In Stevens case, federal prosecutors lied and deceived
In 2008, then-Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska was prosecuted and convicted on charges that he had failed to report free work that a politically connected contractor had performed on his home.
Eight days after his conviction in federal court, Stevens was defeated for re-election.
The late Sen. Ted Stevens, who died in a plane crash in 2010
In early 2009, however, that conviction was overturned at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, which had discovered serious prosecutorial misconduct by attorneys in its Public Integrity Section.
A new independent investigation of that misconduct has now been released, and it is chilling. It concludes:
“The investigation and prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.”
The details of the report make it even more chilling. Prosecutors were so determined to convict Stevens and get the scalp of a U.S. senator whom they believed corrupt that they point-blank lied to the court, to the defense and even to other members of the Department of Justice. (The report calls the lies “astonishing misstatements.”)
Prosecutors withheld crucial evidence. They allowed their witnesses to offer testimony that they knew to be false. There is also strong evidence that they pushed witnesses to fabricate last-minute testimony needed to close gaping holes in their case.
One of the few silver linings in the case is the fact that Stevens and the Bush administration that prosecuted him belonged to the same party. Had Stevens been a Democrat, this would been portrayed as a politically motivated hit job by the executive branch against a member of the opposite party, which would have created a crisis of an entirely different kind.
That also would have distracted attention from the real issues in the case, which are equally troubling in their own right:
– We need an aggressive, effective Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Justice Department; it is essential in ferreting out government corruption, especially at the state and local level where local prosecutors may be too intimidated or too compromised to take action themselves. However, actions such as these call into question the integrity of the Public Integrity Section. (It is important to stress that once other lawyers in the Justice Department began reviewing the case on appeal, they quickly discovered and reported the misbehavior of their colleagues; the Justice Department itself moved to have the conviction overturned.)
– If the defendant in the case was not a U.S. senator, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, it is questionable whether the facts of the case would ever have come to light. How many lower-profile cases in both federal and state courts are dogged by similar prosecutorial misconduct and are never discovered? When the awesome power of the government is turned against a single citizen, it is critically important that such power be wielded fairly and honestly. It is deeply troubling when such awesome power is abused.
– Despite evidence that “would prove beyond a reasonable doubt (that exculpatory) information was intentionally withheld from the attorneys for Senator Stevens,” the new Stevens report concludes that no criminal proceeding against the rogue prosecutors is possible because the legal barriers against such steps are so high.
Those barriers exist for a reason — prosecutors cannot do their job aggressively without a high degree of legal protection. But if those barriers are so high that they preclude punishment for conscious deception, fabrication and withholding of evidence, they need to be reconsidered.
As it is, prosecutors rarely suffer consequences for abusing the process. (Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the infamous Duke lacrosse case, was eventually disbarred for his actions in that case, but such steps are rare.)
Consider a case out of Louisiana, in which prosecutors withheld blood evidence and other proof that would have helped to exonerate a murder suspect. Instead, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death, eventually serving 18 years on Death Row and coming close to execution several times before being granted a new trial.
The truth came to light only after a junior district attorney on the case made a death-bed confession, and even then his confession was withheld for five years. In a new trial, the jury cleared the defendant after 35 minutes of deliberation.
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
262 comments Add your comment
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
9:37 am
Jay says,
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.
What more could you expect from Georgia’s own Clarence Thomas?
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
9:38 am
“Who polices the Prosecutors?” – Johnnie Cochran
Nice article…The Public Integrity idea is a good one.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:38 am
FIRST
Lord Help Us
March 16th, 2012
9:38 am
I wonder why someone in Bush’s Justice Dept had it in for Sen. Steven’s?
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:38 am
Ah crap, not first haha
HDB
March 16th, 2012
9:39 am
…and the question is: How much of this really goes on?? More than we in the public think…….
Talking Head
March 16th, 2012
9:39 am
Relevancy?
Robert Lee
March 16th, 2012
9:40 am
First!
Robert Lee
March 16th, 2012
9:40 am
Dang!
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
9:40 am
Those barriers exist for a reason — prosecutors cannot do their job aggressively without a high degree of legal protection.
Seems like they wouldn’t need any more protection than law enforcement needs, but I’m no legal scholar. Seems that there should be means to remove corruption from all areas of government without having to go through extreme measures first.
Lord Help Us
March 16th, 2012
9:41 am
‘Relevancy?’
Umm, the report was filed yesterday,…
Robert Lee
March 16th, 2012
9:41 am
That is the question, who in W’s adminsitration had it out for Stevens?
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
9:41 am
Maybe Justice Thomas has GEORGIA on his mind!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8IqkRbxcTA
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
9:42 am
I meant to say the “effective” Public Integrity. Rats
I realize we already have the Public Integrity Section.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 16th, 2012
9:42 am
A total abuse of the system.
“Those barriers exist for a reason — prosecutors cannot do their job aggressively without a high degree of legal protection. But if those barriers are so high that they preclude punishment for conscious deception, fabrication and withholding of evidence, they need to be reconsidered.”
However, I disagree with the above statement. Police officers are held to account everyday for the decisions they make in a “split second”.
Prosecutors (and Judges) should also be held to account for decisons they make over months.
Just sayin’
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:43 am
Hey Jay, how come you aren’t writing about…. Oh wait, I guess you ARE writing about how there is corruption and the victim was a Republican.
But but but… OBAMA!
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 16th, 2012
9:43 am
P.S.
I disagree with “part” of Jay’s statement.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
9:45 am
Those prosecutors violated their oath, their trust and their honor.
Yes, it is time to tweak the barriers that prevent those who lie and misuse their office to further injustice from being held accountable. And to do it in such a way that that Supreme Court ruling does not apply.
O'ByteMe - Fake-Irish Goon
March 16th, 2012
9:45 am
Someone didn’t give Talking Head his talking points about this topic. Chaos! Confusion! Run!
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
9:45 am
Adam@9:43
*facepalm*
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
9:45 am
So, I’m going to guess that there are some prosecutors that will no longer have law licenses. Simply because of high profile nature of the person they screwed over. There are way too many protections for the state when they screw up, and screw over a citizen.
Blind Justice – Yeah, it is horrible when the SCOTUS actually reads and follows the law. I wish they would just go up there and vote with their feelings and change the laws as they see fit. Wait, then we would have people calling them activist judges and decrying them for their evil ways.
Jm
March 16th, 2012
9:46 am
Small government = good government
When the government gets a blank check, they do all kinds of misdeeds
Jay is blind to the Obama administration misdeeds and they are numerous
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:46 am
O’ByteMe: Yep. Nothing says “irrelevant” to some people like “but it wasn’t on the morning radio talk shows/Drudge Report/Hannity/wherever-else-I-go-to-get-my-talking-points”
Lord Help Us
March 16th, 2012
9:47 am
If Nifong can be disbarred in the Duke LaCrosse case, I do not see where the barrier is too high (perhaps not equivalent to the offense, but at least some repercussion). Perhaps it is only selectively prosecuted.
O'ByteMe - Fake-Irish Goon
March 16th, 2012
9:47 am
I agree with Mr. Multiple Zip Codes, above. If police can be held accountable for a split-second life-or-death decision, prosecutors and judges should also be held accountable for decisions that require more than a few seconds and have lots of time to be corrected.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:47 am
Steve – USA: Come on, you see it here every day. Don’t pretend
Lee Weber
March 16th, 2012
9:47 am
Jay, two great columns in one week. You’re on fire.
Calls to mind Former Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan’s line after he was found not guilty of corruption charges…”Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” Working for the goverment shouldn’t bring any special protection from misconduct. Yet another case of the government treating its employees one way and the rest of us another. Disgraceful.
I’d hope that the relevant bar associations would move to disbar these attorneys, but I’m not holding my breath. Lawyers do as bad a job of policing their own as the goverment does.
O'ByteMe - Fake-Irish Goon
March 16th, 2012
9:48 am
Small government = good government
Wrong.
good government = good government
QED
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
9:48 am
Yeah so we don’t need you adding to it!
Jm
March 16th, 2012
9:48 am
Clarence Thomas is a fine justice
Throw your vitriol elsewhere liberals
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
9:48 am
Lord Help Us – I don’t know, how many lawyers have you met that are qualified to do anything besides law? You disbar a lawyer and you’ve taken away their ability to work and earn money to feed their families. Seems like a pretty drastic punishment to me.
Butch Cassidy
March 16th, 2012
9:49 am
O’ByteMe – “Someone didn’t give Talking Head his talking points about this topic.”
Unfortunately if it’s not a topic covered by Boortz or Limbaugh, the party faithful just kind of shut down like “Walkers” without fresh meat.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:49 am
O’ByteMe: If police can be held accountable for a split-second life-or-death decision, prosecutors and judges should also be held accountable for decisions that require more than a few seconds and have lots of time to be corrected.
While I agree prosecutors and judges should be held to account for abusive behavior such as this, I do not necessarily think that is BECAUSE we also scrutinize police officers. I think it’s because we need to have REAL justice, not rigged justice.
Jm
March 16th, 2012
9:49 am
Obyteme
Go drink some beer
Paul
March 16th, 2012
9:49 am
Scout
“However, I disagree with the above statement. Police officers are held to account everyday for the decisions they make in a “split second”.
Prosecutors (and Judges) should also be held to account for decisons they make over months”
Nice to see you recognize those in positions of power and privilege can rig the system to make it benefit themselves and hold the common person to a disadvantage.
Golly gee, I wonder if that happens in other areas of society?
____________________________________________
Regarding who in the Bush Administration had it in for Sen Stevens: I’ll guess Stevens was just a target of convenience. It was more about ego and pumping up their own resumes than a personal vendetta.
Rather like what we see with Special Prosecutors.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
9:50 am
“
SmallEffective government = good government”Small doesn’t equate to good in all cases. I’d prefer effective and functional government over small any day of the week.
Lord Help Us
March 16th, 2012
9:50 am
‘You disbar a lawyer and you’ve taken away their ability to work and earn money to feed their families. Seems like a pretty drastic punishment to me.’
Deliberate abuse of your power prosecuting someone should get you some pillow biting time…
Talking Head
March 16th, 2012
9:51 am
“Small government = good government
When the government gets a blank check, they do all kinds of misdeeds
Jay is blind to the Obama administration misdeeds and they are numerous”
Example of relevancy.
Not this ‘piece’ (not sure what it is) which will no doubt spew conspiracy theories, Bush Administration bashing, and Clarence Thomas slandering.
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
9:51 am
“Clarence Thomas is a fine justice
Throw your vitriol elsewhere liberals”
Jay wrote a good article but it wasn’t against the Republicans so the usual suspects had to find someone to make childish comments about.
O'ByteMe - Fake-Irish Goon
March 16th, 2012
9:51 am
I’d hope that the relevant bar associations would move to disbar these attorneys, but I’m not holding my breath.
