blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Pet Peeve

1.22.2010

Pet Peeve

I get a weekly email of recent legal Case Updates from the Texas District and County Attorney Association because I'm a famous former prosecutor I pay them an annual fee. The updates are always informative, but I especially love the prosecutor oriented "Commentary" after each one -- it let's me know when they are really scared about a particular case. But this one got my attention this morning. Prosecutors, by their very nature, are right wing law and order types that, amazingly, oftentimes want to do their brand of justice so badly that they forget about silly things like the Constitution -- a Constitution that most right wingers will tell you they hold sacred. At least when it serves their purpose. In this case we have a clear violation of a valuable Constitutional right: The right to a public jury trial (which prevents the government from operating a secret Star Chamber.) So what is the "official" response from the organization that represents all DAs and CAs from around the state: "Come on!! So what if it's a violation? It didn't hurt the Defendant so who cares!!" Amazing. If there are no consequences for violating the Constitution, we might as well not have a Constitution at all.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Prosecuters suck....100% of the time.

Anonymous said...

"If there are no consequences for violating the Constitution, we might as well not have a Constitution at all."

Be sure Obamination gets a copy of that.

Anonymous said...

New eatery in Grapevine,, Check it out. Tilted Kilt

http://www.tiltedkilt.com/

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you guy's like to holler about the constitution when it works to your benefit. Let's take gun ownership for example; I believe there's something in the constitution that refers to the right to bare arms but for some reason you liberal fella's can't figure that out and want to take them away. Bottom line, liberals don't care about the constitution, just ask the Obama administration about the things they're doing, have done and will continue do and without our knowledge. Therefore, don't be throw'n down on the right-wingers home chicken. At least we think it's crap the U.S. Government is about to prosecute terrorist in our courts, under our constitution and under our rights of law and they're not even citizens of this country. See, they made the constitution work for them in that situation, it's crap but they're doing it. Dang, I'm on a roll now, let's keep talkking.

Goober said...

So what's the big deal about keeping one guy out? Yesterday, the SCOTUS gave Exxon/Mobile the ok to spend money like there is no tomorrow to by Kay Granger's vote on ferderal energy policy, so who do you think cares if some state district court bends the Constitution a little? Besdes, all of the Right Wingers KNOW that just STATES RIGHTS in action!

A said...

Um - I know who write the commentary if you're interested. I used to be the summarizer of all of those opinions for them....

wordkyle said...

Counselor, put on your snow tires. I agree with you. The comment is stupid. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, but not necessarily its reasoning. I'm not a lawyer, but Justice Thomas's dissent is pretty convincing.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the Constitution just for US citizens? Nah, let's let it include everyone.

Anonymous said...

I think the next pet I purchase I am going to name Peeve, that way I can say this is my pet Peeve.

If I buy a dog I am going to name him Stains.

Anonymous said...

1:19--It's the right to BEAR arms, not BARE arms. BARE arms are naked!

Anonymous said...

Constitutional violations have been subjected to harmless error review for a very long time. The same SCOTUS that interprets those amendments established that harmless error review. Again, not a particularly new idea. Get over your bad self.

Anonymous said...

Even if the trial record reveals constitutional error, an appellate court shall not reverse the judgment under review if the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction or the punishment. TEX. R. APP. PRO. 44.2(a). It's the law. The commentator didn't just make it up.

Anonymous said...

1:19 -
The second amendment is regarding a "well-regulated militia."

It's referencing the right of the militia, not an individual's right.

Anonymous said...

God I love to hear people complain about things other people do that annoy them when they are just as guilty of doing the same type of things as those they are complaining about. Typical LAWYER action.

wordkyle said...

459 - Many legal scholars, including Blackstone, believed that historically the citizenry's free ability to bear arms was an exercise of the natural right of resistance and self preservation. The ability to defend oneself was regarded as a natural right by the Framers. The exact wording says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The people.

Given that the point of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the federal government's power over its citizens, the historical right of citizens to defend themselves, and the precise wording that they used, the Framers' meaning in the Second Amendment would seem to be pretty unambiguous.

Anonymous said...

A is Adrian

Anonymous said...

My pet peeve is hearing how your typical Podunk traffic ticket lawyer is now a expert in U.S. Constitutional law.

Anonymous said...

Does the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding free speech mean all candidates will need to get corporate sponsors so they can afford to run? Maybe they could be like Nascar drives where they sport decals on their suits and campaign buses. This could make for much more interesting campaigns. I for one would go with the Pepsi candidate over the Coca Cola. I think this makes our choice much easier because you can immediately see who owns the candidate!

Anonymous said...

So, Barry, did you jump on the commentator too quickly? Did the commentator actually have legal grounds for raising the issue? (In reading his comment, I also noted that he simply asked rhetorically whether a harmless error analysis could be applied.)

Anonymous said...

Why should we give Bears the rights to carry a gun? :)