MoveOn Director subpoenaed in Delay hearing...some thoughts

(saw this on Raw story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_us/delay_indictment)


Delay is uncomfortable with his judge because his judge may have contributed to MoveOn.org which would clearly indicate a "liberal" bias. My first thought was "hmm that IS a little awkward..." My second thought was "It is kinda like how I felt when Scalia went DUCK HUNTING WITH CHENEY!"

The hypocrisy is truly beyond belief. If we are going to start investigating bias in our judges, which in itself is not a stupid idea, shouldn't we, as liberals use Delay's "concerns" as an opportunity to shout "Now you know how WE feel about you stacking the Supreme court." Delay and Co. are OPENLY looking for radically conservative judges KNOWING that at least 50% of the American people for whom they labor do NOT think like them.

Blatant hypocrisy every day.

GOP=Gran Old Party, my ass!
More like: Guilty Of Pretense
or: Greedy Outrageous Pharisees
or: Graceless Obdurate Poopheads...never mind, time for more coffee.

:crazy:

I just don't even get it anymore...

This is the deal: they cover their bets.

who was appointed because they felt Fisk would be too fair:

http://archive.salon.com/news/1998/09/cov_10newsb2.html

At the time of his appointment as Whitewater independent counsel, Starr, a $1 million-a-year Washington attorney with the high-powered firm of Kirkland & Ellis, was advising the Paula Jones camp on her sexual harassment suit against Clinton and offered to write a friend-of-the-court brief on her behalf. He was also representing the tobacco industry, an ardent foe of the Clinton administration. Later, Iran-contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh would comment that, considering Starr's conflicts of interest, he should have felt obligated to turn down the job of investigating Clinton.

~~~snip~~~


"We're convinced that none of our people had any knowledge of any such payments ," asserted Starr's chief Arkansas deputy, W. Hickman Ewing Jr. But the first meeting of the Arkansas Project took place in the Washington law offices of Theodore Olson, a friend, political ally and former colleague of Starr's, whose relationship dated back to their days as young activist conservatives in the Reagan Justice Department. Olson and Starr were also both beneficiaries of Richard Mellon Scaife's politically inspired generosity. Starr was scheduled to take a Scaife-funded deanship at Pepperdine University until controversy about his connections to Scaife forced him to resign the post. Olson has served on the board and as the attorney of the Scaife-funded American Spectator as well as on the advisory boards of four other right-wing institutions funded by Scaife. Referring to Olson's oversight role on the Arkansas Project, one source told Salon, "Olson is somebody who Scaife would trust to see that nothing went wrong and that his money would not be wasted."




So once again we find the cons with two standards one for themselves and one that they deem fair for a dem.

I know we don't get the coverage of the ones that do shout about it, but the hypocrisy should be a widely used talking point. You know, along the lines of the annoying "there you go again".

We keep trying to be fair, but they are playing by different rules and liquidating our planet in the process.

I'm not surprised!
He's like a little kid, I swear!!
He'll use ANY excuse to get out of trouble!
Typical, isn't it?

... either to him or from him is not sufficient by itself to have the judge recused.

But this case could get moved to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I think the judge is a good judge, but he has given a lot of money to a lot of Dems in hotly political races. As judges go, he's one of the most active supporting Dem causes and candidates.

There are a number of judges in Travis County who could hear it. Jon Wisser, for example.

Because this case gets to the heart of "being political" it is a good idea to have a less openly political judge. I bet Ronnie Earle will agree. If only the Republicans would also be fair minded.