It does happen. It just seems to take a lonnnnng time:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/03/former-dc-federal-prosecutor-disbarred-for-egregious-conduct.html
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
9:51 am
Jm@9:48 you might want to rethink those thoughts…
Clarence Thomas Should Be Investigated For Nondisclosure, Democratic Lawmakers Say
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/democratic-lawmakers-call-for-investiation-into-clarence-thomas-finances_n_987934.html
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
9:51 am
I don’t know Bro, I’ve heard that size *does* matter.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
9:51 am
“Mike Nifong” would make a good Porn name.
JohnnyReb
March 16th, 2012
9:52 am
A popular T-Shirt when the Soviet Union fell depicted Paul Revere riding horse back through Red Square yelling – The Lawyers are coming, the Lawyers are coming!
A popular perception of the Steven’s case is that it was driven by Democrats in Justice, either in Alaska or Washington, who were also after Sarah Palin at the time.
O'ByteMe - Fake-Irish Goon
March 16th, 2012
9:52 am
I do not necessarily think that is BECAUSE we also scrutinize police officers.
I don’t think it’s a direct correlation, more of an observation that if we can do one, we certainly should do the other.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:52 am
(ir)Rational: Prosecutors that abuse the system in the fashion described above deserve to be fired and never allowed back. Similarly, if you are part of the team that advocated for the Iraq War under false pretenses of WMD, then you should not be allowed to be part of a foreign policy team ever again.
The prosecutors who abused the system could easily become con men to make a living if they felt like it.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:53 am
Or, instead of illegal con men, they could become legal con men: Wall Street Bankers.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
9:53 am
You disbar a lawyer and you’ve taken away their ability to work and earn money to feed their families.
I disagree. If you disbar a lawyer, you’ve removed someone who doesn’t need to be a lawyer in the first place. That person has not lost their ability to work and earn money. They just can’t do that by working as a lawyer. They can always do something else. When you ruin somebody’s life and reputation by doing as those prosecutors did, you don’t deserve to practice law anymore. How is the person who’s life has been ruined going to get their life back together?
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
9:53 am
Blind Justice – Yeah, big surprise that Democratic lawmakers don’t like him. He wasn’t appointed by one of their presidents, and he was approved by the Senate over their objections. But back to what I said to you earlier, would you rather the SCOTUS didn’t follow the laws, and instead made their own?
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
9:55 am
I see it didn’t take long to deflect and blame Democrats for this. Some things never change.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:56 am
Talking Head’s 9:51a is a perfect example of what I’m talking about Steve – USA.
First, the topic is not relevant because it has been deemed by Talking Head to be anti-Bush somehow. Then, what IS relevant is anything about Obama’s misdeeds.
Keep pulling the “But but but Obama” card, folks!
O'ByteMe - Fake-Irish Goon
March 16th, 2012
9:56 am
Some things never change.
Nah, some people don’t know how to change.
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
9:56 am
The claim that police officers are “held” to some high standard is almost laughable in light of reality. In practice, all too often police and prosecutors are in a position to abuse the public trust. Both need to be held to higher standards. But why the hue and cry goes out, let’s remember that many of our posters whine about rights of appeals and reviews of sentences and they deny funds that would help those who have suffered the abuse.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
9:57 am
Adam – That’s true, most lawyers would make good con men/criminals. So Hilary Clinton shouldn’t be Secretary of State?
Bro – I prefaced that by saying that most lawyers I’ve met aren’t qualified to do anything else. As Adam pointed out, I should have pointed out that they typically aren’t qualified to do anything that isn’t illegal. I’m not saying it is fair, I’m just saying it is a punishment. I would be pretty upset if someone took away my right to do my profession. Then again, I’m fairly handy and could probably (easily) find something else to do.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
9:59 am
(ir)Rational: So Hilary Clinton shouldn’t be Secretary of State?
Depends. Did she abuse her power?
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
9:59 am
(i)Rational says….
Blind Justice – Yeah, big surprise that Democratic lawmakers don’t like him. He wasn’t appointed by one of their presidents, and he was approved by the Senate over their objections.
….but putting the party issue aside…if WE did this as private citizens, do you think that the IRS would come after US? It does not matter if you are a Democratic or Republican WE ‘as citizens’ do not make the LAWS. We are only expected to abide by them.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
9:59 am
Bro – If your “blaming Democrats” was directed at me, I was simply talking about Justice Thomas in response to Blind Justice seemingly thinking he should be run out of town.
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
10:00 am
When you consider the fact that many prosecutors are elected or have political aspirations, those high barriers allow the creation of a nightmare scenario of government abuse.
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
10:01 am
“I see it didn’t take long to deflect and blame Democrats for this. Some things never change.”
Actually the deflection was in the first post bashing a Conservative Supreme Court Justice.
Once again both sides have taken an excellent article and have taken it into the gutter and at the same time they pat themselves on the back for taking the high road.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
10:01 am
(ir)Rationa — “You disbar a lawyer and you’ve taken away their ability to work and earn money to feed their families. Seems like a pretty drastic punishment to me.”
Too bad.
If you take away a trucker’s CDL because he’s got a raging substance abuse problem and he got into a huge, flaming pileup on 285 during rush hour, I’m pretty sure you’re not going to get much traction with the ‘but he needs to support his family’ defense. Sure, everyone’s got a right to support their family, but you don’t have an automatic right to work in a field that requires professional certification or licensure, PARTICULARLY if you demonstrate that you’re not a good custodian of that certification or licensure.
Mr. Disbarred Attorney can go get himself a job as a night clerk over at the Super 8, IMO.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:02 am
Adam – “Similarly, if you are part of the team that advocated for the Iraq War under false pretenses of WMD, then you should not be allowed to be part of a foreign policy team ever again.” She made the argument in the Senate, so I’m simply basing it off your logic.
Blind Justice – If only one party wants to prosecute him, it is about politics. And it isn’t on IRS withholding documents, it is on SCOTUS disclosure forms about his wife’s income. But hey, you think what you want to think, and ignore the pertinent questions that I’ve asked you twice now to get your dig in about Justice Thomas.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:02 am
O’ByteMe
I don’t think it’s because they don’t know how to. I think it’s more because they don’t WANT to change. They probably suffer from an undiagnosed case of metathesiophobia or something.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
10:03 am
JHM@10:01a, well said.
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
10:05 am
JHM@10:01
I second Adam, that was well said.
barking frog
March 16th, 2012
10:05 am
Police officers can lie to suspects
then Prosecutors can lie about
defendants.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:05 am
(ir)Rational
Lawyers: If they don’t know how to do anything else, who’s fault is that? You should never go through life without a backup plan just in case things don’t work out as you originally planned. I don’t give people a break for not planning for emergencies or other issues.
Dem blaming: Wasn’t anything you said. If you read the comments on the first page, it should be obvious which post I was referring to.
————————–
The claim that police officers are “held” to some high standard is almost laughable in light of reality.
Sell that to my co-workers…
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:06 am
JHM – Did you even bother reading the original post? I was merely responding when someone said that prosecutors weren’t punished for their actions. Not saying it was wrong in anyway that a lawyer could be disbarred.
Jefferson
March 16th, 2012
10:06 am
Cops have the best drugs
— Jefferson
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:06 am
I’ve asked you twice now to get your dig in about Justice Thomas.
??
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:08 am
Bro – I don’t care about lawyers (well, I do care about one future lawyer, but that’s because I plan on being kept when she graduates), and whether they have a back-up plan or not. I was just saying that disbarring a lawyer is punishing him.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:08 am
Actually the deflection was in the first post bashing a Conservative Supreme Court Justice.
If you’re referring to Thomas, ummm, I guess you didn’t see his relevancy in Jay’s piece.
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.
Justice Thomas is quite relevant to the story. Saying that Democrats in the Justice Dept were targeting Stevens can not be proven. Therefore, it is nothing but an attempt to deflect blame to Democrats.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:08 am
Agree with most of the presentation here – prosecutors who withhold evidence should be fired. Wrongfully convictions should be recognized and corrected.
The gratuitous hit on the Supreme Court ruling properly upholding “prosecutorial immunity” is the only portion of the essay that is not meritorious, and I assume it is merely a partisan jab in an otherwise pretty well written piece. For some reason leftists cannot abide black or female conservatives, even when – as here – they lead a majority. Don’t know why leftists do not believe the legislature should not be the body responsible for compensating government wrongs, assume that is the general leftist sop for attorneys.
Pleased to see you acknowledge the wrongful conviction of Ted Stevens. I was not a fan of him – big spender – and he may even have been guilty of the charges, but the trial was corrupt in every respect.
Judges and prosecutors should not be allowed to hold such a position longer than 10 years. That is when the sense of “entitlement” sets in.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:10 am
Blind Justice – I asked you twice (now three times) if you would rather the SCOTUS ignore current law and instead make their own. Something you chose to ignore twice to get your dig in about Justice Thomas. If you used the entire sentence instead of just part of it, it wouldn’t seem very hard to understand.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
10:12 am
Actually, the first “blamer” comment was directed at a Conservative.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:13 am
Maybe I have not suggested my plan for tort litigation reform on this blog – model after the worker’s compensation program that has brought order out of chaos. Publish a schedule of payments deemed appropriate – thus removing the lottery wheel aspect of litigation – and put most cases in arbitration hearings before subject matter experts. Of course, that would require substantial action by a legislative body, and we know what happens when substance is proposed (e.g., the Paul Ryan blueprint for socsec and medicare solvency.)
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
10:13 am
(ir)Rational — “JHM – Did you even bother reading the original post? I was merely responding when someone said that prosecutors weren’t punished for their actions. Not saying it was wrong in anyway that a lawyer could be disbarred.”
I did read it, but respectfully, professional licensure carries with it a high standard of conduct, and bear in mind that the group doing the licensure itself is who determines whether you can be in their club or not. It’s not like the court can say, ‘okay, I’m disbarring you.” IIRC, it’s the Bar Association that’s saying ‘you make us look bad, so take a hike.’
That’s a completely different penalty from whatever the court imposes, isn’t it?
Adam
March 16th, 2012
10:14 am
(ir)Rational: She is NOW part of the foreign policy team, but she wasn’t before. She was a Senator being fed bad intel. The people who knew the intel was bad are the ones I am talking about.
barking frog
March 16th, 2012
10:14 am
One of my ex-attorneys was
the focus of a GBI sting, was
convicted, disbarred and spent
4 years in prison. He then went
to work as an insurance
adjuster and did well for the
rest of his life.
Moderate Line
March 16th, 2012
10:14 am
These cases are why the right is so leery of an expanded government. The government has almost unlimited resources to go after individuals. It is not uncommon for people in such occupations to be more focused on victory and glamour than the real goal of justice. In our system people are suppose to be given the benefit of the doubt but in many cases the prosecution jumps to conclusion.
At least the Department of Justice had the integrity to admit the miscarriage of justice. What is interesting the real crime was commented by the prosecution and he is untouchable.
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
10:15 am
“If you’re referring to Thomas, ummm, I guess you didn’t see his relevancy in Jay’s piece.
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.”
