was mentioned previously in post 234 AND the article, she was serving the 21 days at the same time as the 45 days for the drug charge. So, in essence, he went easy on her, because if he REALLY wanted to be a jerk, he could have ordered her to serve it consecutively.

She was sentenced to the 21 days for contempt before she was found guilty of the drug charge.

It is impossible to say whether the judge would have went 'easy on her' if she went to trial or was found innocent of the drug charges.

Nice straw man. Too bad it won't stand up on its own.

It's not a straw man. It's an Observation. An Observation based on the past histories of a number of posters here that defend and/or make excuses--at every turn--for the lawlessness that illegal immigration breeds in America but suddenly get righteous about "the law" when a hot-tempered judge hands down an extreme penalty for a frivolous infraction.

To help it stand, you'll have to cite examples of the "many of the posters" that take these conflicting positions. If you're right, it should be easy to do.

LOL. Oh, I see, I have to PROVE the validity of my observation to YOU. I have a better idea. Why don't YOU follow some of these characters around for awhile and watch them in action. Should be an eye-opening experience for you.