• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tom Delay to get new judge in campaign finance trial

Cylinder

Philosopher
Cylinder
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,062
Location
Arkansas
From the Houston Chronicle

A state district judge who had contributed to Democratic organizations was removed today from the conspiracy and money laundering trial of Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay.

Retired state District Judge C.W. Duncan Jr. made no comment when he granted DeLay's motion to remove Judge Bob Perkins from the case.

Throughout the proceedings, DeLay sat in the front row behind defense attorneys with his wife and aides. He often smiled, and he occasionally chuckled when Democrats said negative things about him in their testimony. He gave no comment as he left the courthouse.

DeLay's attorneys had contended the Democratic judge would be biased against the former House majority leader in the criminal case stemming from the use of corporate campaign donations in 2002 Texas House races.

Neither DeLay nor Perkins testified in today's hearing.

"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.

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."
Click to expand...
 
Because a good Republican judge would be more objective and fair, I'm sure.
 
How can a "retired" judge be making a decision?

Will Delay also seek removal of all judges who made contributions to the Elephants?
 
It doesn't say in the OP link that one of the "Democratic organizations" this judge contributed to was Moveon.org. Take a look at the NYT ad and know that the judge helped pay for it with his contributions. Can you honestly say he would be unbiased?

Would it be so difficult to find a judge who has not contributed money to such an organization?

Ironically, the little clip-out coupon to contribute to MoveOn at the bottom of that ad says, "YES! I WANT TO HELP. Your contribution will be used to support MoveOn PAC's campaign to protect the independence of our courts and other critical efforts through more advertising and other means."

Other means? Hmmmm.
 
Last edited:
One the inherent problems of electing judges. There should be that clear division between the elected officers, and the judiciary, according to the 'seperation of powers'. Of course appointing judges also has it's own problems.
 
Luke T. said:
It doesn't say in the OP link that one of the "Democratic organizations" this judge contributed to was Moveon.org. Take a look at the NYT ad and know that the judge helped pay for it with his contributions. Can you honestly say he would be unbiased?

Would it be so difficult to find a judge who has not contributed money to such an organization?
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of any evidence connecting the judge with that particular ad, Luke. Care to share?

In fact, according to the judge, he contributed to MoveOn primarily to help John Kerry. Delay didn't enter into it. (link)

What Delay is trying to do is despicable, frankly. He's trying to make this into a political trial, where he's being persecuted for his politics rather than prosecuted for his conduct. He's already accused the prosecutor of being a Democratic shill, now he's gone after the judge.

This is Republican "personal responsibility for your actions" at its best.
 
Cleon said:
I'm unaware of any evidence connecting the judge with that particular ad, Luke. Care to share?

In fact, according to the judge, he contributed to MoveOn primarily to help John Kerry. Delay didn't enter into it. (link)
Click to expand...

If you contribute to PETA, and PETA destroys research laboratories, can you say your money didn't go toward that effort? "Oh, my money was given with the intent of helping puppies find homes!"


What Delay is trying to do is despicable, frankly. He's trying to make this into a political trial, where he's being persecuted for his politics rather than prosecuted for his conduct. He's already accused the prosecutor of being a Democratic shill, now he's gone after the judge.

This is Republican "personal responsibility for your actions" at its best.
Click to expand...

I see. Let's remember these comments when the bias of Alito is raised later this year.

Seriously. Is it so hard to find a judge who has not contributed to an extremist group?
 
I wonder how some would react if they were picked up for DWI and failed the Police Officer's Sobriety Test (walking a straight line, etc.) due to nervousness but knew they were well within the legal limit. Then they get to court and come upon a judge that is a strong supporter (and continuing contributor) of MADD. Do they really think they would get a fair trial or would they ask for a different judge?
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
In fact, according to the judge, he contributed to MoveOn primarily to help John Kerry. Delay didn't enter into it. (link)
Click to expand...

If you look at this link again, you can see he did contribute to Kerry directly, four times, for a total contribution of $1275. And he contributed $600 to the DNC. So saying he contributed to MoveOn to help Kerry just doesn't ring true.
 
