DeLay to get new judge
by The Panda Man · 11/01/2005 5:02 pmRepresentative Tom DeLay has won his appeal for a new judge to preside over his trial on Ronnie Earle’s shopped-around indictments.
State Judge Bob Perkins, who has made campaign donations to Democrats, will be replaced by another judge, said C. W. Duncan, the judge deciding the recusal motion by DeLay. That judge was not named Tuesday.
Obviously the second judge saw that a jurist who donates to a rabidly leftist organization like MoveOn, which calls Tom DeLay part of a “culture of corruption” in Washington, has compromised his own objectivity when the man himself appears before his court.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
52 Responses to “DeLay to get new judge”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
My, My…What is the world coming to with these criminals and their high price laywers going judge shopping, next thing you know they will try to get off on some technicality. Gall durn liberal criminal lawyers. What is the old saying, if you want to turn a conservative into a liberal, arrest him.(flip side, if you want to turn a liberal into a conservative mug him.)
Ohhh! I can just hear the shrieking over a DU and Kos now!!
Now we’ve opened Pandora’s Box.
I suggest we amend the Constitution to “trial by a jury of your peers holding like minded political beliefs and party affiliation”. At least then we’d be above board and honest about what we’re doing.
What judge in Texas has never donated to a party or political organization? We hold partisan elections for judges in this state forgodsakes. If I were Ronnie Earle I’d seek to disallow any Republican judge from hearing the case. At the very least I would comb his or her financial records to see what causes they’ve donated to as well. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
A sad day for America.
I can see how it would be seen as judge shopping, but.. I can also see how the judge may be biased in how the case is handled since he has donated to even the far left organization Move On.
http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/Bob_Perkins.php
That means he is likely far left in his opinions and that could affect his decisions. It should not, but we are all human. We are entitled to a fair trial and that can be difficult to accomplish in such a politcally charged case. I agree too that the new judge should not be as conservative as this one is liberal. Hopefully it will be fair.
Willie,
Hardly! If it were a simple matter of donations to the Republican Party or the Democrat Party, that would be one thing.
This guy gave money to the most rabidly left wing group he could find! A group that has basically avowed itself as an enemy of DeLay.
How could you possibly not see the conflict here?
I believe he gave to MoveOn as a citizen (as we all have the right to do). Are we going to rate the objectivity of judges based on who they gave money to as a private citizen? Or what party they were elected from? If Mr. DeGuerin could prove that Judge Perkins had a prior ruling where his objectivity was called into question, then ok, that might be acceptable, but that was not the basis of Mr. DeGuerin’s motion.
If Judge Alito gave money to a group whose main purpose was overturning Roe v. Wade, should he then recuse himself from hearing any abortion case if he is confirmed? I would say “no”. I would trust that he would set aside his personal beliefs and follow the law as written. I have the same trust in Judge Perkins (be he Democrat or Republican).
Why is Judge Perkins being punished (which moving the case from his courtroom amounts to) for exercising his 1st Amendment right of free speech?
We’re opening something that we will regret.
The judge should recuse him or herself if there is any appearance of bias on their part. DA Ronnie Earle should not have objected to the change and his doing so indicates that he had a hidden agenda in wanting to keep him. Often things are exactly as they appear.
#7) So by your logic, Republican defendants should only be judged by a Republican judge, and Democrats only by another Democrat? Should their juries only be composed of fellow partisans?
Must have missed that in my Constitutional Law classes.
#8 - Willie, there’s a difference between a biased judge and jury selectino. I am sure that the jury will be selected properly no matter who the judge is, but a biased judge can have a lot of sway over the jury…
If Delay is innocent and believes in due process, why worry about the judge? I would think he’d have a better case for appeal if the judge did something wrong.
It’s politics, and it’s a distraction to lessen the public damage, that’s all this is. It has nothing to do with judicial bias or guilt/innocence.
What a sad state of affairs our country is in.
#10 - Actually, I suspect that the move to remove the judge was a legal maneuver that DeLay would win in either case. If he gets a new judge, then they’ll supposedly find him a neutral judge (frankly, I hope the new judge is another Democrat that can establish neutrality just to shut everyone up). If he does not, then he has possible grounds for appeal.
Disclaimer: Note that the above comment is not reflective on my guilty/innocent opinion of DeLay. Jury is still out on that.
I agree that Mr. DeLay is innocent until proven guilty. I cannot help but wonder, however, what kind of precedent this will set. I think you might see a number of political defendants angling to get their case heard by a judge who fits their political position. Wonder who will hear the cases of third party politicians (if there were any!)?
Maybe we should do away with the partisan election of judges in Texas altogether?
The next step in Mr. DeGuerin’s plan will probably be getting the case moved out of Travis County (where jurisdiction lies), for after all, most people there are not Republicans.
