Mad Mike Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Remember this gem? Well..... Judge in DeLay conspiracy case is removed Former House majority leader's attorneys allege Democratic judge is biased http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9881506/ The Associated Press Updated: 4:15 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2005 AUSTIN, Texas - The judge in Rep. Tom DeLay’s conspiracy case was removed at the congressman’s request Tuesday because of his donations to Democratic candidates and causes. A new judge will be appointed to preside over the case, a judge who came out of retirement to hear the dispute ruled. The ruling came after a hearing in which attorneys for the former House Republican leader argued that state District Judge Bob Perkins’ political donations called his impartiality into question. Perkins, a Democrat, has contributed to candidates such as John Kerry and the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org. “The public perception of Judge Perkins’ activities shows him to be on opposite sides of the political fence than Tom DeLay,” defense attorney Dick DeGuerin told Judge C.W. Duncan, who was called out of retirement to decide the matter. Perkins had declined to withdraw from the case, and prosecutor Rick Reed argued at the hearing that DeLay must prove that a member of the public would have a “reasonable doubt that the judge is impartial” before Perkins could be removed. “Judges are presumed to be impartial,” Reed said. Judges are elected in Texas and are free to contribute to candidates and political parties. DeGuerin said no one contends Perkins did anything wrong, but “to protect the integrity” of the judicial system, he should not preside over a trial for someone to whom he is opposed politically. Previous recusal The issue has come up for Perkins before. He voluntarily stepped aside in a 1994 case against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perkins had made a $300 contribution to Hutchison’s political opponent. Hutchison, also represented by DeGuerin, was ultimately acquitted of misconduct charges. Delay’s lawyers cited 34 contributions Perkins has made to Democrats since 2000, including donations to Kerry and to MoveOn.org, a group that has waged a campaign against DeLay. Perkins has said that his contributions to MoveOn.org were made before it launched its anti-DeLay campaign. Prosecutors also argued that six of the contributions were wrongly counted twice by DeLay’s attorneys. DeLay’s attorneys subpoenaed Perkins to testify, but Duncan said he would not have to take the stand. Perkins argued that his participation would threaten the public’s confidence in the judiciary. DeLay smiled as he walked past journalists outside the hearing room but didn’t speak. DeLay was forced to step down as House Majority leader after he was charged with criminal conspiracy and money laundering in an alleged campaign finance scheme to help put more Republicans in the Texas House and Congress. Judge subpoenaed, not required to testify DeLay’s attorneys subpoenaed Perkins to testify, but Duncan ruled in favor of Perkins’ motion that he not be required to testify. Perkins argued that his participation in the proceedings would threaten “public confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary.” DeLay’s attorneys cited 34 political contributions Perkins has made to Democrats since 2000, including donations to MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that has waged a campaign against DeLay. Perkins has said that his contributions to MoveOn.org were made before it launched its anti-DeLay campaign. Prosecutors also argue that six of the contributions were wrongly counted twice by DeLay’s attorneys. DeLay and his associates are accused of funneling corporate donations through Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay, to an arm of the Republican National Committee, which sent it back to seven GOP candidates running for the Texas Legislature in 2002. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used directly in political campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 He appeared to be fair and balanced to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Should be a non issue. Hopefully justice is done. If he is guilty I hope he gets it and if innocent I hope he is fully vindicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 And the point? Do you people also think Antoine Scalia should have recused himself from the Cheney Energy Task Force hearings because he went duck hunting with him? You see, I think the right decision was made in this case, can you say the same thing in the Scalia-Cheney case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I think that the SC Justice whose son was on the defense team while they were arguing the Florida in 2000 should have recused himself. Always thought that. Didn't know how there can't be a conflict of interest when your son is arguing for one side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Should be a non issue. Hopefully justice is done. If he is guilty I hope he gets it and if innocent I hope he is fully vindicated. Exactly.. how hard is that to want really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 No problem with this. Hopefully this doesn't create a situation where a lot of folks keeps asking for another judge. Guess we'll see where this goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 This is total BS. So people can only be tried in front of judges who are on their side of the political spectrum? Is that how little confidence we have in a judge's impartiality? Should Delay be able to strike for cause any jurors who donated to the democratic party as well? Believe it or not Rep. Delay, not everyone makes every decision in their lives based on their political affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 You still laughing Jimbo & Co.? I doubt it now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Believe it or not Rep. Delay, not everyone makes every decision in their lives based on their political affiliation. EXACTLY!!! That's the problem with the conservative movement. ALL their decisions are based on their ideology, so they can't comprehend how anyone else can be unbiased. . . That is unless it is THEIR guy on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Somebody help me get this straight. If a liberal judge can be assumed to be biased against a conservative defendant, then why can't a conservative judge be assumed to be biased in favor of a conservative defendant? Is the latter preferable to the former, or should we appoint only moderates to the bench? Doesn't this decision open up both ends of an ugly can of worms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Somebody help me get this straight.If a liberal judge can be assumed to be biased against a conservative defendant, then why can't a conservative judge be assumed to be biased in favor of a conservative defendant? Is the latter preferable to the former, or should we appoint only moderates to the bench? Doesn't this decision open up both ends of an ugly can of worms? Why do you think I posted the bit about Cheney and Scalia, hypocritical to say the least. The real issue is that Mike posted this thread, yet refused to answer my question about Cheney and Scalia in the other thread. :doh: If you don't succede the first time, try and try again. . .yet, nobody has attempted to answer it in this thread as well. Maybe somebody will have the gonads to speak their mind, but the silence is deafening. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Why do you think I posted the bit about Cheney and Scalia, hypocritical to say the least.The real issue is that Mike posted this thread, yet refused to answer my question about Cheney and Scalia in the other thread. :doh: If you don't succede the first time, try and try again. . .yet, nobody has attempted to answer it in this thread as well. . Oh, sorry, I was kind of skimming through that. But I'm sure that somebody out there will be kind enough to set me straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passepartout Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Wonder if the next judge will be "bribed" to free DeLay of all charges? Makes you wonder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't know if it's what I would have done if I were in charge, but everyone has to admit that this issue was at least debatable. I can tell you for sure that under the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, there would be nothing wrong with the judge staying on the case. However, I'm sure the Texas Bar has somewhat stricter rules, and there are many hortatory rules about the appearance of impropriety that leave a lot of gray area. So they did the right thing, andt hey held a hearing, and they made a decision - that's how we resolve disputes in court, and we should all accept the decision. I'm sure DeLay will get a fair trial, and I'll be eager to see how it comes out. ...although I'm sure people will complain about the trial at the end of that too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 The judge is biased against my politics, he is a democrat and I am republican, Whats next Tom?, why not try bribery. Can't the Republican party see this clown is an embarassment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 He appeared to be fair and balanced to me Like Kenneth Starr? :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Like Kenneth Starr? :logo: Starr was a prosecutor not a judge. He had the position of Earle in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Should Delay be able to strike for cause any jurors who donated to the democratic party as well? I understand that yesterday, Delay's lawyers filed paperwork to have the trial moved from Austin, because there are too many Democrats in Austin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Starr was a prosecutor not a judge.He had the position of Earle in this case. And Earle has already been roundly attacked because he's not "neutral" enough. (He's prosecuted Republican and Democrat politicians. In fact, the Ds he's prosecuted outnumber the Rs by over 2 to 1, from what I've heard. But the Democrats he prosecuted were "conservative" Democrats, (As if there's another kind in Texas.), so therefore he's obviously biased.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Of course Dems obviously commit more than twice as many crimes as GOPs so his bias shows int he percentage. Sorry, that was too easy to let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 He appeared to be fair and balanced to me Just like Fox news..right? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't know if it's what I would have done if I were in charge, but everyone has to admit that this issue was at least debatable. I can tell you for sure that under the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, there would be nothing wrong with the judge staying on the case. However, I'm sure the Texas Bar has somewhat stricter rules, and there are many hortatory rules about the appearance of impropriety that leave a lot of gray area. So they did the right thing, andt hey held a hearing, and they made a decision - that's how we resolve disputes in court, and we should all accept the decision. I'm sure DeLay will get a fair trial, and I'll be eager to see how it comes out....although I'm sure people will complain about the trial at the end of that too... Texas Rules of Judicial Ethics are based on the ABA Rules of Judicial Conduct and as far I can see, they are not more strict. The mere fact that a court had a hearing and made a decision is not sufficient cause to accept the decision if the decision itself is still wrong. My central problem with this decision is the reasoning that political affiliation is considered to be enough to establish the suggestion of impropriety. We don't accept this kind of broad generalization in other aspects of the trial process. For example, one can't strike a potential juror based on their race or gender. Yet, this isn't because we are saying that a member of the opposite race or gender may not be fair to the non-striking party, but because the right of the struck juror to serve as a juror is violated. We don't assume that a normal juror can't be impartial due their differences, whether it be race, gender, religion, or politics, so why should we accept the allegation that a democratic judge can't be impartial to a republican defendant without more concreate proof? This streotyping of the worst kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Correct decision. And I think, based on what I have read, that Delay is an utter scumbag. Nevertheless, the judge should have recused himself rather than force a separate judge to bump him off the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I understand that yesterday, Delay's lawyers filed paperwork to have the trial moved from Austin, because there are too many Democrats in Austin. Now that one sounds like a loser argument to me and one I would disagree with if I were the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.