Ummmm… I didn’t see anywhere in Jay’s article saying the SCOTUS ruling was wrong. Why don’t you explain to me how the Supreme Court decision was wrong and didn’t follow the law and Clarence Thomas should be criticized for it.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
10:15 am
addendum to my 10:12: “some things never change”
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:16 am
I was just saying that disbarring a lawyer is punishing him.
Anybody who is caught violating the law is punished in some form or fashion. If I got stupid and decided to smuggle aliens into this country, I’d lose my job, whatever clearances and certifications I have, and my ability to work for the government (law enforcement). Why should a lawyer who intentionally violate the law not be subject to the same punishment?
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
10:16 am
Lawyers are disbarred and sanctioned on a regular basis by the State Bar of Georgia.
Bro, I understand that there is a lot of tension. Its a tough balance but when there are pepper spraying indicidents and clear abuses (beatings, no knock killings) and many other cases too many for use to review, and a lack of real action, many communities have different perceptions. I know you understand DWB complaints. It’s a tough balance for all and prosecutors are subject to some of the same point/counterpoint issues as law enforcement. Its a tough line to walk because there will always be abusive claims against officers/prosecutors many unfounded but there will also be some very valid claims that never see the light of day.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:18 am
ty: Actually, the first “blamer” comment was directed at a Conservative.
Which one??
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:18 am
JHM – I’m completely aware of the standards and responsibilities that come from having a professional license. But I still make the argument that disbarring lawyers is punishing them. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a fair, or adequate punishment for ruining someone’s life, but I’m not sure what would be. I’m simply (still) stating that I would rather the courts follow current law, and leave legislation up to the legislature.
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:18 am
(i)Rational says,
Thomas. If you used the entire sentence instead of just part of it, it wouldn’t seem very hard to understand.
First let me say that I can speak for myself. I did not use the entire sentence because I was not sure what you meant by “get your dig in”. The Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to be the highest court of the land. The Justices are appointed and held to very” high standards”. If there are any questions as far as to them not adhering to the laws that ALL citizens must abide by, then it could NEVER be right! Is that clear enough for you?
Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 16th, 2012
10:18 am
Clarence, For The Win!!
HDB
March 16th, 2012
10:19 am
Brocephus..or anyone else…
Can someone explain to me the conservative’s LOVE of Clarence Thomas…the LEAST QUALIFIED Justice on the Supreme Court?? The ABA had Thomas rated as “qualified”…whereas every confirmed Supreme Court Justice had a ratign of “HIGHLY qualified”? Doesn’t this disprove the “meritocracy” that conservatives persist to exist??? Thomas’ decisions…plus his refusal to recuse himself because of his wife’s influence in the Tea Party speaks volumes!!!
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
10:19 am
If prosecutorial immunity allows willful misconduct then the barriers are too high. I can’t think of any reason why ALL evidence collected should not be open to disclosure and available to the defense. How can there be justice if evidence is suppressed?
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:20 am
Bro – Isn’t disbarring a lawyer basically doing that? Or have I missed something somewhere?
Adam – Sorry, but going from your quote, she shouldn’t be Secretary of State. I both agree and disagree with that sentiment. She is a great Secretary of State, but I would rather she were president.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
10:21 am
Brosephus,
the first one.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:22 am
Dear Moderate Line @ 10:14, query raised by your sharp observation: “At least the Department of Justice had the integrity to admit the miscarriage of justice. What is interesting the real crime was commented by the prosecution and he is untouchable.”
What is the likelihood that this is merely another Obama apology tour? Would the Obama administration apologize for such an erroneous prosecution on its own watch, or is it likely that the corrective-wheels were turning while the Bush administration was still running things? One thinks in terms of the Holder abortion of the Philadelphia election-intimidation prosecutions.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:24 am
Keep Up
How many encounters with police happen daily? How many end up in pepper spray being used? Oversensationalism of incidents leads one to give the entire profession a bad name. You don’t really understand the tension.
Regardless to what I do, my life is dictated by my job. Post a less than flattering photo on Facebook, and you’re fired. Make a heated comment that can be interpreted as something negative, and you’re fired. Add the fact that people get that, “I pay your salary, so I can tell you whatever in the hell I want to” type attitude when you’re simply trying to do the job you’re paid to do, and you’ll begin to understand the tension. Anything that can be perceived to invalidate my appearance of impartiality and/or integrity is an automatic job killer with extreme prejudice.
Jay
March 16th, 2012
10:24 am
“These cases are why the right is so leery of an expanded government. The government has almost unlimited resources to go after individuals.
I have to disagree with you, Moderate. Conservatives in both the judicial and legislative branches tend to want to strengthen the hand of prosecutors, i.e, the government. Here in Georgia, they oppose adequate funding of public defenders, including those handling death-penalty cases. They are generally not at all sympathetic to the defendant whose liberty, property and even life are threatened by government, and instead their sympathies lie heavily with government against that individual.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:25 am
Dear HDB @ 10:19, Good morning. “Can someone explain to me the conservative’s LOVE of Clarence Thomas…the LEAST QUALIFIED Justice on the Supreme Court??” Yes, answered within your spew – the charge is false. Please direct me to a poorly argued opinion. I find his opinions the most lucid on the court, better even than those of the brilliant Scalia. (And seriously, how can you affirm that the “wise Latina” is smarter than a dust mop?)
Adam
March 16th, 2012
10:25 am
I don’t think prosecutoral immunity can be defined so completely as to say that awarding someone money in damages for years of being thrown in jail due to DELIBERATE withholding of evidence is a violation of it. But that is just me. Clarence Thomas disagrees. The criticism is: Clarence Thomas thinks preventing awarding damages are part of the immunity for prosecutors.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:26 am
Blind Justice – So now you’ve refused to answer/ignored a pertinent question, stemming from your first post on this topic, three times now. You started off the day by implying that we should expect bad decisions from Justice Thomas – you took a dig at him. Then you imply that someone should reconsider their feelings about him because the Democrats want to investigate him for an over site on disclosure forms, that you’re now claiming were IRS documents that everyone is required to abide by. Now, maybe I’m not the smartest person here, but it seems to me that you just don’t like Justice Thomas and feel that he should be castigated simply because he wrote the majority opinion on a ruling. Wait, what was that last part, the MAJORITY opinion. But I’ll ask you once again, would you rather he didn’t follow the law, and instead attempted to legislate from the bench?
Adam
March 16th, 2012
10:27 am
What is the likelihood that this is merely another Obama apology tour?
“But but but Obama!” card!
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:27 am
Dear Jay @ 10:24, if you would wish to propose elimination of 90% of our criminal laws, I will join that movement. I note that you and Kyle both propose even another layer of ethics constraints, as if the bribery laws are not enough.
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
10:28 am
“the legal barriers against such steps are so high”
A good investigative reporter would spend time determining who instgated these “high steps”.
When an average citizens lies in court and gets caught, they are charged with perjury. How and why did prosecutors get a free pass on this and why aren’t our politicians raising at least as high an outcry as they did when complaining that the Govt., by requiring insurers to cover birth-control pills, were violating religious freedom.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
10:29 am
(ir)Rational — “But I still make the argument that disbarring lawyers is punishing them. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a fair, or adequate punishment for ruining someone’s life, but I’m not sure what would be. I’m simply (still) stating that I would rather the courts follow current law, and leave legislation up to the legislature.”
Again, isn’t it the Bar Association that does the disbarring? Not the courts?
That said, it’s my understanding that a felony conviction generally gets you an automatic disbarment and that a pattern of misdemeanors can get you disbarred, too.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
ty
If that’s your standard for deflection, you have very low standards. Seeing that the poster was directing his comment at Thomas, who wrote the opinion in that case, I don’t see how you or anybody else can call that deflection.
————————–
(ir)Rational: Isn’t disbarring a lawyer basically doing that? Or have I missed something somewhere?
It’s punishment, I just don’t agree with your first statement @ 9:48 saying that it’s drastic. I think that it fits the issue in this particular case.
————————-
HDB
He’s conservative, what else do they need to love?
Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
Another weekend looms! Let’s see what trickery we can come up with for the GOP for next week.
How shall we bait them this week? Social issues again? So much fun!
Gator Joe
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
Jay:
When prosecutorial authority is abused and results in wrongful convictions, no matter the status of the victims, rich or poor, famous or not, everything possible should be done to correct the situation and make restitution. Prosecutors who abuse their authority in that regard should be held responsible and suffer severe consequences. The case of Senator Stevens, whom I didn’t support or like, is shameful and tragic. Sadly, as was alluded to in Jays article, only the rich and famous have the highest probability of receiving competent defense counsel and a fair trial.
PS
The people at the top of the list who deserved aggressive investigation and prosecution were Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
SoGaDawg
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
Jay is correct. A public integrity unit is needed. However, he was quick to try to throw the Bush Administration under the bus for this. Nevertheless, he continues to not critique anything that the Obama Department of Justice does. More hypocracy from Jay.
If I recall correct, Jay wanted a public inquiry into the CIA torture memos with prosecution of John Yoo and everyone involved as a viable option. However…he and his liberal buddies have been strangely quiet about the Obama administration’s use of drones to execute suspected terrorists and the alleged legality of that. Furthermore, he’s said NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, about the Obama administration’s use of a drone to kill an American citizen, al-Awlaki.
So let me get this right. We need to prosecute someone who advocated the use of waterboarding suspected terrorists, but we don’t need to prosecute Eric Holder and everyone else in the Obama administration who advocates and condones killing suspected terrorists – including American citizens? And what’s the difference between these two positions? Only that one involved Republicans (who are evil and vile), and the worse of the two positions – you know killing people – involves Democrats and Obama (who are awesome).
Hypocracy? Of course not…
Jay
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
“(And seriously, how can you affirm that the “wise Latina” is smarter than a dust mop?)
Have you ever read a Sotomayor opinion, Rags? Or is that just a groundless dismissive attack?
In my own mind, someone who was raised in the Bronx by a Puerto Rican single mother (her dad died early) but who nonetheless managed to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and then serve as editor of the Yale Law Journal — I’d say she has pretty well established that she is “smarter than a dust mop.”
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:31 am
(i)Rational, how can I dislike someone that I have never met? You psyche is weak and the law is the law. Innocent until proven guilty. Go read the article and get back with me! I am not an official or even an IRS employee. Let them do their job!
SoGaDawg
March 16th, 2012
10:32 am
@ Gator Joe .
So Bush and Cheyney committed war crimes, but Obama and his buddies didn’t? See my last post. You and the rest of the Democrat sheeple can’t see the forrest because of the trees.
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:33 am
You psyche is weak
should be YOUR psyche is weak!!
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:33 am
Bro – You’re right, drastic might have been the wrong word to use there.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:33 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:30, “He’s conservative, what else do they need to love?” As I suggested to friend HCB, please direct me to a poorly argued opinion. Thomas writes better than all of them, except maybe Roberts, and he is not as funny as Scalia, but I find myself on Thomas’s side whenever he is in dissent. I read a lot of those opinions. If you want a great example of terrible legal writing, try to wade through anything written by former Justice J P Stevens.