Willie and Headshaker,
I’m sorry but this is simply NOT A PRECEDENT.
The very same judge in this case RECUSED HIMSELF in the Kay Bailey case over 10 years ago!
And a motion to move the case out of Travis County would not be a precedent either.
You both need to learn more about our legal system before you assume that Delay OR DeGuerin are doing anything out of the ordinary.
David:
Who said that DeGuerin was doing anything out of the ordinary? Mr. DeGuerin, as an advocate for Mr. DeLay, has every right to submit his motion concerning Judge Perkins. He wants to smooth the path for Mr. DeLay’s defense. Any defense lawyer worth his salt would do the same. The problem I have with it is that his motion was granted, not that it was requested.
Precedents occur AFTER a trial or after a ruling, when the same legal rationale is used by subsequent defendants. The precedent (post ruling) I was referring to has to do with the retired Republican judge ALLOWING Mr. DeGuerin to dictate jurisdiction based on the political affiliation of Judge Perkins and a perception, by Mr. DeGuerin and Mr. DeLay, of possible bias.
I might not be the one who needs to bone up on our legal system.
The liberals are mourning the end of society as we know it after the removal of the Delay case judge. The Constitution is burning, they declare!
Nonsense. The Constitution requires a fair trial. The ruling to remove this judge upholds the Constitution, it does not circumvent it.
The claim that this judge’s political donations were the reason for his removal are spurious. They are the excuse the media has chosen to report, in part to defend this liberal activist judge’s integrity.
As we all know, a judge should never comment publicly on a case that may appear before them. Since they often don’t know what might appear before them, it is a good idea to just keep your mouth shut, but this often proves impossible for liberal activist judges. There were two valid reasons why this judge was summarily dismissed from this case without comment, and neither of them have anything to do with political donations. They were:
1.) This judge commented publicly that Tom Delay was a part of “the culture of corruption” in Washington. The judge announced bias before the case was ever heard, and therefore must be removed.
2.) This judge has already clearly and blatently abused his discretion in this case. He ordered that Tom Delay be arrested rather than simply report for an arraignment. It was well within his discretion to have Mr. Delay report rather than be arrested, but the judge instead decided to engage in a game of political “Gotcha” and vindictively ordered an arrest. The idea that Mr. Delay would be a flight risk, a primary reason for ordering an arrest and bond posting, is of course completely ridiculous. No doubt the judge presiding over the motion to remove the other judge saw this stunning abuse and ruled on the motion without a second thought.
Willie,
I never said DeGuerin was doing anything out of the ordinary.
The same judge who was recused in this case recused himself 12 years ago in the Hutchinson case.
You stated it is a precedent. You stated we’ve opened Pandora’s Box. How do you know this? “Show me the money.”
David:
Judge Perkins recused himself from the Hutchison case in 1993 because he donated directly to her opponent’s campaign ($300.00). His donation to MoveOn involved a broad political organization and didn’t directly fund an opponent of Mr. DeLay.
The Pandora’s Box that I referred to cannot be seen now, precedent happens AFTER adjudication. Time, and only time will tell whether this proves to be the case. We’ll have to wait and see. I actually hope I’m wrong and that we do not see a rush of political defendents seeking like minded and partisan judges to hear their case.
I have yet to find anything citing where the Judge said that, but during the search I found several Democrats that did say that. Does that constitute a “Democrat Talking Point”?
Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said in the statement, “We’re not selling T-shirts. DeGuerin has either bad information or lied in court.” He called DeLay “a key part of the culture of corruption in Washington” and said Congress “will be a better place” without him.
- http://www.knowledgemosaic.com/fpdb/NewsOpenFile.asp?FileName=200510211205.1.2_c266001a8087b596.htm&Subject=In+Court%2C+Delay%27s+Lawyer+Requests+New+Judge%0D%0A%0D%0A&Publication=Washington+Post&NewsID=204753
Kentucky Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Lundergan says, “There is a culture of corruption which prevailing within the leadership of the Republican Party.
- http://www.kentuckydems.com/
“The first thing we’re going to do is we’re going to have ethics come back to Washington again,” said Dean, the keynote speaker at Saturday night’s annual fundraising dinner for the Maine Democratic Party at the Lewiston Armory.
To deal with the “culture of corruption,” Dean said, there needs to be an ethics code in Congress and stronger campaign finance laws.
- http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/051023dean.shtml
#16) Mr. DeLay showed up for his arraignment in Harris County, which the judge allowed. He did this to allow Mr. DeLay to avoid the media circus that would have resulted from his appearance in either Travis County (where jurisdiction lies) or Fort Bend County (Mr. DeLay’s legal residence). That sure sounds biased to me (he sarcastically writes!).
You claim that it wasn’t political donations by the judge that took the case out of his court, but that is precisely what Mr. DeGuerin stated in his motion to have Judge Perkins removed. You might want to read the motion itself before stating such things.
