Appeals court said to hear DeLay request

Posted on Wed, Dec. 28, 2005
Appeals court said to hear DeLay request

Associated PressAUSTIN - The state's highest criminal court has agreed to hear Tom DeLay's latest request for a quick resolution to money laundering charges that forced him to give up his leadership post in the U.S. House, his spokesman said Tuesday.

The all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that both sides have a week to submit arguments, DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said in an e-mail. DeLay's attorneys asked the court either to dismiss money laundering charges or to order a lower court to try him immediately.

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin took the case to the criminal appeals court Friday, one day after the 3rd Court of Appeals denied his request that the case be sent back to the trial court or expedited through the appeals process.

DeGuerin and a spokesman for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle did not return phone calls seeking comment Tuesday night.
(snip/...)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/13497461.htm
(Free registrtation required)

WTF?

:cry:

The all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that both sides have a week to submit arguments, DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said in an e-mail. DeLay's attorneys asked the court either to dismiss money laundering charges or to order a lower court to try him immediately.

Are they activist judges? Can they be fair and balanced...:sarcasm:

I've got a bad feeling about this. :cry: :grr:

Democrats should appeal to have all Republican judges removed from this case, including Republican Supreme Court judges.

This is activism from the court!

You're saying that Republican judges--just because they ARE Republicans--would not give DeLay a fair trial because they are biased in his favor.
Then, you want the bench to be packed with only Democratic judges so that they hopefully WILL be biased in OUR favor and we want a conviction.
Thus, you are not upset because of bias--you're upset with who you perceive has it. (Ethics takes a real beating on THAT one...)


How about half the judges be Republicans and half be Democrats? That seems a little more fair, yes?

I'd rather like to hear such cases heard by people without any a priori biases.

Welcome to DU mate.

:beer:

That was just an example--my point was to make the judging as varied as possible so that it WOULDN'T be biased towards one side or the other.

So they can't be politically neutral. The Texas Republican party has become more powerful--partly because of crooks like DeLay. So there are more Republican judges to judge him...

I didn't know they were elected in Texas... And I don't know how I feel about elected judges; when I lived in Colorado, some 20 years ago, a couple judges made some absolutely horrendous decisions and the only voice the people had in the matter was to vote them off the bench. Without that power, we'd have just had to put up with them no matter WHAT decisions they made.

What would the alternative be--appointed judges? There's a lot of room for corruption with that method, too. Who would appoint them?

18181?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Texas is wired. BTW....Welcome to DU :hi:

Tom DeLay has already tried to have Democrats removed from hearing the case - then the Democrats should immediatly appeal to have all Republican judges removed from the case. If a judge has donated any money to a Republican or ever voted Republican, they they should be thrown off the case, using Tom DeLay's own logic.

Remove all activist Republican judges from the case.

Perhaps we should use a higher standard than that of Tom DeLay.....

by them . . .

Kinda like the bar that was set for impeachment . . . pretty damn low . . . but high enough, apparently, to allow subverting the constitution and breaking the (now-forgotten by Repigs) "rule of law" . . .

...the Democratic party's real power can come from us making new rules and setting a higher standard...

use "swift-boat" tactics . . . :eyes:

...is never an excuse for extinguishing our ethical standards.

extinguishing our ethical standards?

Perhaps we should demand that justice is served. What do you think about that idea?

...if you'll scroll up and reread my posts, you'll see that that's exactly what I advocate.

This is HIS trial. HE insists on being the boss. He is no neophyte. He is a well-seasoned political warrior. Let him go ahead and demand that party affiliation be the number one issue for every judge who hears this matter. Let him go ahead, and then let the other side do likewise.

And above all, let Bugman see to it that all democrats are bumped from his jury. I would love to see that. I know a few little things about jurors in general, and I would LOVE to see all democrats bumped from Bugman's jury.

However, we cannot complain about the rightwingers using unethical means--and then use those same means ourselves.

I thought that's what this thread was about! Oh, it says "appeals court", but, you see, these pre-trial appeals are a part of the whole trial process--and a part of the trial record.

Guess what. Rightwingers continue to use unethical means, and they continue to thumb their nose at anyone who points it out. And we are all called "bleeding heart liberals", etc., for daring to disagree.