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
10:34 am
But I’ll ask you once again, would you rather he didn’t follow the law, and instead attempted to legislate from the bench?
Isn’t the main purpose for the Supreme Court to determine whether something is constitutional or not?
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
10:34 am
Post a less than flattering photo on Facebook, and you’re fired. Make a heated comment that can be interpreted as something negative, and you’re fired
bro, I agree. But it is not law enforcement only. Teachers, other professionals. Even marketing/PR people face these issues. I agree they don’t necessarily face a shooting situation daily.
I also agree that law enforcement is not paid enough. And yes, some cases get lost in proportion for the public, as they do for prosecutors (especially those who are elected). It is a fine line to try to walk.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:36 am
ragnar
So, if Thomas wrote great opinions and was more liberal in his beliefs, would conservatives still love him? HELL NO!! So, basically, conservatives love him because they share the same beliefs. Read for comprehension for once. Not everything written about conservatives here is an attack. Geez….
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:36 am
Dear Jay @ 10:30, good morning. It was merely a groundless dismissive attack, attempt to leaven with humor. I read a couple of her appellate arguments, and they were pretty scrambled, but in all fairness that profession is like any other – practice makes perfect, and she has not had enough practice for a fair assessment.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:37 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:36, you don’t have to take offense, you only have to show me a bad opinion. I affirm there is none. I have not read them all, but I have read enough to hold in low regard all who “sniff” at Thomas’s work.
Jay
March 16th, 2012
10:37 am
Furthermore, he’s said NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, about the Obama administration’s use of a drone to kill an American citizen, al-Awlaki.
Actually, SoGaDawg, that is incorrect. I’ve written repeatedly that I support such actions. If you oppose them, give us your argument.
My own argument is that if a U.S. citizen takes up arms or a leadership role in a violent movement to attack the United States, said citizen makes himself a valid target for elimination.
If we can capture said citizen, we should try him for treason through our judicial process. But if we cannot, we should try to kill him. That remains true regardless of which political party controls the White House.
There was always been a distinction between how you treat enemies on the field of battle, where he can do you and yours violent harm, and how you treat them after they have been captured and disarmed, and pose no further threat to you.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
10:38 am
Brosephus,
okay, you’ve convinced me. Obama is the first and only person ever unfairly “blamed” anonymously in comment sections of democrat blogs.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:38 am
Blind Justice – I read the article. It is talking about Supreme Court Financial Disclosure Forms. Not tax returns. So, your argument makes no sense, and frankly you’re not making much sense either.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:40 am
Keep Up
Teachers, other professionals. Even marketing/PR people face these issues.
I’m not saying they don’t. However, how often do any of those people get called to testify in court? The slightest blemish on my record corrupts my testimony and reliability as a witness. The industry term is called Giglio impaired based on a court ruling from 1972.
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=429f39bd-b36e-4a95-864f-d1559d01af6a
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:41 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:36, perhaps your argument is not as bad as I initially thought. The definition of conservative is “grounded in eternal principles” and the definition of leftism is “ad hoc adjudication, power to the overlords making the decisions.” So if Thomas were less conservative, I would hold him in lower regard. (Among the leftists only R B Ginsburg seems to try to adhere to logical argument, and she borrows liberally from foreign jurisprudence. I have some hope for Lady Kaga, however – still early.)
Gator Joe
March 16th, 2012
10:42 am
Anyone who is supportive of waterboarding should submit themselves to the procedure. Many, perhaps most, of those who agree with torture (waterboarding and other forms) have never served in the military, and don’t have children serving who would be in a position to be captured by the enemy and tortured.
By the way, name calling doesn’t strengthen an argument.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:42 am
Don’t Forget – That, and interpreting the laws that exist. I can’t get him to answer the question at all, but maybe you will. Do you think it was a bad decision for Justice Thomas and 4 other Justices to side with established law, or do you think they should have thrown the law out and made a new one?
Just saying..
March 16th, 2012
10:43 am
Thanks for spotlighting this story, Jay. Profoundly troubling, on so many levels.
Fetus on a stick
March 16th, 2012
10:44 am
Last!
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:45 am
ragnar
When you read, do you see words or pretty pictures? I’ll ask you again. If Thomas wrote the same quality of opinions but as a Liberal, would you or any other conservative still love him the same? Yes or no?
————————–
ty
Thanks for the deflection for trying to claim a deflection. I don’t see how saying Thomas was responsible for a bad decision which many here seem to agree on that very thing is a deflection. However, I do understand that many conservative leaning people here are very sensitive when it comes to criticizing conservatives. The prevailing opinion is Conservative good… Liberal Bad….
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:46 am
(ir)Rational does this makes sense?
In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned in disgrace after the nation learned that he had accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from corporate executives and other wealthy benefactors. Forty years later, Justice Clarence Thomas is caught in a strikingly similar scandal. Similarly to Fortas, Thomas has a wealthy benefactor named Harlan Crow who has shown lavish generosity to Thomas and his Tea Partying wife Ginni. And where Fortas had an ad hoc group of corporate executives to subsidize his lifestyle, Thomas seems to have the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — a corporate-aligned think tank that once gave him a $15,000 gift. We find it difficult to find daylight between Thomas’ actions and the gifting scandal that forced Abe Fortas off the bench.
LAVISH GIFTS: Like Fortas before him, Thomas received tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from wealthy benefactors — some of whom have an interest in cases before his court. Crow gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. He provided Thomas’ wife with half a million dollars to start a Tea Party group, and he donated over $1 million dollars to fund a museum that will include exhibits honoring Justice Thomas. Crow has a long history of investing in conservative political causes — he’s donated nearly $5 million to Republican candidates and conservative organizations, including $100,000 to the anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — but he isn’t even the most troubling entity to rain gifts upon Clarence Thomas. That honor goes to AEI, which gifted Thomas with a $15,000 bust of Abraham Lincoln even though AEI frequently files briefs in Thomas’ Court. Thomas has not recused himself from cases in which AEI participated.
SCANDALS UPON SCANDALS: If Thomas’ addiction to high dollar favors were his only problem, that would be deeply disturbing. But this is just one of many scandals facing the justice. Justice Thomas attended a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser intended to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, and media outlets, an act that would likely violate his ethical obligation not to engage in fundraising if the Supreme Court were not exempt from the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges. Thomas claimed that his wife Ginni — a lobbyist and high-earning member of the professional right — earned no non-investment income whatsoever while she was working at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, despite having a legal obligation to disclose her income on his annual disclosure form. After Thomas’ failure to disclose this income was widely reported by the press, Thomas amended his disclosure forms to include Ginni’s income. And the fact that his wife is now working as a Tea Party lobbyist could raise recusal issues for Justice Thomas. Ginni Thomas has a right to do whatever she wants for a living, but if the Thomas family earned one dime to lobby in favor of repealing health reform, it would be a serious conflict of interest for Thomas to sit on a case that could make that repeal a reality.
THEIR MAN ON THE COURT: The rich and the powerful have been good to Justice Thomas, but Thomas has been extremely good to them. Thomas didn’t just join the infamous Citizens United decision opening up the flood gates to corporate money in elections, he also would have struck down essential transparency laws that allow Americans to know who is buying their democracy. Thomas stood behind decisions eviscerating consumer rights and the rights of workers in the workplace, and he embraces a vision of the Constitution that is nothing shy of terrifying. In three separate opinions, conservative Thomas called for a return to a discredited theory of the Constitution that early 20th century justices used to declare federal child labor laws unconstitutional. So Thomas has little regard for the Constitution and even less for precedent — perhaps that explains why he has thumbed his nose at the Fortas precedent and entangled himself so tightly with his wealthy and influential benefactors.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:48 am
perhaps your argument is not as bad as I initially thought.
You were actually thinking when you responded to me??? I saw nothing but the usual knee jerk response that one gets when anything conservative is questioned here. Maybe if you slowed that knee down a bit, you’d find out most things are not as bad as you initially think.
Moderate Line
March 16th, 2012
10:48 am
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.
Jay is not disclosing the whole truth. The $14 million in damages that were dismissed were for the DA failing to trained his office on Brady v. Maryland not for wrongfully withholding evidence.
My first thought concerning such a lawsuit is why would you need to train an attorney that he or she can not withhold evidence? I know that is wrong and I am not attorney. Also, the DA argued that he actually did trained their attorney’s and the action to disclose was a deliberate action by the attorney.
What Jay wrote implied that attorneys were protected from misconduct when in reality that was not the case at all. Even though I believe attorneys should not be immune from misconduct there is a difference between suing for misconduct and failure to train people properly. Maybe the reason they sued for failure to train was because of the persecution is immune and his attorney’s knew they couldn’t win so they sue for a different reason.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-571
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/04/cruel_but_not_unusual.html
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:49 am
Dear Jay @ 10:37, don’t want to drag you too far afield here – this is a pretty good thread – but the “targeted assassinations” maybe deserve their own essay. I have ambivalent thoughts, and most of those revolve around the changing nature of warfare.
My (Nay officer) son and I had a discussion yesterday of the differences between peacetime and wartime military, and the basis for the Constitution between the two specific Constitutional powers of Congress
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;”
Why “raise” armies, vs “maintain” navies? Shows the genius of our founding fathers, IMHO
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:51 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:45, when I read your posts I have to search for thoughts – they usually seem to be mere strings of words with no binding idea.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:53 am
Blind Justice – Great, you’ve shown me a bunch of conjecture, and accusations. So, what exactly does this have to do with the ruling in question? Also, what exactly does it have to do with him interpreting the law as it is currently written? Or are you going to ignore that question for a 4th (or is it 5th, I’ve lost count) time?
ElephantWhip
March 16th, 2012
10:53 am
Raggamuffin:
You left out part of the definition of conservative: “[supposedly] grounded in eternal principles [except when it helps their comrades].”
See: Bush v. Gore, which deprived Florida of its constitutional right as a state to determine how to send its electoral votes and forced it to stop counting.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
10:54 am
brosephus,
no, conservative good, liberal misguided…oh and admittedly, my “deflections” are no more or no less warranted than the ridiculous tongue-in-cheek “it’s Obama fault” comments by his apologists.
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:57 am
(i)Rational, we could go on all day about this but you can take the 1st through 5th time count, question/whatever and post the great qualities that you see in Justice Thomas. My opinion is mine and your opinion is yours! Peace!!
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:58 am
Dear Elephant Whip @ 10:53, please recall that the substantial ruling in Bush v Gore was 7-2.
Just saying..
March 16th, 2012
10:59 am
SoGaDawg
“However, he was quick to try to throw the Bush Administration under the bus for this. Nevertheless, he continues to not critique anything that the Obama Department of Justice does. More hypocracy from Jay.”
Sigh. Alright, let’s balance things up. Feed this story to Fox News, see where it goes. I realize they’re currently investigating the extraordinary deep mystery of why the Obama campaign would run SarahonFox political videos…but give it your best shot. We’re all tuned in.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:59 am
when I read your posts I have to search for thoughts – they usually seem to be mere strings of words with no binding idea.
