Tom Delay to get new judge in campaign finance trial
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Because a good Republican judge would be more objective and fair, I'm sure.
Interesting given that the judge who made the decision is also a Republican and Democrat contributor.
SezMe
post-pre-born
How can a "retired" judge be making a decision?
Will Delay also seek removal of all judges who made contributions to the Elephants?
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.
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:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
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.
List of organizations Judge Bob Perkins has contributed to. Note the date he contributed to MoveOn.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
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.
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!"
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?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Perhaps that, in itself, is the issue.
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
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:
Mephisto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,064
Yeah, this is how they bring "integrity" back to the White House.
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:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
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?
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.
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
How do you draw a comparison between MoveOn and Operation Rescue? On what standards of measure?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
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.
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.
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.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
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?
(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:
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:
Now, really!
Did you ever contribute to the RNC? If you did, then I don't think you have any right commenting on a Democrapic prosector.
Oh, wait, that's just as wrong as what you said!
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I'd say contributing money to an organization is about as solid a piece of evidence that someone supports them as it gets. What more do you want?
If his intention was to support Kerry in getting elected, then he could contribute to Kerry and leave it at that. If his intention was to get Kerry elected by way of extremist tactics, he could contribute to an extremist organization, which is what he did. While it might or might not have been the judges intent for the money to be used to elect Kerry, he clearly knew that MoveOn was not about electing Kerry. In fact, Moore came out and said Kerry sucked and was a poor choice for President, but people should vote for him since Bush was worse. Hardly an effective vote-getting speech.
MoveOn was about unseating Bush and DeLay and Frist and just about every Republican, not about electing Kerry.
Look at their ads. They are hate ads aimed at Republicans, not support ads for Democratic candidates.
And if a primary goal of an organization is to unseat someone, NOT GET SOMEONE ELECTED, and then that someone who they are trying to unseat is indicted, then it is again obvious you don't want a judge who supported the organization seeking to unseat that person to sit on that person's trial. It is about as big a conflict of interest as it gets.
ETA: Once the election was over, the time to contribute money to the organization seeking to unseat Republicans is past.
DeLay is simply asking for someone who clearly supports an extremist organization which has attacked him personally to be recused.
If you can't see that someone contributing money to an organization which ran that ad during the time frame the money was contributed as evidence, then you are being incredibly disengenous.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I would be interested in seeing a list of what groups DeLay would find to be objectionable as donation recipients. Do you think there would be any Republican PACs on the list? Would Operation Rescue be on there?
As I stated in my previous post, Judge Perkin's integrity is not in question. What is in question is the integrity of the process. In my opinion, giving money to the Kerry campaign or the DNC in general fails to meet the standard for recusal. However, his donations to a group that uses the specific case in front of him in financial appeals does cross that line.
As Tom DeLay's attorney made clear, the motion should not cast doubt on Judge Perkins in any way. His contribution was legal, ethical and honorable from an objective standpoint. It also happens - like any tie a judge may forge - to exclude him from this particular case.
It's not necessarily a lose for the prosecution. If DeLay is convicted, this decision removes a very strong issue on appeal. If Perkins was indeed unbiased and the next judge is the same, then nothing has changed.
The prosecutor is free to ask any judge who has contributed to such organizations to recuse himself.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes. See, defendants are presumed innocent by the system. The system puts up all kinds of barriers and checks to try to maintain that presumption in the face of the overwhelming power and resources of the State which is prosecuting him. One of them is that the reality of impropriety by a judge is not sufficient -- the appearance of impropriety is important here.
The judge did the right thing by asking another judge to make the call, and the other judge did the right thing by granting the motion for reassignment.
This is also a good thing for the prosecution, even if the prosecutor won't admit it. Imagine a conviction here. Now imagine a conviction from a judge who contributed to moveon.org. Sheesh, the whining that's avoided by this simple change makes it worth it, let alone removing a possible grounds for appeal.
All I can find that MoveOn ran are anti-Bush ads for the 2004 campaign. No "Vote Kerry" ads.
Source Watch
3,651 spots. All of them anti-Bush. No "Vote Kerry" ad.
C-Span
You can watch those ads by clicking on them. Nothing about Kerry. DeLay is mentioned in the second one in connection with Enron.
So during the timeframe that the judge contributed money, we have at least one major print ad and one television ad which directly attack DeLay.
Source Watch
3,651 spots. All of them anti-Bush. No "Vote Kerry" ad.
C-Span
You can watch those ads by clicking on them. Nothing about Kerry. DeLay is mentioned in the second one in connection with Enron.
So during the timeframe that the judge contributed money, we have at least one major print ad and one television ad which directly attack DeLay.
In our system, DeLay's attorneys are advocates. As such, they are supposed to argue those issues that favor their client.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Luke, I agree that a donation to MoveOn does link the judge with that ad in an implicit manner, but I don't agree with your characterization of MoveOn as an "extremeist" organization. On the spectrum from simple advocacy to stridency to extremeist, where do you draw the line that delineates an organization (either right or left) as extremist?
Oh, and while I's asking, I guess I should check my assumption: When you use the word "extremist" can I assume that you mean that in a perjorative manner?
Thanks
Oh, and while I's asking, I guess I should check my assumption: When you use the word "extremist" can I assume that you mean that in a perjorative manner?
Thanks
Sort of. The reality of bias is not the test. It's whether or not the link could appear improper to a reasonable person. As I stated before, since MoveOn has targeted Tom DeLay (which is ethical in a general sense) in its ads, Judge Perkins made donations to MoveOn (which is ethical) a reasonable person can view Perkins as endorsing these ads. If the judge was a TRMPAC contributor, I would see it in the same manner.
The real question is that would a reasonable person expect a MoveOn contributor to have a bias against Tom DeLay. The other question I would argue is that - as been asserted by myself and others in this thread - would a reasonable person interpret a political donation as an endorsement of their agenda? I don't think political advocacy meets this test, but donations to a group that advocates the specific charges in front of the court does.
The appointment of Judge Duncan was, as I understand it, statutory. The trial judge hears the initial motion and decides to recuse himself or by statute hands it to a superior judge. I'm not casting aspersions on Judge Perkins - just pointing out that he probably did not see grounds to recuse himself.
From a Law.com article:
I think the real fight will be over the change of venue motion and in jury selection.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Uh-oh. manny, I'm slipping 'cause I agree with you.
Excellent point.No, I think you're confusing the Judge's right to free speech with the judge's responsibliity to avoid bias.
Rather than get in another pointless argument about what "extremist" means and who is, I will withdraw that adjective from my comments about MoveOn. The term does not matter to the point or evidence that MoveOn had a HardOn for DeLay, specifically targetting him by name, and that the judge supported them financially during that period.
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
I suspect that is why both sides are given attorneys.