i don't like this judge, he might rule against me....

[Docta]

wtf??? now only democrat judges can hear cases with democrats and vice versa?

November 1, 2005
Democratic Judge Is Removed From DeLay Case
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
and MARIA NEWMAN

AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 1 - A Texas court agreed today that a Democratic judge should be removed from Representative Tom Delay's criminal trial because of the judge's contributions to Democratic candidates and causes.

The decision came this afternoon after several hours of testimony in which Mr. Delay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said that the contributions by the judge in the case, Bob Perkins of the 331st Judicial Criminal District Court, would create questions "in the minds of reasonable people" that he could not rule impartially. Mr. Delay is charged with money laundering and conspiracy, and he was forced to step down as the Republican majority leader in the United States House of Representatives.

The judge in today's hearing, C.W. Duncan, did not immediately indicate who would replace Judge Perkins in the criminal trial nor when the trial would get started. Judge Perkins had declined to recuse himself from the case.

During the hearing, Mr. DeGuerin said he was not accusing the judge of any wrongdoing for making 34 contributions to Democratic and liberal groups since 2000. Texas law says that because judges are elected in that state, they can contribute to candidates and political parties.

But Mr. DeGuerin and several witnesses who testified today on behalf of Mr. Delay cited a state statute that said a judge "shall recuse himself in cases where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if he has a personal bias or prejudice in the case."

"I think both are clearly triggered here," John L. Hill, Jr., a former Texas Supreme Court justice, testified.

"It's very clear cut," the judge said. "We should have another judge in this case."

Records presented by Mr. Delay's defense team show that the judge donated a total of $5,255 to the Texas Democratic party and the liberal group MoveOn.org from 2000 to 2005, but none of the contributions were made after Mr. Delay was indicted.

Mr. DeGuerin said that under the statute, "a reasonable person has to be convinced" of a judge's impartiality.

"The public perception of Judge Perkins's activities shows him to be on opposite sides of the political fence than Tom DeLay," DeGuerin said, according to The Associated Press.

A prosecutor in the case, Rick Reed, said that Mr. DeLay's lawyers must prove, not speculate, that a member of the public would have a "reasonable doubt that the judge is impartial" in order to get the judge removed from the case.

"Judges are presumed to be impartial," Mr. Reed said, according to The A.P.

Mr. DeLay was in the courtroom accompanied by his wife, Christine. He smiled as he walked past journalists outside the hearing room but did not speak.

Mr. DeLay is accused of money laundering and conspiracy in a scheme that, prosecutors say, funneled thousands of dollars in corporate donations to Republican legislative candidates in 2002 in Texas in violation of the state's century-old ban on corporate money in state campaigns. He has said he is not guilty of any of the charges and will be exonerated.

Ralph Blumenthal reported from Austin, Tex., for this article, and Maria Newman from New York.

linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/politics/01cnd-delay.html?hp)

[markalot]

Put the shoe on the other foot, would you respond in kind?

I'm sure there are plenty of apolitical judges who will do fine with the case.

[BigSugar]

it was a no brainer.

[Sovrana]

November 1, 2005
Democratic Judge Is Removed From DeLay Case
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
and MARIA NEWMAN

AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 1 - A Texas court agreed today that a Democratic judge should be removed from Representative Tom Delay's criminal trial because of the judge's contributions to Democratic candidates and causes.



(a rhetorical question to illustrate absurdity) So are the members of this court Republicans or Democrats?

[Docta]

Put the shoe on the other foot, would you respond in kind?

I'm sure there are plenty of apolitical judges who will do fine with the case.

how many apolitical judges are there in texas though? it appears as if they all must campaign? if the next judge is a republican can the prosecutor demand a new judge??

[jneale]

Once upon a time I actually believed the court system & judges in general were above politics, ruling on law using reason and backing it up with legal documentation.

Now everything is “us or them,” even the Supreme Court, once a collection of esteemed legal minds, now just a bunch of people with their own agendas.

I have a Canadian friend who keeps telling me I’m not American anymore; maybe I should just give up and move.

I don’t even like using the “W” on my keyboard.

[Orville Wrong]

(a rhetorical question to illustrate absurdity) So are the members of this court Republicans or Democrats?
Doesn't really matter. Neither does the previous judge's party affilliation. The fact that he's consistently given money to liberal groups and candidates is a different matter though.

[euro60]

Doesn't really matter. Neither does the previous judge's party affilliation. The fact that he's consistently given money to liberal groups and candidates is a different matter though.
Excellent point.

[GoWest]

The fact that he's consistently given money to liberal groups and candidates is a different matter though.

Why?
If a judge gives money to a particular party, that makes them more likely to be biased than if they are just affiliated by that party?

If he's a sitting judge, who he gives his money to or who he votes for should be immaterial. He there to impartially hear the case.

Now, if he is truly judging impartially, then that will be grounds for an appeal.

[Tripod 3]

Excellent point.

Don't encourage him, please. ;)

[markalot]

Once upon a time I actually believed the court system & judges in general were above politics, ruling on law using reason and backing it up with legal documentation.

Now everything is “us or them,” even the Supreme Court, once a collection of esteemed legal minds, now just a bunch of people with their own agendas.

I have a Canadian friend who keeps telling me I’m not American anymore; maybe I should just give up and move.

I don’t even like using the “W” on my keyboard.

And I put it to you that the only reason you think that way is because they rule against someone you wanted to be president. So regardless of the merits of the ruling if you disagree it must be political?