And I am no fucking "bleeding heart liberal". I voted republican for president every time, right up through 2000, with the exception of one vote for Perot. And I always identified with the "conservative" side of the spectrum. (Now, however, I have realized what a total fraud it is. TOTAL fraud.)

And guess what else. Rightwingers "WIN" elections and other skirmishes because they CHEAT. (They've got a series of advertisements out now in which they LIE and say that Saddam was connected with 9/11. And idiots will believe these lying ads.) And guess what else. They continue to push us down in the dust through their lying and cheating, and I'm sick of it. WHATEVER IT TAKES--whatever it takes to rid ourselves of these FUCKING CRIMINALS. And if little Bugman doesn't want democrats on his jury, or doesn't want democratic judges, good. I hope he gets some of those republicans who think warrantless eavesdropping is JUST PEACHY KEEN. Then they can authorize Ronnie Earle to listen into Bugman's private correspondence any time he wants.

Earle wouldn't do it, but it would be poetic justice if Bugman ended up with a prosecutor who WOULD do it. And he would be stuck with it, because HIS party is the party which defends this practice.

However, letting our own ethics disappear simply because we think the other side has cheated is not in the long-term best interests of this country. Revenge and bitterness is no basis on which to decide these important issues.

I know how hard it is to be governed by someone so disliked. A majority-rules type of government has the disadvantage of having politics that appeal to only 51% of the people. The other 49% do not get what they want.

That is part of life in America. Rather than let the negative feelings we have over an election that has not gone our way consume us, we must take a long-term look into the future and where our decisions now will place us then.

America is bigger than any one election, one judge appointee, one trial of an elected official. We must build the political system that our children, and our children's children, will be governed by. It won't be a good one if it's based on the short-term goals of retribution and getting our own way.

This is way beyond "I'm discontented b/c right now I'm not in the majority (winning) party."

I WAS in this nasty conservative republican party, you know. I was not a card-carrying member, but I agreed with them, and rooted for them. I even indulged (along with members of freerepublic) in the fantasy of "gee, wouldn't it be great if we could control both houses of congress as well as the presidency."

Well, it happened. I WAS WRONG. I was terribly, terribly, wrong about these people.

"We must build the political system that our children, and our children's children, will be governed by." Clue: we already HAD built that system, but your boys Bush and Cheney have been avidly tearing it down, plank by plank.

"Short-term goals of retribution and getting our own way." Don't preach that to ME. Preach it to TOM DELAY. Because HE is the one who sacrifices our system to exactly those things, every day.

Whatever it takes. Whatever it takes to rid ourselves of these dangerous criminals. After that, if there's anything left over from their destructive tear, we can talk about ideals and goals.

I think you've forgotten yourself for the moment.... don't take your anger out on me.

BTW, have you ever heard the phrase "passive aggressive"?

Just askin'.

when our courts decide ANYTHING based on the political affiliation of judges or defendants, Republican or Democratic. At the very least that would mean two systems of justice in this country: one for politicians, and one for the rest of us.

I'm being to understand why, to us outsiders, Texas seems so corrupt: the courts can be stacked with pols doing favor for pols.

Other cities have had that same problem--Boston, Chicago, New York, Baton Rouge, Las Vegas to name a couple--and they need to solve it, too.

I want a fair, uncorrupted court system--and a fair an uncorrupted political base!

Back at the beginning of the trial.

...if you scroll up and reread my comments, I thoroughly advocated ALL major political affiliations be present, so there's no chance for loaded verdicts and, as the poster above this said, court decisions should be free from any political interference.

I agree.

who demanded the recusal of the original trial-court judge because the judge was a democrat.

himself asked for and got: DeLay himself moved to recuse his original trial-court judge because he claimed the man had "donated to Move On" (which turned out not to be true) and that the man was a democrat.

This is DELAY'S OWN ARGUMENT that the poster is reiterating. That's all. So if you don't like it when the poster says it, I presume you also look askance at the fact that DeLay himself raised party as an issue in the court.

(And I'm not sure that I am your 'dear' as we do not know each other...)

I don't like ANYONE being removed solely on the basis of what political party they belong to. I would like to see judges vote without regard to a set of constituents--and to have boths sides committed to that. We don't have that now, so I can't say it was 100% right or wrong that the Democrat judge was removed.

I just know I want a fairer, unbiased system. There is too large a difference between present-day functioning and how things should be.