#16) Forgot posting #19 by Texasdrifter:
Where exactly did Judge Perkins say anything about Mr. DeLay and a “culture of corruption”? I’d like to read that myself so that I have as much information as possible.
This whole affair with Congressman Delay is a good example why judges should be appointed by a commission and then periodically reaffirmed (or rejected)by the voters.
It is hard to keep one’s personal beliefs and political leanings out of rulings, but I believe that it can be done; just not by everyone. I do not know if the judge in question would be unfair to Tom Delay, but I can understand his viewpoint.
The prosecution also deserves a fair judge as well. Does this mean that otherwise good judges will be challanged because they donated to a Republican cause, the RNC, or some “547″ group. This is a real can of worms, but it does highlight a greater problem and I personally thank Tom Delay for inadvertently bringing it to the fore.
I do not believe that the voters can make an informed decision on the merits of any new candidate for judge and selecting one on purely party affiliation is not wise. There are just too many names on the ballot to do adequate research on individual candidates.
Now I know the political junkies out there are already crafting their responses to my last statement and will let me know that they check out each judicial candidate to the n’th detail.
Most, I suspect, just go ahead and push that “Republican” or “Democrat” button on the touchpad, rather than wading thru the list of judges for the various courts.
It would be a lot better to just send the incompetent, lazy, and outrageous jurist back into private practice once every two or four years with an “up or down” referendum vote.
Of course, this would put a few dollars back into the trial lawyers, since they would not be obligated to donate to judges’s campaigns every few years.
Simple
Just to insure that we are all on the same page:
This is the definition of “precedent” according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language:
precedent: a previous instance or case that may serve to justify a subsequent act, procedure, etc. of a similar kind. A previous judicial decision, proceeding, etc. taken as a rule in dealing with subsequent similar cases.
Simple: that is the Pandora’s Box I was referring to. Former Texas SC Justice Hill makes that very point in an article in the Chronicle today and advocates the position you have about judges, although he sides with letting the Governor initially select the judges instead of a commission.
Thank you #16. AT least for the second part of you comments.
DeGuerin would have been delinquent in his duties had he not made the motion to have the Judge removed from this case.
If the case can be removed from Travis county, that would be another smart decision by DeGuerin and the Delay defense team. I personally wish the trial could be moved to Sugarland. How’s that for being biased?
Willie;
“The problem I have with it is that his motion was granted, not that it was requested.”
That comment is bizarre! Had the request not been granted and Delay convicted, That decision, in all probability, would have been overturned on appeal. If Ronnie Earl had half a brain and his case against Delay was not politically motivated, he would have ask that the Judge be removed.
Willie,
If you believe that MoveOn.org is a “broad political organization”, then I’ve got a bridge in Alaska I’d like to sell you.
rj:
What I meant by that “bizarre” statement is that Mr. DeGuerin should have requested the removal of the the judge because, as Mr. DeLay’s attorney, his job is to insure that Mr. DeLay be exonerated. Having Judge Perkins removed was more important as a publicity (political) stunt (having the seeds of bias planted in the public’s mind and also in that of potential jurors and District 22 voters), than as a legal strategy as it may have removed the basis of an appeal had Mr. DeLay been convicted (as you stated).
How would justice be served by having the trial moved to Sugar Land? On what basis could such a move be acceptable? Just curious.
David: broad in the sense that MoveOn is a nationwide organization, one not restricted to Texas. I should have stated that more clearly.
If that judge had contributed money to the black panthers, could David Duke get a fair trial in that judge’s court?
If he had contributed to the KKK, could Quannel X get a fair trial?
If he had contributed to MoveOn, could Delay get a fair trial?
The correct answer to all three questions is NO.
#29) Should Justices Scalia, Thomas, and (presumably) Alito recuse themselves from hearing a case involving Roe if they’ve contributed to anti-abortion or pro-family groups? I would say “no”. I (naively) believe that they could set their personal beliefs aside and follow the law as written. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?
Do you not see that if a Republican judge is seated to hear the DeLay case that doesn’t amount to the same type of partisanship Mr. DeGuerin’s granted motion presumed?
Why is there opposition to anyone [Democrat or Republican] exercising their right to a fair trial.
Willie,
I think you are confusing mainstream Democrat/Republican with left or right EXTREMIST groups, of which MoveOn is one.
I certainly believe DeLay could get a fair trial from a “mainstream” Democrat judge.
I don’t believe ANY judge who contributes to an extremist organization like MoveOn is anywhere close to “mainstream”.
Pro-family and anti-abortion are by no means comparable to MoveOn.
A Republican Judge has not been seated to hear the Delay case.
The sky is not falling!
rj
David & rj: How does one prove which group is “extremist” and which is not? Who is to be the arbiter of that? You and I (and others) might have different ideas of who is “extremist”.
