North Carolina redistricting is being challenged in court and will come before Mr. Justice Newby on Feb. 25. The day before Thanksgiving, a legal motion was filed asking Justice Newby to recuse himself from the case. Naturally, he won't.
Newby is a frank, partisan Republican. He's made no effort to hide that: "On election night ... Newby spoke at a Republican victory rally in Raleigh, sharing the stage with GOP state House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate leader Phil Berger. Both Berger and Tillis are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Newby also appeared earlier at GOP campaign rallies with Republican candidates who stood to benefit from the new electoral maps."
With political motives now installed on the court, bought and paid for by political operatives who are party to a law suit before the court, North Carolina has taken a huge step toward becoming ... West Virginia.
16 comments:
The Democrats made the OFFICE non partisan because if people knew the party the candidates belonged to, the Democrats lost. Nothing says the candidate has to be non partisan.
Newby should no more recuse himself than his opponent would have if he had gotten enough votes to be elected. His opponent was such a poor candidate I can;t even remember his name, but I do know he was a Democrat.
So just to make sure we're on the same page here Anon.
Things like amendment one had to be kept away from the courts because "Liberal judicial activists" might rule a way you didn't like.
But when we have a blatantly republican judge, partying with the people who are now going to have a case in front of him, who funded his campaign, who all but stated their goal was to get him elected to protect those gerrymandered districts.
That's not judicial activism?
Be honest, if the roles were reversed how fast would you and your ilk be caterwauling to the heavens about the grand liberal plots to undermine everything by making law?
Do as I say not as I do yet again from the hypocrites on the right.
Put that off to the side though, lets ask an even more important question, and why I think J.W. Rightly brings up West Virgina. For those who don't remember history.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/04/08/don_blankenship_of_massey_coal_bought_off_a_judge.html
Sound familiar?
That the America you're a fan of? Where the rule of law can be subverted by whoever has the most cash to get their pocket judge elected?
I mean who cares that 25 people died, we can't be sticking it to CEO's like that!
Oh but if the judges agree with you I guess it's fine right? what with winning being more important then the rule of law.
One more for you. If say... fracking goes ahead off the mountain, and it does turn into an environmental disaster. Then the people sue. Would you be fine with a judge who got tons of contributions from gas and oil companies staying on the case regardless of his political leanings, or would you want someone impartial?
If you lost a loved one to a defect in their automobile, or to unsafe practices at their place of work. Impartial or well funded?
Just curious.
It must suck to have to live with the balance of powers when you liberals want so bad to ignore whichever branch you don't control, doesn't it? Wait a minute.....You don't control any of them in North Carolina.
Spare me your bleeding heart hypotheticals, Jesse. Every case has to stand on its own merits.
I notice you don't have anything to say about the situation being the exact same if a Democrat had been elected,only the specifics 180 degrees apart.
Actually Anon what I find most tiresome (or suck if you prefer) is the fact that whenever I ask a conservative a question these days all I get back are these same silly little rants. Along watching you have to resort to insults rather then even attempt to answer a question. Far as I'm concerned Anon you're just another notch on the scorecard in that regard.
It's why I asked Santa for the ability to have a rational discussion with a repub for Xmas, not holding my breath.
But what if the situation was reversed? Umm actually I did mention it. You see that part where I asked you how fast you'd be crying Judaical activism if it were a liberal who won and ruled a way you didn't like? Care to answer? Here I'll even start.
Well first a case would have to actually come before the courts, and not be put up to a vote the way you did with amendment one because of say opinions like this one?
http://www.robesonian.com/view/full_story/18417592/article-Vote-for-Amendment-One-to-protect-marriage-from-judges
Or this one?
http://pundithouse.com/2012/05/beating-activist-judges-to-the-wedding/
Just saying.
Anyway if a court case came up in front of "liberal" judges, yet somehow the case lost? (See every ones new favorite traitor Roberts and the affordable health care act for an example on the right)
Well for starters I would not throw the conniption fit the right did. I would accept the judgement because unlike your side I would like to believe a judge ruled based on the law, precedents, and evidence presented. Not whoever paid his way to the bench. Isn't a favorite saying of cons that judges should only interpret the law, not make it?