I hope your employment doesn’t hinge on your reading and/or searching abilities. I’d hate to see you homeless and/or suckling on the government teat.
————————–
ty
I guess we have different ideals on what constitutes a deflection. No problem as I see it because I know different people have different opinions. I just don’t see the deflection that you see. We’ll just agree to disagree.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
11:00 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:59, QED
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:01 am
Blind Justice – I never said anything about seeing great qualities in him. I’m simply asking you why his ruling on this case was incorrect. But hey, you probably can’t answer that question with anything other than “it isn’t fair” or “I feel…” or some other drivel like that so, maybe it is better if you don’t answer the question. I’m not even speaking about my opinions on this one, I’m simply asking you a question. Or rather, was trying to ask you a question.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
11:02 am
Steve – USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
9:48 am
Yeah so we don’t need you adding to it!
________________________________________________________________________
Steve, didn’t you know?
Thoughtful and reasoned discussion is not the goal.
Derisive and sniping drive by’s are the standard. Also, throw in a little generalization and assumption.
Hyper-partisianship. They put that shyte on everything.
ElephantWhip
March 16th, 2012
11:07 am
Raggamuffin:
7 to 9 agreed there was a problem. The conservative majority agreed that they need to take the matter into their own hands and stop the state.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
11:07 am
Hyper-partisianship. They put that shyte on everything.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
11:08 am
brosephus,
fair enough.
Just saying..
March 16th, 2012
11:08 am
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT!
You know, I post way too many words around here, futilely trying to make the point you just made in seven.
ElephantWhip
March 16th, 2012
11:09 am
Pardon me. 7 to 2 agreed there was a problem…or maybe 7 of 9.
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
Brosephus – 10:59
You can dish it out with the best of them. But, when you have to take it, you sound like an irritated prima donna.
paulo 977
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
Blind Justice:What more could you expect from Georgia’s own Clarence Thomas?
________________________________________________________
He is absolutely shameless , isn’t he? Can he really sleep at night?
Moderate Line
March 16th, 2012
11:12 am
Clarence Thomas wrote the decision in this case but the concept of immunity for prosecutor has a long history whether you agree with it or not. I personally find that if it can be proven that a persecutor deliberately withheld evidence or fabricated evidence then they should be personally libel. These people are in a position of power over individuals which is very one sided. Here is a blog site with a discussion on the subject.
What is interesting is how conservative are so adamant about literal interpretation of the constitution but yet this attorney immunity privilege has no basis in the constitution and counters the literal interpretation of the law which gave citizens the right to sue the government. This goes back to 1951 when Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367.
http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/brief-summary-of-prosecutorial-immunity.html
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
11:15 am
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
Sorry Carlos, but you are dead wrong. Bro’ is one of the most civil and generally understanding bloggers here. A prima donna he is not. A well read debater he is. You should really try to read, and not just look at, his words with a preconceived notion.
Really…you could learn something.
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
11:16 am
paulo 977
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
What would the world be like if everyone’s opinion was “the same”? Just imagine that!!!
stands for decibels
March 16th, 2012
11:18 am
A prima donna he is not. A well read debater he is.
like Yoda he reasons.
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
11:18 am
irRational – I’m no constitutional expert but I see no reason that the right to a fair trial should be compromised to achieve prosecutorial immunity. If evidence is withheld by the prosecutor it should mean a mistrial or new trial with all the evidence available. All evidence should be available to both parties and relevance/admissability should be determined by the judge prior to presentation IMO.
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
11:19 am
Jay wrote an excellent article which told the entire history of the story. The beginning, middle and end, the end being the decision by SCOTUS. Somehow people totally missed the point of the article which was overzealous prosecution and choose to instead blame Clarence Thomas.
To pretend that wasn’t deflection is a fairy tale that you tell your kids.
Some of you people are exactly like the people you claim to hate and say are idiots.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:21 am
Normal
People are gonna believe whatever they want to regardless to what they see.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 16th, 2012
11:21 am
if a U.S. citizen takes up arms or a leadership role in a violent movement to attack the United States, said citizen makes himself a valid target for elimination
Umm, that’s most of Idaho, isn’t it Jay? I agree – we should start flying drones over any suspected American hate group compounds.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:23 am
Don’t Forget – That is the law as I understand it. That isn’t the issue at stake here. The issue was whether or not someone should be able to sue the prosecutor for prosecuting them and receive $14 million in damages. Current law says no. That’s all I was talking about.
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
11:23 am
Brosephus™ – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:21 am
I would amend that to “only narrow minded…”
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
11:26 am
“I would amend that to “only narrow minded extremists from the Left and Right…”
I agree.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:27 am
Steve – Interestingly enough, the decision by the SCOTUS was in no way related to the Stevens case. Except that it was similar, but still from a separate case that took place in Louisiana. Odd how when people can’t find anything to argue about on topic, they’ll pick an (almost related) side topic and go for that.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:28 am
Steve
The first salvos directed at Thomas were in regards to his opinion in the decision to overturn the damages awarded to the defendent in the Louisiana case that Jay referenced. As to the later things on Thomas, you have a point.
————————–
Normal
Nah, not just limited to the narrow minded. Preconceived notions and ideals have a way of biting everybody in the arse every now and then. I think we’re all guilty of that at times.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
11:29 am
Not much to add to this discussion. I don’t know of anyone who supports corrupt prosecutors. Even Scout had some harsh words this AM. Moving on to other, more general problems in our court system:
Maybe I have not suggested my plan for tort litigation reform on this blog – model after the worker’s compensation program that has brought order out of chaos. Publish a schedule of payments deemed appropriate – thus removing the lottery wheel aspect of litigation –
ragnar–I’m surprised Keep didn’t bite on this nugget and explain to you how those multi-million dollar verdicts are actually GOOD for society. Keeps everyone honest that way.
My strongest suggestion for reforming our legal system is to prevent the press from publishing the name of people charged with crimes until after they are convicted. Britain does it this way, which I think is more fairer. That way, you avoid people being punished in the court of public opinion before they are actually convicted of a crime.
Jay, if you’re still here, maybe you can put up a defense of our over-aggressive press. I’m sure you will agree that a person’s rep can never be fully restored after their name has been dragged through the mud.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:29 am
Bro – I never took you for a prima donna. But hey, I guess there are those here that know you better than you know yourself.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:32 am
Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
11:33 am
Some of you people are exactly like the people you claim to hate and say are idiots.
Steve (and Adam)–You guys ever look in the mirror much??
Taxi Smith
March 16th, 2012
11:38 am
Our current Attorney General could use a little looking into also. Remember, power corrupts; always has, always will. Left, Right or Center, they’re all succeptible to corruption. (Even, I might add, editorial columnists.)
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
11:38 am
Good morning Bruno…It is still “morning”, right?
Enjoyed our discussion yesterday and in gave me a lot to think about….but I still think you are wrong…
… and I hope we can still be friends. Really! It’s just my old hippie liberal self askin” 
Jack
March 16th, 2012
11:39 am
Stevens was a rock in somebody’s shoe and he ticked off too many people trying to build that bridge. Kinda like the lawyer in Clinton’s inner circle that shot himself. Justice ain’t blind.
Lumpkin
March 16th, 2012
11:39 am
Gee, did Justice Thomas act alone or were there four others with him?
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
11:40 am
I don’t think Brocephus is pre-madonna. She was born in 1958. He’s younger than that.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
11:44 am
Bruno: Steve (and Adam)–You guys ever look in the mirror much??
Please explain what you’re trying to get at.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:45 am
Adam – I think he is implying that you should hate yourself. But I don’t want to put words in his mouth.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
11:48 am
Don’t Forget
“I don’t think Brocephus is pre-madonna. She was born in 1958. He’s younger than that.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFePVulqYSc
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:52 am
Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
Won’t getting rid of internet porn get rid of drilling?
————————–
I don’t think Brocephus is pre-madonna. She was born in 1958. He’s younger than that.
Just a bit…
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:56 am
Won’t getting rid of internet porn get rid of drilling?
It’s the gop platform but what about fracking to internet porn?
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
11:56 am
~(_8^(I)
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
11:57 am
Enjoyed our discussion yesterday and in gave me a lot to think about….but I still think you are wrong…
… and I hope we can still be friends. Really! It’s just my old hippie liberal self askin”
Normal–I’ve never made agreeing with me a condition of friendship, either here on the blog or in real life. Because I realized long ago that good people can draw different conclusions due to our different perspectives. The old 6 blind men and the elephant situation. As humans, we are limited to a specific point of view–our own–and I think wise people realize that and don’t demand that the rest of the world sees things their way.
I think a great example of this can be found in the earlier discussion about whether Jesus was a Lib or a Con. As different bloggers demonstrated, it’s possible to pigeonhole Him by looking at selected verses. He definitely embodied Unconditional Love through his admonitions to take care of the poor. This is the part that motivates the Libs to claim Him as one of their own. Yet, at the same time, He also embodied Conditional Love by stating that He was not there to do away with the Law, and that not everyone was going to pass the Final Judgment. This is the part that motivates the Cons to claim Him as one of their own. The real truth, of course, is the elephant. Jesus, as the Perfect Person, embodied all of those qualities simultaneously. I believe that wise people understand that.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
11:58 am
getalife
It sounds the same but I think it’s different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7KcpgQKo2I
Adam
March 16th, 2012
11:59 am
The GOP’s… *drilling*… platform?
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:59 am
What the frak Paul?
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
12:00 pm
The “internet porn” thing brings a question to mind…y’all know those Peterbilt trucks? How do they do that?
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:00 pm
Bro
Like the new moniker…….. Glad to see you are coming into your own realization and actualization……
That name is funny,,
since 3/16…….. hahahahahaha
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:00 pm
Won’t getting rid of internet porn get rid of drilling?
I don’t know, Brosephus. I think studies have shown the opposite. The more time spent looking at porn leads to less drilling. That’s why the ladies don’t like it.
Moderate Line
March 16th, 2012
12:02 pm
Jay
March 16th, 2012
10:24 am
“These cases are why the right is so leery of an expanded government. The government has almost unlimited resources to go after individuals.
I have to disagree with you, Moderate. Conservatives in both the judicial and legislative branches tend to want to strengthen the hand of prosecutors, i.e, the government. Here in Georgia, they oppose adequate funding of public defenders, including those handling death-penalty cases. They are generally not at all sympathetic to the defendant whose liberty, property and even life are threatened by government, and instead their sympathies lie heavily with government against that individual.
I would agree and disagree with you. The right basic assumption is the government is bad. However, the right also has an assumption that criminals need to be persecuted. In the case of law enforcement they tend to favor the persecution in terms of thing like reading people their rights but I have never seen anyone on the right defend the persecution in withholding evidence or fabricating evidence. Also, a large percentage of the right which are libertarians are not all that supportive of law enforcement.
