Walton To Bork: "With All Due Respect...I Would Not Accept This Brief From A First Year Law Student"

Walton Spanks Bork, Derschowitz et al.
by Dperl99
Thu Jun 14, 2007

This will be a short diary, but I don't want the people here to miss this, although I suspect we will see this spread far and wide about the blogosphere quite soon. Pachacutec at FDL http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/14/sentencing-scooter-live-blog-part-ii/#comments is liveblogging the Libby sentencing hearing and got this nugget from Judge Walton when the defense referred to the brief on behalf of Libby files by Bork, Dershowitz and the rest:

Robbin: going back to appointments clause. Your honor has received an amicus brief.

Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish.

Robbins: These 12 schoars believe this is a close question.

Walton: If I had gotten something more of substance from them, maybe.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/14/122913/125

the fellows who submitted the amicus brief were, in large part, making their own 'threat" to Judge Walton: "Sir, if you incarcerate Libby, you are not going to belong to the 'Good 'Ole Boy's Club'."

be drastically different in the near future.

He sure has demonstrated great character and intelligence throughout this trial.

The "good ol' boys" stooping to this kind of veiled threat makes them all the more contemptible.

improvement, cosmically speaking.

It dripped of condescension as though they had to "dumb it down" for Judge Walton ... and he'd be "uppity" to not listen to the town fathers. Perhaps I read too much into it, but it echoed a tone I remember from the Jim Crow days. I thought it was offensive, to say the least.

"Uppity" is the first of the two words on their lips.

Send a message to all the mini-GOBs in every fiefdom in the U.S.A.

Major Burn. (as opposed to Major Burns)

No, really. Good one.

Go, Reggie!

Walton is not letting these lawyers get by on just their names. Good for him.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Thanks for the thread kpete.

"Nature is a hanging judge."

Next point: We do not suggest Mr. Fitzgerald could not be removed. But re: Morrison, the ethics in government act required Morrison to follow DOJ policies, and one of those policies means keeping AG posted on significant events in the prosecution. The power to remove without the power to supervise is all shell and no chocolate.

*****

Walton: Wouldn’t that undermine the purpose of this statute, that everyone is accountabvle under the laws of the US? If you work in the WH you still have to follow the law. If the investigative agency is linked tb the hip with n investigation, then the public cn hve no confidence tht investigation is fair and just. If we have to operate this way our system of government loses significant credibility with the average Joe on the street, who already thinks the system is unfair.

*****

Robbins: This I believe is a red herring. I don’t think anyone believes Morrison was not sufficiently independent.

****

Walton: I recognize Weinberger had a significant job, but this case deals directly with the WH. Regarding following DOJ policy I think that’s crucial.

****

Robbins: This includes reporting significant events. But the ultimate vehicle of accountability is that the president has to stand before the voters every four years. This is the way the Constitution provides for accountability.

****

LOVE what he says about the White House, straight back to it.. then Robbins has the Nerve to say that The VOTERS are the Accountability Factor for BUSH.
PIMPSLAPPING sounds were heard for Blocks TOday :)

legitimate means of accountability under the law, to which members of a Presidential administration are subject! What about the Clinton persecution?

Perhaps Judge Walton should have told them that it was this kind of disdain for impartial enforcement of the law by people at the highest levels who should, indeed are paid, to know better, that encourages the kind of neanderthals who threatened him over the telephone.

What do you think about that statement?

This is not good in my book.

:toast:

bush and confirmed by the Senate in October, 2001..boom bang.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html

Respectful, yet eviscerating.

good?", lol. Appointing Judge Walton was a good thing and one, I have no doubt, bush regrets!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010919-9.html

:toast:

judgment" and appointed people of honor! Bet cheney et al have re-edumacated him since then!

3 words! Judge Reggie Walton! Oh, two more..Patrick Fitzgerald!

How long have we searched for an answer to that question? Hallelujah!

Remember Judge Jones in December 2005

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the Intelligent Design Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy...."

I do have hope that reason will prevail in the courts. Please, please, please

Excellent......

Wow, I guess he just cannot see past certain issues. What a sad lost progressive he has become. Rationalizing torture and now cozying up to the neocons, to the war criminals who engaged in an act of vegence that even the Mob doesn't stoop to. As noted on the Sopranos: they don't go after the family. This gang does, and Dershowitz has joined with them.

:grr: I want to see the perp walk!

Just in...

"It's not fair!"

K & R

:rofl:

I don't know whether the 12 monkeys got paid for their brief (they stole the money if they did), but Judge Walton gave it all the weight and consideration it deserved, which is to say, zero. Good judges have an almost visceral reaction when they think they're being pushed around. Walton's statement about the brief being used to put public pressure on the court is spot on, and Robbins didn't dare answer the assertion.

"...Rush Limbaugh said that Scooter hadn't committed a crime.
So we want you to let him off, or else.!"
10 pages of adds for O'Rilley, Limbaugh, and Coulter products follow.

on an Indian reservation and he will definitely attest to that! Sometimes lawyers from the "big city" come in with some major patronizing, condescending attitudes and he sets them straight pronto. And, as a paralegal, I can say that that is true of almost all judges, regardless of political stripe.

remind me of the Enron trial.
Lots of people in Houston sent Judge Hittner letters about how Leah Fastow, wife of Andrew Fastow, should not go to jail because she was a member of the Weingarten family, wealthy realtors, grew up in River Oaks(most expensive hood in Houston) had two little kids, blah de blah.

The judge was horrified and incensed that Houston society folks sent him letters stating that rich people should not have to go to jail.

You can expect Fox News to report something they dig up or make up in the next couple of days that will then be beaten like a drum on talk radio to discredit Walton and set the stage for a pardon. I am thinking that it will be something like (gasp) he gave money to the Dems 20 years ago before he became a judge. Not sure what it will be, but the haters will retaliate.

A guy named G. H. W. Bush....

the rest of the afternoon, every time I heard it.

What a slam! Thank you Judge Walton.

Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish.

Robbins: These 12 schoars believe this is a close question.

Walton: If I had gotten something more of substance from them, maybe.

If I were an attorney, I'd quit, (could be why I'm not an attorney, but if I were I would not be defending people like Libby with lame arguments, ever!)

Once again, I feel like a few of these :bounce: and this :smoke:

MONICA Goodling, nowadays.

He should be grateful for my change in perception. I used to think of him, like so many others did, as the COX sacker!

music he did not like. He offered no constitutional reason, just his own personal dislike. I was thinking that if these guys get enough power they will just rule with their own personal likes and dislikes to guide them. I was very happy that he was not put on the supreme court.

after Richardson and Ruckleshaus refused, did the Cox-sacking back during the Saturday Night Massacre. He personally told Cox he was fired. What brass!!

It was funny, how that was unsaid during his confirmation hearings (which were interesting as hell, BTW--Bork came off like the Devil Himself!!) but that WAS in the back of everyone's mind--that this bastard was a tool who wanted to enable Nixon, so that he could wipe his ass on the Constitution. He wasn't fit to polish the bench, never mind be seated upon it!

Dershowitz is a d*ck.

J