Left cries foul over removal of DeLay judge

[Pangloss]

Long-time readers here will know that I'm not a fan of Tom DeLay, or of House Republicans in general. Frankly I think they personify much of what's wrong in Washington these days. But fair is fair, and today's objections bothered me.

 

In a nutshell, people are annoyed that the judge in the Tom DeLay case was removed. He had donated five grand to MoveOn.org, and there are allegations of statements he's made in the past about Tom DeLay of a pretty bias-indicative nature ("Do you oppose Tom DeLay?" "In every possible way" was one quote I heard on the radio today).

 

Also I have to apply my "reversal rule" here -- would it be objectionable (to the same people who are crying foul today) if the reverse were the case? Would they favor leaving him on the case if the judge had donated $5,000 to Focus on the Family or was a neo-con?

 

Consider also that the judge's replacement will be made without any input from either the prosecutor or the defense. They can object to the choice, of course, but the point is that DeLay isn't "selecting his judge" the way some would have you believe. The process is as fair as it can be.

 

Thoughts?

 

Here's a story on it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110105delay_wr,0,209555.story?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews

[Phi for All]

I'm completely with you on this one. Hypocrisy has been rampant lately but you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

In some ways, I think people are crying foul to get every edge they can. It's not a bad tactic, asking for 10 and settling for 5 because 5 was what you wanted in the first place.

 

When it's obvious that someone is crying conspiracy wolf that's different. I dislike it when right or left is trying to gather straws so they can claim the camel's back is broken.

[ecoli]

I'm with you too. I don't see any corruption in this decision. In fact I think it's a smart move because of the donations. In all probability, the next judge will prove to be impartial, something that DeLay probably isn't.

 

People are making a stink because they see an oppurtinity where they can get the edge in the case. Well, I hope that doesn't happen.

[Pangloss]

Makes sense to me.

 

One thing I meant to add to the judge's credit is that while he didn't recuse himself, he did ask his boss-judge to make the final decision. That's usually seen as a "class act", as I understand it, and says something good about the judge (i.e. he's eager to do his job, but willing to accept third-party judgement of making sure that things are "above suspicion").

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't have been biased in the DeLay case, but that kind of resolution helps to guarantee that we DON'T end up with a system where cronyism and ideology determine cases.

[Douglas]

One thing I meant to add to the judge's credit is that while he didn't recuse himself' date=' he did ask his boss-judge to make the final decision. [/quote']Hmmm, judges credit? seems like he should have recused himself instead of asking his boss to make the decision for him.

 

Oh well, moveon or john birch....what the hell.

[bascule]

I think this says a lot about priviliged treatment of white collar criminals. Why can't everyone remove a judge they feel will be biased against them? Because they can't afford fancy enough lawyers?

[Pangloss]

I don't understand. Aren't judges sometimes removed from "regular" criminal cases as well? Reasons could be personal involvement in the case, inappropriate contact with prosecution or defense, and even demonstrated predisposition shown in public statements or what not. Surely this is not an uncommon occurence.

 

I do agree that we have a problem in this country of the quality of legal defense being higher based on the amount of money available for the lawyers. But I don't think that's really at issue here. A first-year law student could have made this particular argument.