Plus the ordinal concept of prosecution immunity was invented in 1951. In fact to place Clarence Thomas in context the court in 1997 ruled in Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that a prosecutor who perjured herself when certifying certain facts necessary to obtain an arrest warrant was not absolutely immune from suit. It would seem even the right wing of the court did not support giving the prosecution immunity.
The case you cited concerning Clarence Thomas was whether the DA should have or did not train the attorneys not whether they were immune.
http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/brief-summary-of-prosecutorial-immunity.html
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:03 pm
So, instead of the economy, or the transportation bill, or some other form of governing…. let’s talk about PORN!
Social issues again, only THIS time we’ve SURELY got a winner!
What is WITH you people? Obsessed with sex much? We all know, thanks to Rush, that you were thinking about sex sex sex regarding contraception. Now let’s move on to porn? You wonder why you’re not taken seriously?
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:03 pm
The GOP’s… *drilling*… platform?
So, that’s what the “Drill baby drill” and “Drill here, drill now” really alludes to… That’s pure genius. I’m gonna have to get me a drill baby drill shirt. I wonder if I could get that phrase put on one of those tshirts that have the stick people doing all the different sex positions.
The “internet porn” thing brings a question to mind…y’all know those Peterbilt trucks? How do they do that?
It takes a real “Man” to work in that factory.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:05 pm
They BOTH
Well, I never realized it until near the bottom of page 3 on this thread. What’s a man supposed to do when faced with the truth?
————————-
Bruno
Depends on how it’s used. When used to research new things, porn can enhance drilling. All one needs is new permits to expand drilling operations.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
12:07 pm
Just to let you know that it happens more than you think…..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/michael-hash_n_1349990.html
Michael Wayne Hash Free After Judge Slams Official Misconduct in Murder Case, Tosses Life Sentence
A Virginia man sentenced to life in prison in 2001 savored his first night of freedom Wednesday after a federal judge overturned his murder conviction, and lambasted police and prosecutors for “outrageous misconduct” in the case.
In May 2000, police in rural Culpeper County, Va., charged Michael Wayne Hash, then 19, in the gruesome shooting death of an elderly neighbor four years earlier.
In a blistering 65-page opinion published Feb. 28, Senior U.S. District Court Judge James C. Turk slammed investigators and prosecutors in the county for a “series of lies and failures to disclose exculpatory evidence.” Prosecutors withheld failed polygraph tests of two crucial prosecution witnesses, and did not disclose that another witness, a jailhouse informant, repeatedly lied on the stand.
The case represented a “miscarriage of justice” and an “extreme malfunction in the state criminal justice system,” Turk wrote.
A special prosecutor appointed to handle the case has six months to decide whether to retry Hash, Turk said in his opinion. In the meantime, Hash will remain free, after a county judge released him Wednesday afternoon on a $10,000 unsecured bond.
Hash, 31, arrived at the courthouse in shackles wearing a striped prison uniform, and left in street clothes.
“Yesterday was a wonderful day,” said his parents, Jeff and Pam Hash, in a statement Thursday to The Huffington Post. “We were able to take Michael home and have our first family dinner in almost 12 years.”
“Right now, we’re looking forward to the day when Michael’s name is finally cleared and this nightmare is behind us,” they said.
Gary Close, the prosecutor who tried the case, abruptly resigned as the Culpeper County district attorney after the judge’s opinion. In a resignation letter, he called his office an “ethical and fair institution.”
“Culpeper should be proud of their work,” he said.
Hash’s attorneys declined to comment on the substance of the case until it is finally resolved. But legal experts said the behavior of prosecutors and police represented a gross abuse of authority.
“It’s shocking,” said Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School and an expert on wrongful convictions. “This one was the trifecta. You name the type of misconduct, it all happened here.”
No physical evidence tied Hash to the 1996 murder, which stumped police for four years. In 2000, after the election of a new sheriff, investigators arrested Hash and two other teenagers, and charged them in the crime.
One-Eyed-Poet
March 16th, 2012
12:07 pm
Unfortunately Jay this is standard operating procedure in our judicial system. As truly honest people don’t become prosecutors, judges, politicians, law enforcement officers nor journalists and remain honest. For the entire system is corrupt at its very core and corrupts absolutely and needs to be swept away in a rising tide of blood.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
12:09 pm
Brosephus
“I’m gonna have to get me a drill baby drill shirt. I wonder if I could get that phrase put on one of those tshirts that have the stick people doing all the different sex positions.”
Where is Bosch when we need him?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:09 pm
Please explain what you’re trying to get at.
See my 11:57. Your ridiculous sweeping statements about all Cons only make you look like an ass. Do you really believe deep in your heart that the average Con is any different from the average Lib, either here or in the world at large??
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:10 pm
Bruno
“I think studies have shown the opposite. The more time spent looking at porn leads to less drilling. That’s why the ladies don’t like it”
Was that a self study or did you read that in a Playboy article?
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
12:10 pm
Bruno to ragnar–I’m surprised Keep didn’t bite on this nugget and explain to you how those multi-million dollar verdicts are actually GOOD for society.
Presumptuous to speak for me Bruno but not surprising. But don’t be too smug to think you are truly out of this. If we are talking professional licensing issues and policing, we could spend a lot of time discussing medical malpractice and the protections the profession has lobbied for to keep their malpractice records out of the public eye. How’s your AVVO rating these days?
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:11 pm
“Your ridiculous sweeping statements about all Cons only make you look like an ass. Do you really believe deep in your heart that the average Con is any different from the average Lib, either here or in the world at large??”
Bruno: I was attempting to convey that to you yesterday on another issue but you shunned me……. My whole day went to hell……..
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:14 pm
Bruno
Thought you were headed to Biloxi….. Are you already there and bored?
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
12:16 pm
Normal – 11:15
And who are you? His designated defender? Can he not speak for himself?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:20 pm
How’s your AVVO rating these days?
I’ve been in practice for nearly 26 years with no malpractice (or any other) claims. Not going to go into detail here, but my “specialty” has extremely low malpractice rates. I pay more for my car insurance.
Any more brilliant suppositions, Counselor??
Bruno: I was attempting to convey that to you yesterday on another issue but you shunned me……. My whole day went to hell……..
TBS–There are only a small handful of posters here who I intentionally avoid, e.g. Keep, TaxPayer, Joe Mama, and Redneck Convert. If I didn’t respond to something, it was likely a time issue. Sorry.
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
12:21 pm
Brosephus – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
A sense of humor,comrade!!!
Mudfoot
March 16th, 2012
12:21 pm
Regarding how much of this goes on within lower-profile cases, rest assured it is rampant. The Justice Dept. has ensured that they hold all the cards when prosecuting an individual. They can (and will) lie to your face repeatedly, threaten you and your loved ones, detain you almost indefinitely without charge while depriving you of any contact with your atty or anyone else (you simply disappear)… the list of advantages for the prosecution in a federal case is long and substantial and blatantly unfair to the citizen… and that’s the way it’s been for decades. Legislation over the past 10 years or so has only worsened the situation. Sadly, people have no cards to play beyond retaining a lawyer at relatively large expense and pleading the fifth in hopes the prosecution would defeat itself.
There’s an older book called “Busted by the Feds” that would be good reading for anyone interested in learning more. I don’t remember the authors name but the book is an eye-opener for most people
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:23 pm
Bruno
Just busting your chops…………. have a good trip if you are still leaving town
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:24 pm
Well… since the prosecutor is no longer the hot topic, I may as well introduce this one here.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/officials-bear-bites-woman-buttocks/nLT2n/
Officials said the woman was walking her dog in the Camden Club apartment complex off Sabal Lake Drive when the bear went after the dog. They said when the woman tried to get the bear off her dog, the bear bit her in her buttocks.
St Simons - we're on Island time
March 16th, 2012
12:24 pm
As far as Stevens goes, you live by the Lie, you die by the Lie.
As far as our local embarrassment Clarence goes, even a blind squirrel…
As far as Atlanta goes, if that guy doesn’t charge Andrea Sneiderman
with at least CCM, you need a new DA, prosecutor, whatever.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:25 pm
Thought you were headed to Biloxi….. Are you already there and bored?
We’re heading out tomorrow and will stay through Monday. I’ve already earned some major boyfriend points, though. After convincing PB that we were going to have to stay at a Super 8 motel on Sat, I let her know yesterday that we’ll actually be staying at the Grand the first night, then in a luxury suite at the Beau Rivage the second night.
I’m going to need one hell of a craps roll to pay for it all.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:25 pm
Frak baby frak.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
12:26 pm
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:32 am
Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
_____________________________________________________________________________
Yes!!!!!!!!
Because that is EXACTLY what this blog topic is about.
See my 11:02.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
12:28 pm
Brosephus™ – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:24 pm
“They said when the woman tried to get the bear off her dog, the bear bit her in her buttocks.”
Guess the bear wanted the rump roast for dinner…….
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:29 pm
Brono,
New Orleans is the place to be.
I get free rooms.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:29 pm
Do you really believe deep in your heart that the average Con is any different from the average Lib, either here or in the world at large??
Uh, yes. The average con and the average liberal have differing viewpoints, therefore are different.
However, to be more detailed, the average con supports more right leaning stuff, or stuff that is more right leaning, than the average liberals support left leaning stuff, or stuff that is more left leaning. The average liberals doesn’t even define themselves as a liberal, but as a moderate, which is essentially correct. The average conservative cannot make such a claim. Bear in mind this is the U.S. I’m talking about.
As for Jesus, I am making ridiculous claims partially tongue in cheek. I have no desire to claim Jesus as wholly supportive of liberal causes, just trying to make the point that he would not support all conservative ideals, as many like to claim.
Conservatives, for some reason, do make twists and leaps and acrobatics as an argument as to why god and Jesus would NOT support taking care of the poor, by selectively judging what kind of help is good help, and that only approved organizations should do it. There is only one point there, and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with retroactively finding a religious justification for an issue on which they have already made up their mind. To claim liberals, on average, or mostly, or whatever, would do something similar with religion is absurd.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
12:31 pm
Your Party
“Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
_____________________________________________________________________________
Yes!!!!!!!!
Because that is EXACTLY what this blog topic is about.”
Sounds more interesting than the synonym – Santorum.
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
12:32 pm
Any more brilliant suppositions, Counselor??
Rather defensive there, my medical friend, aren’t we. Seems rather an emotional response from a simple question. Congrats on that low malpractice insurance rate. We seem to hear so often unfounded claims about high rates that require tort reform because those good people in the medical profession have to pay exorbitant premiums even if they have never had claims. You have just provided antedotal evidence that many of those assertions are false.
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
12:33 pm
Bruno,
Been re-reading your 1157. Again it shows me a side of you I hadn’t or couldn’t see before.
which nicely segues to my biggest gripe with “people in power” No matter if Democrat or Republican, is that if they proclaim themselves “Christian” then they should…definitely embody the Unconditional Love through his admonitions to take care of the poor, as you so succinctly stated.
I hope I said that right. I have a hard time thinking slower than my typing and most times the word structure comes out wrong. I think I need to get Dragon,
Paul
March 16th, 2012
12:38 pm
Morning, Keep
“We seem to hear so often unfounded claims about high rates that require tort reform because those good people in the medical profession have to pay exorbitant premiums even if they have never had claims. ”
As Bruno noted, it depends of the specialty.
If you’re a dermatologist, you get off easy.
Pediatrician, anything dealing with surgery on an ongoing basis, radiologist… you get hammered.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
12:39 pm
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:03 pm
So, instead of the economy, or the transportation bill, or some other form of governing…. let’s talk about PORN!
Social issues again, only THIS time we’ve SURELY got a winner!
What is WITH you people? Obsessed with sex much? We all know, thanks to Rush, that you were thinking about sex sex sex regarding contraception. Now let’s move on to porn? You wonder why you’re not taken seriously?
_________________________________________________________________________
Exactly Adam.
Even though Santourm is not elected to ANY office, nor secured the republician nomination, nor the head of ANY major republician origanization, he does speak for ALL conservatives.
Woops…….make a hole, make it wide. Broad brush coming through.
Don’t forget the 55 gal drum of assumption mixed with irrational generalization.
We got work to do. We got to put that shyte on EVERYTHING.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:39 pm
You can thank stevems for our huge deficit.
A career pol that knew our corrupt system well and wasted your money on Alaska’s welfare.
He called himself the green hulk or some silly name like that.
You want to address our deficit, end career pols.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:40 pm
HDB
I have no issues with pet owners at all, and I understand the attachment to their pets. However, I don’t know if I could have faced a bear to save my dog. Granted I was young when I had him. If it’s bear vs family, then I’m going for broke. If it’s bear vs dog, I’m shooting at bear from a distance….
Misty Fyed
March 16th, 2012
12:40 pm
Rule #1….Never…Ever…trust a lawyer.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:42 pm
Conservatives, for some reason, do make twists and leaps and acrobatics as an argument as to why god and Jesus would NOT support taking care of the poor, by selectively judging what kind of help is good help, and that only approved organizations should do it.
Which is matched by Liberals making twists and leaps as an argument as to why god and Jesus would NOT make someone take responsibility for their actions and face the proper consequences.
To claim liberals, on average, or mostly, or whatever, would do something similar with religion is absurd.
Adam–No matter what negative characteristic you throw out which you only believes applies to Cons, I can find a corresponding negative characteristic which applies to Libs. If you don’t believe me, we can spend the next 100 years going tit for tat. Except, I already know in advance that you will attempt to dismiss anything I say with your childish “diversion” claims and will accuse me of making the “Timmy did it too, mom” argument. I’m not your personal guru, but if you want to grow, you’ll need to ditch the chip on your shoulder and accept that people are pretty much the same, regardless of political orientation or any other orientation.
Misty Fyed
March 16th, 2012
12:42 pm
Dont you just love when non-Christians tell Christians how they are supposed to act as a Christian.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:45 pm
Rule #1….Never…Ever…trust a lawyer.
No, the number one rule in American politics is never ever trust a politician.
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
12:46 pm
Paul, I definitely understand that rates vary by work performed. Same is true for attorneys. That said, those distinctions often seem lost in the overheated rhetoric about tort attorneys and reform. As well as the requirements to bring an action for medical malpractice that requires certain professional affidavits as part of the filing.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
12:46 pm
Brosephus™ – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:40 pm
Remember the line everyone said: “If I’m in a bear fight, somebody better help the bear!”
Yep…..me + Glock 45 = dead bear!!
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
March 16th, 2012
12:47 pm
Well, if you’re a prosecutor and you’re going after crooks, you got to be more crooked than them, right? Crooks don’t play nice and neither should we. It’s thinking like Bookman’s that will have us all murdered one day or chased down and have a chip put in our head. And even if this Sen. Stevens wasn’t guilty he was probly guilty of something else he needed to be put in jail for.
Anyhow, I don’t see how you can be for Law and Order and be against prosecutors at the same time. You got to remember after all, they’re lawyers too. They all cheat and lie, and the ones that are on our side need to cheat and lie better than the ones that defend the crooks.
I just don’t see the big problem here. Besides, this Sen. Stevens is stone cold dead. What’s he going to do to us—sue us?
Have a good p.m. everybody. I’m hauling and lugging and doing my best to get you ready to swap weird music tonite so you can tell big lies about the time you saw a band none of us ever heard of playing live and how you was so sexed and drugged up you can’t recall much about it.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:47 pm
Bruno: I can guarantee you there are some things that one side does that another does not. There is no direct equivalence all the way across the board every single time.
You are essentially correct that “Timmy did it too” is not a valid argument. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and yet I see more of that coming from the conservatives who get on here than the liberals. Here’s a hint: If 5 conservatives do such a thing, and then 1 liberal does it on the other side, that’s not “both conservatives and liberals do it.” That’s like saying one Republican voting for a tax increase makes the measure bi-partisan.
Misty Fyed
March 16th, 2012
12:47 pm
Ok
Rule #1…Never….Ever…trust a lawyer
Rule #1b….Never ….Ever…trust a politician.
Rule #1c……If a politician is a lawyer….just get ready for an unpleasant encounter.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:48 pm
New Orleans is the place to be.
I get free rooms.
Yeah, and my little sis also gets “free” rooms at the Borgata in AC. Only cost her about $200,000 in gambling losses.
I do have an older sister who is lucky, though. When we went to Charlestown last year on our family reunion, she hit big on roulette and the horses. The lucky part–she played some combination of birthdays on a race, and hit a big trifecta. I’m a good gambler, but I usually have to grind it out.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:50 pm
“I’m a good gambler, but I usually have to grind it out.”
Vegas was built on people who thought they are good gamblers
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:53 pm
When we went to Charlestown last year on our family reunion, she hit big on roulette and the horses.
I didn’t see anybody hit anything at Charlestown when I was there other than hitting the buffet.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
12:55 pm
Bruno — “and face the proper consequences.”
I’d submit that there’s no such thing as prescriptive “proper consequences” for wrongdoing.
There’s what the law prescribes, and then there are the remedies that various commentors might deem “proper” from their perspectives. Yet there’s nothing magical about any of those recommended penalties that makes one or the other “proper.”
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:56 pm
“I didn’t see anybody hit anything at Charlestown when I was there other than hitting the buffet.”
Too funny……. And I bet they were “hittin it” hard and fast
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:56 pm
Misty Fyed ,
Fair enough.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:57 pm
You are essentially correct that “Timmy did it too” is not a valid argument. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and yet I see more of that coming from the conservatives who get on here than the liberals.
Adam, grow up, will you?? In the real world, context counts. Your repeated attempts here, along with Paul and others, to restrict the blog conversation to whatever perceived faults you can find in Republicans, with no discussion allowed of corresponding faults in Dems, are beyond childish. If you perceive an imbalance in its use by Libs and Cons here, that may be because virtually 100% of Jay’s negative columns are directed at Republicans.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
12:59 pm
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:42 pm
___________________________________________________________________________
Bruno, honestly, why bother?
Doggone/GA
March 16th, 2012
12:59 pm
“Dont you just love when non-Christians tell Christians how they are supposed to act as a Christian”
Well, you don’t have to be a believer to read what is written down for Christians to follow.
Tommy Maddox
March 16th, 2012
1:03 pm
“In the circumstances here described and measured against the standard established by the principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.220, we do not believe that a criminal contempt prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §401(3) should be initiated against any of the subject government attorneys.”
How’s that for a kick in the pants? But Footnote 78 states:
“We offer no opinion as to whether a prosecution for Obstruction of Justice under 18 U.S.C. §1503 might lie against one or more of the subject attorneys and might meet the standard enunciated in 9-27.220 of the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See United States v. Convertino, et al., Indictment, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, No. 2:06-
cr-20173.”
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:05 pm
Bruno: You can make many legitimate claims that there are instances in which Democrats or liberals have been corrupt or done something questionable, and that there are similar instances on the Republican and conservative side that liberals and Democrats have criticized them for, leading to hypocrisy on those issues.
What you CANNOT do, if you are honest, is say that this always applies, to every single issue. You CANNOT say, with honesty, that the sides are hypocritical in equal measure, or that “No matter what negative characteristic you throw out which you only believes applies to Cons, I can find a corresponding negative characteristic which applies to Libs.” You just can’t legitimately make that case.
And this: If you perceive an imbalance in its use by Libs and Cons here, that may be because virtually 100% of Jay’s negative columns are directed at Republicans.
1) You cannot go through every single one of his articles and find an equivalent Democrat transgression.
2) There are plenty of conservatives here, but no one is forcing them to act the way they typically do, in the manner of “but but but Obama” or the like. Also, as can clearly be shown by their persistence, no one is “restricting” them at all.
Shall I go through YOUR posts and claim that every time you start another topic or talk about something more to your liking that you are trying to “restrict” everyone else’s conversation?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:05 pm
which nicely segues to my biggest gripe with “people in power” No matter if Democrat or Republican, is that if they proclaim themselves “Christian” then they should…definitely embody the Unconditional Love through his admonitions to take care of the poor, as you so succinctly stated.
Which is why I think declaring oneself to be a “Christian” is a perilous strategy to begin with. None of us can live up to the Glory, and claiming to do so only pushes us farther away IMO. As to your specific point, I can only add that you seem to be ignoring the corresponding requirement of both parties to embody Unconditional Love at the same time. But since no one person, or political party, can successfully embody both Conditional AND Unconditional Love, we can only rely on the group body to balance it out through debates, elections, etc. It’s a dynamic process in which neither side can–or should–get its way completely.
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
1:07 pm
Y’all,
My game is poker, any kind. I’ve learned over the years that to be a good gambler is not having to gamble much at all. The old”know when to hold ‘em” thing. The trouble is I’ve also learned that it isn’t the bad hands that lose your money. It’s the good hands that just weren’t good enough….but that’s why they call it gambling…
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
1:09 pm
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:05 pm
Once again, good post…now stop it! You’re making my brain hurt!
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
1:11 pm
Bruno, there are posters here who MUST see everything through the jaundiced eye of partisianship.
If you say “the sky is blue today”
The skewed on the right may say “Yeah, and the dems will want to tax us for it”.
The skewed on the left may say “Yeah, and the repubs only want their rich friends to enjoy it.”
Or something equally stupid.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:11 pm
Dont you just love when non-Christians tell Christians how they are supposed to act as a Christian.
So, are you claiming to be a “Christian”, Misty Fyed?? Out of curiosity, what do you feel make you a “Christian” and someone else a “non-Christian”??
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:15 pm
The parties simply are NOT equally yoked anymore. You can see for yourself, as there are actual metrics from political scientists.
http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317
Just for extra measure, please note that only ONE party has people in it that view college as “indoctrination.”
Rationalist
March 16th, 2012
1:16 pm
Obama = fraud
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:18 pm
Once again, good post…now stop it! You’re making my brain hurt!
I only walk in the shadow of my spiritual hero, Shunryu Suzuki, the author of “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind”.
