PDA

View Full Version : Democratic Judge Removed From DeLay's Criminal Case



Gold9472
11-01-2005, 08:20 PM
Judge Removed From DeLay's Criminal Case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5385184,00.html

(Gold9472: How is it they can do this? If a black man is tried by a judge who hates black people, does the man being tried get the same treatment?)

Tuesday November 1, 2005 8:46 PM

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay will get a new judge to preside over his criminal case after his attorneys successfully argued Tuesday that the judge's political donations created a conflict.

State Judge Bob Perkins, who has made campaign donations to Democrats, will be replaced by another judge, said C. W. Duncan, the judge deciding the recusal motion by DeLay. That judge was not named Tuesday.

``This is the wrong case for Judge Perkins to judge because of his perfectly permissible activity as a Democrat and as a partisan and as a supporter of Democratic causes,'' DeLay's attorney Dick DeGuerin said after the four-hour hearing.

DeLay, the former House Majority leader, and two associates are accused of money laundering and conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme that helped increase the GOP's numbers in the Texas Legislature, which later passed a redistricting map that helped put more Republicans in Congress.

DeLay's attorneys repeatedly said during the hearing that they were not accusing Perkins of doing anything wrong, but that there should not be a public perception of partiality in the case.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who heads the criminal investigation into DeLay's fund-raising activities, watched in the courtroom while his deputies questioned witnesses. He got up at the end of the hearing and chided DeLay's attorneys for repeatedly calling it a ``political case.''

``This is not a political case; this is a criminal case,'' Earle said. ``Mr. DeLay stands charged with a felony.''

jetsetlemming
11-01-2005, 08:42 PM
To use your analogy, there is no way a judge who had given large donations to the KKK and the neo nazis who get away with presiding over the trial of a black man.

Gold9472
11-01-2005, 09:22 PM
I don't get it.

Gold9472
11-01-2005, 09:23 PM
NM... you're right I guess, but it seems as if getting to pick and choose who's going to judge you is a bit backwards. It means that judges don't interpret the law based on the written word, but rather as personal interpretation. That's not good.

jetsetlemming
11-01-2005, 09:56 PM
Theres a good chance that a judge presiding over a politician whose opponents he gives money to, or a judge who gives money to a group that lynches people of the kind that he is presiding over will make his decison personally. Do you think you could give Hitler a fair trial?

Gold9472
11-01-2005, 09:57 PM
Theres a good chance that a judge presiding over a politician whose opponents he gives money to, or a judge who gives money to a group that lynches people of the kind that he is presiding over will make his decison personally. Do you think you could give Hitler a fair trial?

A man or woman is innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Gold9472
11-01-2005, 09:58 PM
But... when evidence points in one direction, and guilt seems certain, then you must make a choice.

jetsetlemming
11-01-2005, 09:58 PM
Thats the way they are supposed to act, but they're human just like everyone else.

jetsetlemming
11-01-2005, 09:59 PM
That "guilt seems certain" will most certainly pop into a biased judge's mind really easily. More to the point that the hitler example, do you tihnk you could give Bush a fair trial?

Gold9472
11-01-2005, 10:04 PM
That "guilt seems certain" will most certainly pop into a biased judge's mind really easily. More to the point that the hitler example, do you tihnk you could give Bush a fair trial?

A man is innocent until proven guilty. The difference between people like Bush and a person like Scott Peterson, is that Bush's actions have been more public than ANYONE in the world. He is judged during his entire Presidency. A person like Scott Peterson wasn't known before he murdered Lacy Peterson. It wasn't until we saw the evidence that we learned he was guilty.

We've already seen the evidence for Bush.

jetsetlemming
11-02-2005, 12:35 PM
Who do you think would make a better judge: someone who hates watching politics and ignores them as much as possible, or someone who runs a website devoted to proving Bush's guilt? I feel, because its stupid to carry on this crap about politicians for as long as we have, that all cases in the future dealing with one should be handled by TV judges, so it'll be over in one day (and televised). What do you think?

Gold9472
11-02-2005, 12:38 PM
No because I hate watching those shows.

jetsetlemming
11-02-2005, 12:44 PM
Even if the defendant was Libby or Rove or Delay?

jetsetlemming
11-02-2005, 12:45 PM
And theres still the one day thing.