berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:03 PM
Original message |
DeLay's Lawyer: MOVES TO RECUSE HIMSELF? |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 12:16 PM by berni_mccoy
If he's asking the judge to recuse himself because he's a Democrat, then the SAME MOTION says he needs to step aside and let a true Republican DEFEND DeLay... how about Kenn Star?
If DeLay can't trust a Dem to judge the case, then he can't trust a Dem Lawyer to defend him can he?
And vice versa, if DeLay trusts a Dem Lawyer, then he should trust a Dem Judge.
MOTION DENIED (at least, that's the argument I would use if I were the judge)
|
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:04 PM
Response to Original message |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Partially... The motion to have judge recuse himself |
|
Should be EQUALLY APPLIED TO THE DEFENSE LAWYER!
|
funflower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. It's OK. The Texas Supreme Court is big-time republican. |
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
18. 100%, in fact. Costs lots of $$$ to run for TX Supreme Court - $ 4 mil |
|
and that is if you are a REPUBLICAN - ha!
Any Dem wanting to run for a spot would be looking at at least 4 x that amount to defend himself.
And that is thanks to Rove and the BugMan hisself...
|
funflower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
26. Cool name, Justitia. I like the Jefferson pic, too. |
|
Where is a politician like Jefferson when you need him?
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:04 PM
Response to Original message |
liberalnurse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 12:08 PM by liberalnurse
|
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:04 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Kinda misleading sub line there... |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Not Really.. the SAME MOTION could be used to FORCE the LAWYER TO RECUSE |
|
Himself... he's a Democrat!
|
SF Bay Area Dem
(394 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Is Deguerien a Democrat? Really? |
|
Where did you find this out?
|
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. It was publicized when DeLay was indicted n/t |
roguevalley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. I was under the belief that 'no litmus tests' were necessary in our |
|
little gumit. What is the deal here? Only dems do dems and pigs do pigs? amazing, these people.
|
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. He claims to be a Dem for PR value. He's no Dem. |
|
We do not register party affiliation here in TX. I could claim to be whatever party I want, there is no record.
DeGuerin only defends REPUBLICANS. His biggest political client ('til now) is Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), he has bailed her ass out of trouble many times and given her thousands of $$$. He also trashes Dems quite regularly on TV.
He is most notorious in these parts for defending and letting loose on our streets Robert Durst, who dismembered his neighbor and threw his body parts into Galveston Bay. Now Durst freely roams the streets of Houston thanks to DeGuerin.
Real classy client list, huh?
|
Sapphire Blue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. Your subject line is stated as fact... and IS misleading. |
Lerkfish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
12. well, the title implies an action directly taken, rather than the logical |
|
consequence of a different action.
it is misleading.
I should instead perhaps insert "may have" or "inadvertantly acts to" recuse self.
|
mondo joe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
15. But the thread title is inaccurate, since he's not moving to do that. |
|
In addition, the judge and the attorney have different roles, so one motion does not extend to the other.
|
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
16. By what legal principle or precedent? |
katty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message |
14. that's rich! he wants out of the messy entanglement known as DeLay |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message |
17. TO NITPICKERS: I changed the title so it wasn't so misleading |
stopbush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Looks like DeLay is going for the "As long as there are Democrats |
|
around (judges, jury members...waitresses) I can't get a fair trial" defense.
|
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. LOL - "waitresses", and an astute observation of the matter! -eom |
jmowreader
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
27. I can kinda understand that |
|
I mean, the guy only redesigned the Texas electoral map so that most of the congressional districts in Texas were majority-Republican, then filtered tons of corporate dollars through the RNC to Republican congressional candidates. You know, baby shit.
If they stick DeLay in front of a Democratic judge, he'll be singing "Feel Like A Number" about ten minutes into the trial.
|
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Cool, would that mean we could have a Dem judge reopen the Ohio election |
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. and 2000's "Bush v. Gore" ???? -eom |
demobabe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message |
23. See, this is one of the big problems with our courts |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 12:49 PM by demobabe
So, a Democrat judge is incapable of a fair ruling?
If having a political affiliation is tied to the outcome of the trial, then it could be equally said that a Republican would also be incapable of giving a fair ruling.
Our judges are supposed to interpret the law FACTUALLY, and not tailor it to suit the outcome they wish. Being a judge isn't supposed to have anything to do with partisanship.
This is exactly what we saw in Bush v. Gore in 2000; the Supreme Court had absolutely no reason to have interfered with Florida's ruling, instead opting to do anything to get their guy in office.
|
Marr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
24. Exactly. Excellent point. |
|
If the assumption is that the judge's political affiliation will influence the outcome of the case, you could use the same argument against his desired Republican replacement.
The request itself assumes political corruption is inherent in the system. Not surprising, coming from DeLay's camp.
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-21-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message |
25. The recusal motion emphasizes the POLITICAL meme and ignores the financial |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 01:05 PM by TahitiNut
Recusal is a valid request when there's a conflict of INTEREST. By making a motion for recusal of the judge on a POLTICAL basis, the defense is again speciously claiming the issues themselves are political rather than legal/criminal.
The question would be: Would a Republican judge be equally required to recuse him/herself?? After all, that would be an equivalent conflict of INTEREST. Indeed, anyone who VOTES would have a conflict of INTEREST.
Since the answer is obviously 'No' then the supervising judges should say so - making clear that the only INTEREST at issue in the case is a legal one, not a political one. To acknowledge a political 'interest' at issue in this case by recusing the judge would itself be a biased decision, essentially confirming the LIE that the issue is political.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Jun 15th 2024, 04:20 PM
Response to Original message |