There’s what the law prescribes, and then there are the remedies that various commentors might deem “proper” from their perspectives. Yet there’s nothing magical about any of those recommended penalties that makes one or the other “proper.”
The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??
Thulsa Doom
March 16th, 2012
1:24 pm
Damn. Just damn! I hate it when I not only agree with Jay but agree with him on every single point in the article. What the hell is going on here!
I’ve seen way too many cases lately in the news and in documentaries of prosecutorial misconduct and police misconduct in the zeal to get a conviction. I see no reason as to why they shouldn’t be prosecuted for withholding evidence. Its disgusting that that man in La. had to spend 18 years in prison all because a DA wanted to bolster his conviction record before running for office or going into private work at a great salary.
I can’t prove it but I also suspect the victims of prosecutorial and police conduct are mostly poor people- black too.
This should be something cons and libs can all readily agree on.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:25 pm
Bruno, there are posters here who MUST see everything through the jaundiced eye of partisianship.
Like most organizations, that trend starts at the top. In this case, the top of every page.
Just for extra measure, please note that only ONE party has people in it that view college as “indoctrination.”
Adam–Stop for a minute and look at yourself. What do you hope to gain by “proving” that conservatives/Republicans are fundamentally different people from yourself, from your “group”?? Why is the demonization so important to you?? Of course there are some differences in approach within the two political party. And as I pointed to above, that’s a necessary thing, because no one person, or no one political party has all the answers. We need the balance. Do you believe otherwise??
getalife
March 16th, 2012
1:26 pm
This guy just flipped off a reporter at the Apple store on CNN.
The video will probably go “viral”.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
1:28 pm
Bruno — “The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??”
Is that your prescriptive ‘proper consequence’ in *all* cases? If a man doesn’t work, then he shouldn’t eat, with no exceptions?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:30 pm
Is that your prescriptive ‘proper consequence’ in *all* cases? If a man doesn’t work, then he shouldn’t eat, with no exceptions?
I asked you what your opinion was.
Soothsayer
March 16th, 2012
1:32 pm
Don’t you people have anything to do other than blog on this blog? You should get out an do something constructive like hit little white balls all over the place! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
1:34 pm
Bruno — “I asked you what your opinion was.”
And I’m trying to get you to clarify what I’m going to give you my opinion *on.*
Yesterday, you were all hog for supposedly clarifying yourself, and today you’re reticent about it. Pick one and stick to it, please.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
1:39 pm
Thulsa Doom
March 16th, 2012
1:24 pm
“Thulsa Doom
March 16th, 2012
1:24 pm
“I can’t prove it but I also suspect the victims of prosecutorial and police conduct are mostly poor people- black too.”
It’s been like that in perpetuity…..you wonder why the police and the law are held in such LOW esteem! More often, it’s the poor and minorities that are targeted….
Equal protection under the law does NOT exist….
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:40 pm
Bruno: What do you hope to gain by “proving” that conservatives/Republicans are fundamentally different people from yourself, from your “group”??
At the very least this idea of “equivalence” will be accepted as not true, eventually, since it is better to acknowledge the truth than this nonsense of “the parties are the same.”
Why is the demonization so important to you??
If you see a statement such as “please note that only ONE party has people in it that view college as “indoctrination”” as demonizing, then I suggest that perhaps that position is not one they should be espousing, nor should you vote for them “anyway.”
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:43 pm
Bruno: We need the balance. Do you believe otherwise??
Figured I would answer this separately. You are correct, we need balance. Right now, we do not have that balance. And if the GOP keeps going the way they are, I can see many abandoning ship, giving Democrats a huge advantage, which is BAD, because then there is a big risk that Democrats could get just as big of a head as the people who considered winning in 2004 and 2010 a “mandate” to do all sorts of things the general public really strongly disapproved of. A weak GOP is bad for the country, as is a GOP that has moved too far away from the center.
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
2:02 pm
The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??
I personally have always thought that this pertained to those who refused to work and I would agree that it is fair. But I don’t think it applies to those who can’t work and I doubt there was actual “unemployment” back then like there is in the post industrial world. The elders would find something for you to do IMO.
Logical Dude - slut and ho
March 16th, 2012
2:38 pm
it was asked: “The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??”
Then I say, the first commandment should be to love your neighbor.
You ask, who is my neighbor?
Let me tell you a story. . .
One time, there was this woman, beaten and robbed on the side of the road.
A Bishop from the Catholic church came up to the woman, saw this, and walked across the road and passed by.
A Deacon from the Southern Baptist church came up to the woman, saw this, and walked across the road and passed by.
A Homeless, Gay, Arab, came up to the woman, and assisted, and helped revive her.
Who is this woman’s neighbor? Who is your neighbor?
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
2:45 pm
It appears Bruno’s not coming back, so here’s my response for him.
If a man CAN’T work, then I disagree. Disability shouldn’t mean starvation.
If a man CAN work and WANTS to work but can’t FIND work, then he should get some help finding a job. And I disagree in this case, too. He should be helped to find gainful work, and he should receive some help to feed himself during that search IMO.
If a man CAN work and COULD find work but either WON’T look or WON’T work, then IMO Bruno might have a point. But his original question to me was, IMO, quite indistinct and unspecific. I’m not in favor of cutting loose those unfortunates who, through no fault of their own, aren’t working.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
2:46 pm
Off-topic but pertinent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/world/asia/bain-capital-tied-to-surveillance-push-in-china.html?_r=1&hp
Firm Romney Founded Is Tied to Chinese Surveillance
BEIJING — As the Chinese government forges ahead on a multibillion-dollar effort to blanket the country with surveillance cameras, one American company stands to profit: Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney.
In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques and movie theaters from centralized command posts.
The Bain-owned company, Uniview Technologies, produces what it calls “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that enable police officials in different jurisdictions to share images in real time through the Internet. Previous projects have included an emergency command center in Tibet that “provides a solid foundation for the maintenance of social stability and the protection of people’s peaceful life,” according to Uniview’s Web site.
Such surveillance systems are often used to combat crime and the manufacturer has no control over whether they are used for other purposes. But human rights advocates say in China they are also used to intimidate and monitor political and religious dissidents. “There are video cameras all over our monastery, and their only purpose is to make us feel fear,” said Loksag, a Tibetan Buddhist monk in Gansu Province. He said the cameras helped the authorities identify and detain nearly 200 monks who participated in a protest at his monastery in 2008.
Mr. Romney has had no role in Bain’s operations since 1999 and had no say over the investment in China. But the fortunes of Bain and Mr. Romney are still closely tied.
The financial disclosure forms Mr. Romney filed last August show that a blind trust in the name of his wife, Ann Romney, held a relatively small stake of between $100,000 and $250,000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.
In a statement, R. Bradford Malt, who manages the Romneys’ trusts, noted that he had put trust assets into the fund before it bought Uniview. He said that the Romneys had no role in guiding their investments. He also said he had no control over the Asian fund’s choice of investments.
Mr. Romney reported on his August disclosure forms that he and his wife earned a minimum of $5.6 million from Bain assets held in their blind trusts and retirement accounts. Bain employees and executives are also among the largest donors to his campaign, and their contributions accounted for 10 percent of the money received over the past year by Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney “super PAC.”
Joseph
March 16th, 2012
2:53 pm
What you fail to mention or even realize is that the Democrat Party played a huge role in those lies. Remember they are the one who benefitted from Stevens losing. Of course we will right that wrong in 2014 but still… Much damage has already been done….
David Granger
March 16th, 2012
2:59 pm
Prosecutors should not have immunity from either lawsuits or prosecution themselves. They should be required to sign a notarized document stating that all laws were followed in a prosecuted case, and that all mandatory discovery materials were made available. If it turns out later not to be true, then any conviction should be immediately overturned.
Brian
March 16th, 2012
11:08 pm
The man responsible for an abuse of power is one, William Welch.
Welch oversaw the Stevens corruption trial as chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. Stevens was convicted in October 2008 for failing to report gifts on his financial-disclosure forms. But the case fell apart five weeks later when an FBI agent who’d helped investigate the senator alleged ethical and legal violations on the part of federal prosecutors.
Where is he now?
Breuer sees Welch’s doggedness as an asset in the Obama administration’s efforts to stop national-security leaks, which rests on a complicated—some say dubious—interpretation of the Espionage Act. The administration has used the law to prosecute five people in leak-related cases, more than all previous administrations combined.
The Washingtonian reviewed every case that Welch worked on when he was an assistant US Attorney in Springfield, from 1995 until 2006. It was during those years that Welch earned his chops as a prosecutor. His biggest victories were in a string of city corruption cases that became his steppingstone to the Public Integrity Section at Justice.
Most of Welch’s cases in Springfield appear routine. But some raise questions. In three cases, defense attorneys filed motions claiming Welch hadn’t turned over exculpatory evidence, sometimes after a judge had directed him to do so. One attorney accused Welch of mounting a vindictive prosecution against a woman who had refused to cooperate with one of his investigations. One suspected Welch of trying to prevent a witness favorable to the defense from testifying—an allegation that would surface against the prosecution years later in the Stevens case. (None of these complaints resulted in a case’s being overturned.)
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/20220.html
captguitarman
March 17th, 2012
1:47 pm
From federal prosecutorial non-action against two uniformed, jack-booted, Black Panther thugs with batons, filmed out side of a polling place threatening and intimidating voters — to Fast and Furious — it would seem that some level of quality control in side the Justice Department might be necessary. Of course, that polling place was not in the South, and the thugs were not white, so that got a big yawn from Justice. As to Clarence Thomas, the Dem/Libs are desperate to force him recuse himself from the Obamacare case, which he cannot be compelled to do. If this persists and gets ugly, the Pub/Cons need to fire up a similar conflict of interest investigation of Kagan, who helped to write and provide legal rationales and arguments for Obamacare when whe was in the Solicitor General’s office. If Thomas has to sit it out, so should she. She won’t have to recuse either, but it will establish some balance. And the vitriol against Thomas? That’s an easy one. He is a conservative black man (or African American?) I don’t know which one is politically correct any more since both terms are still widely used by blacks/African-Americans. It is clearly time for the PC police to makea ruling on this, I hope that “black wins” because I don’t see all of us prefacing our American citizenship with national or continental identifiers such as English, French, Irish, Italian, Polish, or Western European, or Asian, or Indian, etc. as being conducive to a sense of national unity — but that’s just me, I guess. But, I digress. Clarence Thomas is hated for the unforgivable sin of “ingratitude” toward his LIb/Dem benefactors and “massahs” who expect mindless and thoughtless life long loyalty and allegiance from prominent blacks/African-Americans in politics and government, and who strongly frown upon them rejecting their Dem/Lib tentets, and running away from the Great Federal Plantation.
William T. Aram
March 18th, 2012
8:50 pm
I read about 20 articles on elites reactions to Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III’s report.
Here’s one elite (Jay Bookman) who provided unique and educational insights to the situation.
Hat’s off to Jay Bookman
Jay, your story was the best. Nobody else came close. (Don’t get a big head now)