And that's the Crux you fail to miss amidst your insults anon. This is not an issue of R vs D. This is an issue of a judge (like the Massey Coal cases) appearing for all intents bought and sold. and more beholden to his backers then to his principles.
It's that last one I find quite lacking in people like yourself. And a party that still seems more interested in winning then fairness. Along with the hypocrisy and whining you all would be doing without a doubt had Newby lost and these gerrymandered districts did get shot down. Admit it, you'd be screaming liberal law making judges so fast it'd make your head spin.
Make it personal Anon, if you had lost someone to an accident of any kind, and the judge who was deciding the case was beholden to the special interest that got that loved one killed? Would you still be fine with them being even appearing to be bought rightly or wrongly?
Oh right that's another bleeding heart hypothetical. Then let's use one that isn't.
25 people died in that mine disaster Anon. And rather then pay anything that CEO spent the money to elect a friendly judge, who didn't recuse himself, and got the lawsuit from those families shot down.
Now are you going to walk up to one of them and spew this garbage about how the current system is perfectly fine to them? Maybe laugh about how it "sucks" that they didn't control a branch of the govt?
Somehow I think they'd be less interested in a vote and more interested in justice, maybe you should try that yourself.
If you can prove a judge is bought and paid for take the necessary steps to punish him. Your opinion is not proof. Making up cases does nothing for your argument and neither does your opinion of a judge that puts your panties in a wad because he was elected.
Put your money where your moth is. make an official charge against the judge.
Apparently the majority of the people did not agree with you, right or wrong. It is the same with Obama.
Actually I think pantiesinawadtania is going to be the name of the part of NC that secedes from the union. Signed the petition yourself yet?
In the meantime I'll keep laughing about I can't get a straight answer, and how you are just making this way too easy.
Your opinion is not proof.
Like again, the fifty or sixty million times we keep hearing liberal activist judges from those on the repub side?
But I guess again it's perfectly fine to say such things when it's your side doing it right?
Making up cases does nothing for your argument
The same way the religious right kept making up cases where if we were allowed to marry gay people then next we'd be suing to marry kids, dogs, and ice cream?
Again, do as I say not as I do?
Oh and yes I just "made up" a disaster that killed 25 people where a judge just happened to rule the way the people who got him into office wanted... And seriously you don't see a problem with this? You don't think there was even the slightest chance of a conflict of interest?
Still waiting for an actual answer rather then these cute little insults.
Put your money where your moth is. make an official charge against the judge
Like the exact link in this very article? Where it mentions a motion has been filed for the judge to recuse himself. Because they are accusing him of a conflict of interest?
You did actually read it right? Here, let me help.
"A legal motion filed Wednesday says Justice Paul Newby should be recused because the outsized partisan spending on his reelection campaign undermines his impartiality.
Apparently the majority of the people did not agree with you, right or wrong. It is the same with Obama.
Apples and Oranges sir. And a key difference being with Obama you know you have a Democrat. With a judge (you know non partisan) you are supposed to have a man whose loyalty lies in the rule of law, not to one political party or the other.
Again see Chief Justice Roberts. The hilarity that was the right wing meltdown over the ACA decision when they realized they didn't have it in the bag with him? All because (GASP!) he actually used the law and not his party registration was only rivaled by Rove on election night.
And yet we still keep seeing this same tired song and dance from your side. The same moaning and whining. The same fear mongering about what could happen when cases come up to a vote in front of "liberal" judges (when you let them of course) But I see a distinct lack of silence when an obviously republican friendly judge just happens to make decisions you like. Funny how that works.
Again it speaks to your lack of respect for the law. And the repub mindset where only two things matter. Power and winning. Not proper governance.
But I'll try this question one last time. Once again be honest here. I'll even give you a softball slow pitch.
If it was still democratic districts that were gerrymandered, and it was a democratic judge who was going to rule on a republican lawsuit. But beforehand that judge had on election night shared a stage with Dalton and Obama. How fast do you think everyone on the right would be accusing him of being biased/corrupt/bought/etc?
One that I'd still love to see an answer for too. Here's a fastball.
If it was your loved one who died in a car accident, and the auto lobby was the one who got the judge in her case elected, you would be fine with that judge on the bench?
A simple yes or no will suffice, it's not that hard a question I would think.