Unbiased system, my ass. Was his "system" of gerrymandering the Texas congressional districts "unbiased"? Nothing is low enough for this little pink-faced CRIMINAL. I say, let him live by his own rules.

it is only fair that these other judges be held to the same standard...:wtf:

We need a system that's fair and unbiased--towards either party. If it needs to be a consensus, or if it needs to involve all different political affiliation to be fair, then that's what we need.

system is to JAIL criminals like Tom DeLay. That's PRIORITY NUMBER ONE.

You're saying that Republican judges--just because they ARE Republicans--would not give DeLay a fair trial because they are biased in his favor.

Remember, DeLay got the first judge in the case removed because he donated money to Kerry.

Sauce for the goose, etc.

-as

I don't like either side beng removed on the ASSUMPTION they'll be biased due to their political leanings.

How many 5-4 splits have we seen on SCOTUS? And we're supposed to understand that's purely coincidental? Face it, judges are no different from other party representatives, they just get to hold their offices for life.

,,,,here in Texas, judges are elected, so they all run on either a republican or democratic ticket. My next door neighbor is our county attorney. She ran on the republican ticket to get elected. Sadly, dems haven't held many offices at all for the last ten or fifteen years, but I suspect the trend will be changing. Everyone that was talking the republican hype are now just silent because of all the troubles the GOP have caused. A fifteen percent shift in public opinion could once again turn Texas blue. One can only hope!

People need to be aware of this and I congratulate the reporter and the media for putting this in the article.

who's watching his PAC?

quickly when you're a conressman.

Just read over on Josh Marshall's site that this is wrong. One of DeLay's spokespeople got a little, shall we say, carried away. Well, he lied. Check it out. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

We need this guy removed from our government. What a shame he has embedded himself so deeply it would almost take a miracle to wrench him out of Washington.

He's unbearably slimey, idiotic, repulsive, yet he's a typical Republican.

Court to consider faster DeLay trial
Quick, favorable outcome would boost chance to regain post
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 29, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A Texas court has agreed to hear arguments to speed up Representative Tom DeLay's trial on money laundering charges, increasing the possibility that he could reclaim his position as majority leader when the House reconvenes at the end of January if the case is resolved in his favor.

Late Tuesday, the all-Republican State Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin gave Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle one week to respond in writing to DeLay's motion for a quick resolution of the charges that forced him to step down from his leadership post in September, sending the House GOP hierarchy into disarray.

DeLay, an influential, 12-term congressman from suburban Houston, allegedly funneled corporate donations to candidates running for the Texas Legislature, illegal under state law. He denies any wrongdoing, and his lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, has already persuaded the court to throw out a separate charge of conspiracy.

The court's willingness to consider expediting the case appeared to buoy DeLay's hopes to return as House leader and reclaim his grip on the once- unified GOP membership, which has fractured from dissension in the ranks since he resigned.

''Congressman DeLay's constituents, the citizens of the 22d Congressional District, as well as the Republican delegation in the United States Congress, are being deprived of the effective services of their elected representative as long as the charges remain unresolved," DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said in a statement.
(snip/...)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/12/29/court_to_consider_faster_delay_trial/

Bill Frist, Tom DeLay Speak Out on Impeachment: "No Man Is Above the Law"
Liberal Politics: U.S. Blog

December 29, 2005
Bill Frist, Tom DeLay Speak Out on Impeachment: "No Man Is Above the Law"
When pursuing impeachment for President Clinton over marital infidelity, Republican members of Congress moralized endlessly over their profound shock at Mr. Clinton's alleged reckless disregard of the law.

Blogger Bulldog Manifesto at liberal blog community DailyKos unearthed some of the more memorable Republican uttterances of that 1990s period....quotes that take on new meaning in light of President Bush's persistent circumvention of the US legal system when the law doesn't suit his political purposes.

Here's a small sampling of Republican leaders feigning moral superiority in the 1990s on impeachment of Bill Clinton. (Take the time to to savor the complete quotes at DailyKos.)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) : "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."
(snip)

And my personal favorite, from indicted and temporarily-deposed Speaker of the House Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.....No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."
(snip/...)

http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/230953.htm

If I hadn't reclicked onto the story to read the additional comments after I had first checked out the story, I would not have seen this. Your post really deserves a thread of it's own.

Back to topic:

I hope this court refuses to tinker in this case. If they do there will be outrage.