Last edited:
Luke T. said:
If you look at this link again, you can see he did contribute to Kerry directly, four times, for a total contribution of $1275. And he contributed $600 to the DNC. So saying he contributed to MoveOn to help Kerry just doesn't ring true.
Click to expand...

Er, why not? How does one rule out the other?

The last contribution he made to Moveon was before the election. If helping Kerry wasn't the primary reason, he would've kept contributing after the election, no?

I notice you still haven't provided any evidence connecting the judge with the ad you mentioned. That wouldn't be poisoning the well, would it?
 
Cleon said:
Er, why not? How does one rule out the other?

The last contribution he made to Moveon was before the election. If helping Kerry wasn't the primary reason, he would've kept contributing after the election, no?

I notice you still haven't provided any evidence connecting the judge with the ad you mentioned. That wouldn't be poisoning the well, would it?
Click to expand...

Why contribute to MoveOn to help Kerry when you can contribute directly to Kerry? Does that sound efficient? I think it is obvious the judge likes MoveOn's campaign tactics.

Would you buy it if it turns out Alito contributed to Operation Rescue or somesuch to "help get Bush elected"?

ETA: I'm not saying the judge's intention wasn't to help Kerry by contributing to MoveOn. I am saying he must agree with their tactics to help Kerry and the Democratic Party. And part of those tactics are the NYT ad I linked.
 
Luke T. said:
Why contribute to MoveOn to help Kerry when you can contribute directly to Kerry? Does that sound efficient? I think it is obvious the judge likes MoveOn's campaign tactics.

Would you buy it if it turns out Alito contributed to Operation Rescue or somesuch to "help get Bush elected"?

ETA: I'm not saying the judge's intention wasn't to help Kerry by contributing to MoveOn. I am saying he must agree with their tactics to help Kerry and the Democratic Party. And part of those tactics are the NYT ad I linked.
Click to expand...
How do you draw a comparison between MoveOn and Operation Rescue? On what standards of measure?
 
Luke T. said:
Why contribute to MoveOn to help Kerry when you can contribute directly to Kerry? Does that sound efficient? I think it is obvious the judge likes MoveOn's campaign tactics.
Click to expand...

Well, you think whatever you like; however, I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is the case. I could just as easily suppose that if the judge liked MoveOn's tactics, he'd contribute to them after the 2004 election as well.

Would you buy it if it turns out Alito contributed to Operation Rescue or somesuch to "help get Bush elected"?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "buy it?" I'd hardly be surprised, if that's what you mean.

Delay's trying to turn this into a political circus rather than a trial of his actions--frankly, I'm disappointed that you're buying into it.

ETA: I'm not saying the judge's intention wasn't to help Kerry by contributing to MoveOn. I am saying he must agree with their tactics to help Kerry and the Democratic Party. And part of those tactics are the NYT ad I linked.
Click to expand...

Yet there remains NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER connecting the judge with said ad, which YOU USED AS EVIDENCE that the judge would be biased against Delay.
 
A few tangental points:

(1) Retired judges are commonly used, even for trials.

(2) The recusal judge (Judge Duncan) made a ruling that the initially assigned judge should not hear the case. I don't know what evidence was presented to him, but it sufficed for the Court. One consideration is not just actual bias, but the appearance of bias in a given case. I do not know if that was a factor here, or not.

(3) The second judge made a decision -- probably without consulting any internet forums. Is everyone arguing that no bias was shown with Judge Perkins assuming that Judge Duncan is biased? On what evidence?
 
Judge Perkins has every right to donate to whatever cause he sees fit. However, as a judge, he is required to disclose these links and recuse himself from those cases where even the appearance of conflict with otherwise legal, ethical and permissible activities may exist. From my understanding, the test is if a reasonable person would question the impartiality of the sitting judge.

Since MoveOn has used these specific allegations against DeLay and TRMPAC in fund raising and advertising, it is reasonable in my objective opinion to view a political donation as an endorsement of an organization's stated goals.

As far as the accusation against DeLay for politicizing this trial, I will let Ronnie Earle's words speak for itself:

"This is not a political case," argued Earle, a Democrat. "This is a criminal case." [snip] Earle argued that removing judges under these circumstances could lead to a country split "into Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom