Senator DeLay gets MoveOn. judge removed:From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON -- Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay won the first skirmish in his conspiracy and money laundering case today when a Texas judge was removed from presiding over the trial after DeLay's attorneys showed he has been a significant financial contributor to Democratic causes.District Judge Robert Perkins of Travis County, Texas, was removed at the close of a hearing in the state capital in Austin when a separate Texas district judge, brought out of retirement, ruled that Perkins' history of making 34 donations in the last five years to Democratic candidates and organizations suggested he would not be impartial in hearing the trial of the Republican member of Congress.
The visiting judge, C.W. Duncan, made the ruling without explanation. It now sets up the appointment of a new judge to preside over the trial. Under court rules, neither DeLay's lawyers nor state prosecutors can make recommendations on the selection of Perkins' replacement.Travis County Dist. Atty. Ronnie Earle, himself a Democrat who brought a series of grand jury indictments against DeLay and several of his Republican associates, had sought to keep Perkins on the case.
Earle viewed Perkins as fair, and not one to allow his political leanings to dictate his handling of the upcoming high-profile trial.Borrowing a line from Shakespeare, he said DeLay's complaint that Perkins would side against him was "much ado about nothing."Earle's assistant, prosecutor Rick Reed, argued at the hearing that there was no apparent "reasonable doubt that the judge is impartial."But Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's chief attorney, said in a telephone interview from Texas after the ruling that even in a state where judges are elected and may make political contributions, it just seemed improper for a judge who gave so much money — $5,585 — to federal and state Democratic candidates and causes to hear the case.
"There's no question he's very partisan," DeGuerin said. "In most cases, that wouldn't matter. But when partisan politics is what this case is all about, it doesn't look right for the judge to be on the opposite side of the person who is accused. That's as plain as the nose on your face." Perkins had sought to hang on to the job overseeing the trial. But legal papers filed last month by DeGuerin showed the judge consistently sent money to Democratic coffers, including contributions to the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, and the Democratic advocacy group, MoveOn.org.
Despite the fact that Tom DeLay is clearly getting railroaded by Texas Dems still upset by DeLay's help in getting George W. Bush four more years, the fact that DeLay's fate might've rested in the hands of a judge who contributed money to that insane, Leftist-propaganda machine known as MoveOn, added clear insult to injury.
The decision by Judge Duncan was the right one because it makes sure that Tom DeLay gets a fair trial and no matter which side of the political fence you stand on, if you truly believe in democracy, you'd want DeLay to at least have that.
Posts
Awesome!! When I heard that today I was very happy.
ReplyDelete11 02 05
ReplyDeleteHey Mr. GG:
Thx for visiting my blog. EXCELLENT posts! You do spin it for the GOP but you represent well with a lot of critical thought. Much appreciated in the blogosphere! :)
An editorial from our newspaper (which I totally agree with)....
ReplyDeleteEditorial: Judges are impartial until proven conflicted
Republican judges preside over the cases of Democrats every day in America. And Democratic judges do the same for Republicans. So why does U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, care all of a sudden?
Because now he's a defendant looking for any edge he can get, which is understandable; when you're the one in the handcuffs, you're allowed pretty much any option you can find in order to get out of them.
But saying he needs a new judge because the one assigned to his money-laundering case has donated to Democratic causes and candidates, and therefore would be biased against a Republican defendant, isn't going to hold water.
That's because there's not only no actual proof of any lack of impartiality on the part of Judge Bob Perkins, which would be required to lodge a formal complaint, but because the alternative would most likely be a Republican judge (the odds of a Green Party judge in Texas are just too slim).
And now what do we have? A judge selected precisely because he's on the same political side as the defendant. That doesn't exactly ring of impartiality, does it?
American judges are presumed to be impartial; that's part of the office and the job. Unless evidence surfaced that truly gives Perkins a conflict of interest, he should have remained on the bench in DeLay's trial.
Teeebooo
ReplyDeleteIf the situation had been reversed and a Democratic senator was charged with a crime and had to deal with a Republican judge who contributed money to a major organization on the Right, the Dems would be in uproar. Bottom line, the DeLay trial is a major case that's getting plenty of notoriety because of who's involved and because of its controversial nature, it doesn't need to be any more politicized than it already is.
It happens in other court cases all over the nation...all the time. (You) Republicans need to get over it and quit looking for easy and ready-made excuses!
ReplyDeleteJudges who aren't idiots would eschew making political donations to avoid the "whiff of bias".
ReplyDelete