Oh except for the part where if you say yes it shows the whole lack of morality thing and being fine with money buying judges, but if you say no it makes you a raging hypocrite because that's exactly what happened with Newby.
Ah well, guess you had best just go back to the petty little insults then.
Have a nice day.
And as an afterthought too Anon, I'll make this even easier for you.
The fake dem judge in my little hypothetical? Soros gave a million to a dem PAC to help him get elected. On top of the other million from other various democratic leaning groups.
Surely you spin me a suitable yarn with that extra bit of thread right?
It does not good to answer you Jesse as Willaimson censors it. He must think you need help.
Nothing -- NOTHING -- has been censored here.
I should hope nothing is censored.
After all I've been waiting all night during work to see what names you were going to call me next.
Jesse, what name did I call you? Pointing out you use the tactic of hypothetical bleeding heart situations isn't calling you a name. It's accentuating the obvious. It is all you have.
Again, if you have evidence of any judge doing something wrong, produce it. Your opinion isn't any better than that of anyone that disagrees with you.
My post addressing yours has never been published. Is that censorship?
You probably won't get to read this one either.
What names did you call me Anon?
Well besides....
Insinuating that liberals are whiners because we can't "Control govt."
Panties are in a wad.
And of course bleeding heart liberal (wow haven't heard that one in ages)
I guess none at all right?
What I find totally hilarious about this little discussion (besides you hiding behind the unprovable claim that J.W. is censoring you to help me out here) Is the fact you don't even seem to grasp that "hypotheticals" are one method to engage in a discussion. And while you are ragging on me for posing them? Hey guess what! You did the exact same thing in your second post.
"I notice you don't have anything to say about the situation being the exact same if a Democrat had been elected,only the specifics 180 degrees apart."
And guess what? I answered it. I gave you my opinion on the matter and you couldn't even acknowledge it.
In fact I did so twice. Once in my second post. And another time when I set you up with the softball and a dem judge vs a repub lawsuit. Right around the same time you started claiming censorship. Wonder why that was...
And of course I go on to point out where your party engages in the exact same acts. See their inane arguments and hypothetical cases where after gays it was dogs and ice cream.
And it's back to hands over ears and LALALA I'm not listening! Maybe if I don't acknowledge pesky little things like facts and history and claim ignorance of even what my own party does it will all go away!
It's the republican reality bubble at work again. And it's truly a wonder to behold.
Even when I gave you that softball slow pitch, even when I added Soros as bait you still can't take it. It's just my opinion doesn't matter any more then someone else. Put up or shut up!
Point out where the motion has been filed against Newby, right in the link in this article above, and again plink! Right off that bubble once more.
Anon here's one more opinion for you, and I hate that burst that bubble a little more. But you haven't made me angry. You haven't gotten my shorts in a knot. To go southern internet on it.
"You done been trolled son."
What you have done though is made me laugh at a person who just...
Can't face facts.
Can't admit that his own party would be doing the exact same thing were the roles reversed.
Thinks we can just ignore endless YEARS of the liberal judges and judicial activist line being used. Yet seems to think it's fine when Republicans rule in a way that agrees more with party then law.
Can't even form a single rational argument or one factual source to back up his case.
And can't acknowledge the actions of his own party in the past because they don't jive with what he wants to do today.
Welcome to hypocrisy town, population you. Well and most of the current republican party these days.
Thanks either way for a couple days of entertainment. But recess is over for me, if you want to keep enjoying the middle school playground level of discussion you'll have to find someone else to play with. I'm bored of it.
All of your examples are common figures of speech describing your actions. I called you nothing.
Where is your proof?
Might as well forget about it, Jesse. You can type several paragraphs of well-thought-out questions or comments, with links and examples, and all you will get back from Anonymous is a one-line put-down of one form or the other. She is never going to come down off her high horse and engage in ANY kind of discussion. Best thing to do is to talk around her, referring to her in the third person and never directly addressing her. The same thing we do to our "old pal" Johnny Rico whenever he pops his head in here! Drives em crazy! :-)
O.K. Betty, what name did I call Jesse and what proofs did he offer other than bleeding heart hypothetical situations?
Simply answer the question.
I didn't say that you called him a name. I was speaking in a more general sense. And you yourself have used hypothetical situations, Anon. We all do... it's one way that we engage in discussions.
Post a Comment