I would never contribute to MoveOn because I do not agree with the tactics they use to make their political point. They -as well as groups like the NRA and Mr. Dobson’s group- contribute to the rampant incivility that is tearing our nation apart and turning America into warring political factions. We saw how such a move can manifest itself in the 1860’s.
Many abortion supporters view pro-family and anti-abortion groups as “extremist”. I guess that designation depends on where you’re looking from.
Focus on the Family “contribute(s) to the rampant incivility that is tearing our nation apart and turning America into warring political factions”? You can’t be serious.
#36) Yes, I was being serious. FOTF tries to tie religious beliefs into political action with the underlying theme that “if you’re not on our side, you are against God”. I think that might be a staple of the al-Qaeda playbook. It most definitely contributes to the coarsening of civility in our great nation (at least in my opinion).
Mike, RJ, and David,
More power to you guys. Ya’ll keep up the “good” fight. Better watch it though, if you disagree with ol’ headdie and Willie and too long, they will call you young and ignorant.
Happened to me…………..
It was okay though, first time I have been called youthful in ages : )
#38) damn, but you have a good memory.
Glad I could make your day (being youthful and all).
Willie;
For the sake of argument, please give me an example of “incivility” that has been expoused by the NRA?
For every example you could illustrate, we could draw from groups from the left, many more.
“Many abortion supporters view pro-family and anti-abortion groups as “extremist”.”
How could one not be “pro-family”?
I’ll wear proudly the moniker “extremist”.
rj
#6;
The dismissed Judge giving to a group like MoveOn can only reflect their opinions. He not only gave as a citizen, but also as an officer of the Court.
To recuse himself would have been the civil thing for him to do and would have garnered respect and admiration.
Instead he has brought disgrace on himself (being found unqualified to render a fair and impartial trail) and embarrasment to the court.
rj
Interesting article on Drudge.
Talk about incivility. Black dem’s pelt black republican with Oreos.
the atricle is by S.A. Miller for the NY times in the Metropolitan. Nov-2-05.
rj
One thing I thought interesting (and no one in here seems to have touched on it) is that the “visiting” Judge Duncan who decided the matter (dismissed Judge Perkins from the case) is a Democrat.
rj,
I hope we can find a Libertarian jurist to preside over Delay’s trial. This would be the fair thing to do for both sides.
Simple
Believe it or not, I agree that the judge should have been removed based upon the MoveOn.org donation. What the heck was he thinking? If I was a judge I would certainly be very careful as to whom I associate with and support. It just proves that bad choices can be made by conservatives and liberals.
#37 - you may not agree with FOTF’s political goals, but to equate them with al-queda is a bit of a reach, no?
They tying of religious beliefs into political action (at least on the grassroots level) is not inherently horrible and will not result in the Taliban here in the US.
#40) rj- The incivility I was speaking of concerning the NRA has to do with their practice of labeling anyone who even dares speak of any type of gun control as “unpatriotic” or “un-American”. Why is it that groups like these call someone’s patriotism into question if they disagree on a political position? To me at least, speaking out against things you politically disagree with is the very essence of patriotism.
Incivility and coarseness can be seen on both the Right and the Left. The stunt by MoveOn.org last year comparing President Bush to Adolph Hitler was beyond the pale and any right thinking Democrat should have immediately denounced them. It definitely goes both ways.
#46) jimb:
My point in the comparison is that both groups seem to feel that they have God on their side. Of course FOTF isn’t on the level of al-Qaeda when it comes to actual actions or even words, but the mindset of seeing themselves as the “spokesmen” of God himself is a dangerous one (however small or large), one that has led to untold misery throughout recorded history. When someone tells me they know the heart or mind of God (Christian, Muslim, whatever), I usually flee them post haste and seek safer ground through prayer.
Sounds like a good course of action. The reason I pray in the first place is that I know I don’t have the answers, and am willing to go to God with a contrite heart to seek His guidance. People who don’t proceed in their interactions with others with all due humility should be given wide berth.
I would only say that I am not entirely sure that FOTF claims to know the heart and mind of God. That said, I don’t hang on their every word, either. Better to stick, as a Christian, to the Bible and prayer, if you’re going to seek God’s guidance. I agree with you and Mike in that respect…
FOTF and al-qaeda notwithstanding it looks like none of you live here in Travis County. There will be a request for a change of venue too and it will be granted just like the Judges removal motion. Fair trial? Ronnie Earle? in Austin? fat chance.
What this all boiles down to is a political witch hunt. The Liberals are trying to achieve in court what they have been unable to do at the polls. It is the same with Scooter Libby. The press was reporting that there were going to be mass indictments going all the way to the top. How disappointed they must have been.
What we are witnesing is a meltdown of the Democaratic Party.