I think it's us that has politicized the courts.

I've read so many posts on here from people who seem to not want to even consider a position if it goes against their core beliefs.

Can you tell me, for example, the gist of the ruling that gave Bush the election and why the justices ruled the way they did?

[Shlep]

Good luck finding an apolitical judge. Even if you could reasonably insist that judges not have any political affiliations or exercise the right to take part in the political process (which I doubt you can) there's no way you can tell someone what to think or not.

Is there anything about this judge's formal court opinions or previous rulings that indicates any serious bias? If not, DeLay's lawyer is doing nothing but engaging in the same sort of petty legal foot-dragging that conservatives accused Clinton (in many cases rightfully) of engaging in repeatedly during his tenure.

The statute DeLay is citing says quite clearly that there must be some defensible reason for suspecting bias, and so far they've produced squat. I don't think they reasonably expect to, either...beyond his being a contributor to the Democrats, which in and of itself has nothing to do with his positions on the bench (hell, Harriet Miers has conributed money to the Dems). Personally, I don't think they really think they will. I mean, if they *CAN* make a case, great; but I suspect they're looking to raise a stink which will either create such a stink that the judge will recuse himself out of a sense of decency, embarassment, frustration, or all of the above. If not, if DeLay gets sent down, GOP hardliners can maintain that DeLay was the innocent victim of a foul partisan with-hunt.

[Docta]

how many apolitical judges are there in texas though? it appears as if they all must campaign? if the next judge is a republican can the prosecutor demand a new judge??

voila!

Second Judge Out for DeLay Trial

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By APRIL CASTRO Associated Press Writer

November 03,2005 | AUSTIN, Texas -- Two days after U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay won a fight to get a new judge in his case, prosecutors on Thursday succeeded in ousting the Republican jurist responsible for selecting the new judge.

Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub recused himself after District Attorney Ronnie Earle filed a motion asking for his removal from the case.

Schraub said he will ask the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court name a judge to preside over DeLay's conspiracy and money laundering trial.

State district Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, was removed from DeLay's case Tuesday after DeLay's legal team cast doubt on Perkins' ability to judge the case fairly because of more than $5,000 in contributions he's made to Democrats.

Earle said in his motion filed Thursday that Schraub has made more than $5,000 in contributions to Republican candidates, including to Gov. Rick Perry, a DeLay ally, which calls into question Schraub's impartiality in the case.

Prosecutors had asked for Schraub to recuse himself or appoint another judge to take his place. The motion said that Schraub could ask Perry to appoint the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to assign a judge to conduct a hearing on the motion.

DeLay, 58, and two associates have been accused of funneling corporate donations from a DeLay-founded political committee in Texas to the Republican National Committee, which sent the money back to GOP legislative candidates in Texas. Texas law forbids the direct use of corporate money for campaigning.

The alleged scheme was part of a plan DeLay helped set in motion in 2001 to help Republicans win control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections. The Republican Legislature then adopted a new congressional voting district map that DeLay crafted to put more Republicans in Congress in 2004.

In coordination with DeLay, Perry called lawmakers back for three special sessions to tackle the contentious redistricting map, despite vehement opposition from Democrats, who staged two out-of-state walkouts to halt progress.

In the end, it was DeLay who brokered a redistricting agreement, visiting the state Capitol and shuttling back and forth between the House, Senate and Perry's office.

"Governor Perry was a major figure in the redistricting effort that the (DeLay) successfully argued," Earle said in his motion. "Because Judge Schraub has donated to Governor Perry, he has disclosed through this free speech that he agrees in principle with Perry's agenda regarding Tom DeLay's redistricting map."

Prosecutors also suggest an appearance of Schraub's political indebtedness to Perry, who appointed him as administrative judge and has authority to reappoint him again in January.

Still, Earle wrote that prosecutors believe Schraub to be "completely fair and impartial, with a sterling reputation of honesty and integrity.

"However, as the recusal of Judge Perkins reflected, such is unfortunately no longer the standard in our state for the judiciary," he said.

Schraub, 76, also has contributed money to the Republican campaigns of George W. Bush for Texas governor and president. He has more than 40 years of judicial experience, including the last 15 as administrative judge. He also spent 20 years as state district judge for the region.

[Shlep]

This is an interesting strategy indeed: figure out ways for every judge who steps up to try the case to wind up recusing himself until DeLay grows old and drops dead.

You have to admire their cheekiness.

[jps]

I think it's us that has politicized the courts.

do you mean us or the system or politicians themselves? actually i'm not sure if the answer to that matters... i agree that collectively the courts have been politicized. the extreme wings of both major parties specifically.

not to stray too far off this topic, but when we talk about judicial activism what do we even mean? clarence thomas has voted to overturn more legislation (not sure if its total number or highest percentage) than any other current member of the supreme court. that sounds like activism to me. could just be interpreting the constitution (usually different interpretation than the majority of the people in the nation and/or the majority of congress - but interpretation nonetheless).

[markalot]

do you mean us or the system or politicians themselves? actually i'm not sure if the answer to that matters... i agree that collectively the courts have been politicized. the extreme wings of both major parties specifically.


When I say us I mean you, me, ... when we get a ruling we don't like and it's seems political in nature we blame the judge. When the supremes rules against Gore we politicized the supreme court, even though I think the decision was not political. I will convince no one of that fact, but it politicized the court and in my opinion we did it, not the judges.

[miami2112]

politics has become nothing more than reality tv for me. the unfortunate thing is that these pinheads actually influence my life.