The Violence Worker!

Agreeing With The Result - Disagreeing With The Method

Over four years ago, I came out for the repeal of the so-called "Don't Ask, Don Tell" (DADT) policy.  It's time we just let those who want to serve, serve.  I still stand by that, but this ruling yesterday by Judge Virginia Phillips is the wrong way to go about it.  Even though I agree with her stance, I think she over reached.  This is not a case of me disagreeing with the rule, it's a case of me disagreeing with rule by judicial fiat.

I'm not a lawyer and I can't give you precedent or cite cases long ago tried and filed away in the tomes of laws that make up a modern law library.  What I can do is tell you why I think this judge went too far.

Essentially, this is a case of judicial activism.  I'm not exactly sure how Judge Phillips would try and enforce this law if the DOD chooses to ignore or drag their feet on the matter.  Would she send US Marshals to arrest Secretary Gates?  Or would she send them to arrest the President (the Commander-in-Chief) or to some company commander out here at Fort Lewis in a Stryker Brigade?  I'm not sure how that works.

Beyond her inability to enforce her ruling, is the precedent.  Most lower level judges in high profile cases like this make a ruling and then stay it pending appeal in Constitutional cases.  If there is no appeal, the judge's ruling takes effect upon appeal expiration (as I understand the process).

I'm certain that her ruling yesterday was based more upon feeling than precedent and that's a bad way to decide the law.  I'm also certain she did it because she is sure that the DOJ will be put in a quandary.  If they appeal it, do they come off as being anti-gay?  It's also in the middle of the mid-term election cycle.  Obama is on record supporting the repeal of the DADT by Congress and (gasp) I actually agree with Obama on that point.  Since the Republicans are more likely to side with the Military on this issue, repeal seems somewhat unlikely in the near future.  What to do?  If they appeal it, they risk  alienating  part of their constituency, if they don't, then they allow a lower level judge to decide military policy and that sets a bad precedent. 

I also have one other question.  I know who the Log Cabin Republicans are and that there are probably current and former members of the military in their organization.  What I'm not sure about is their particular standing in this case.  How are they, as an organization, the aggrieved party?  Their individual members might be, but their organization is a political one, not necessarily directly connected with the military.  They are also not a veterans organization so I don't see where they have standing.  Again. I'm not a lawyer, but on the surface, it doesn't seem like they have legal standing to file this suit.

The law is antiquated and it needs to be repealed.  I firmly believe those who want to serve should be allowed to do so. That said, I think Judge Phillips went too far.  If she simply followed precedent and allowed it to wind and wend its way through the appellate system, it would have been far less controversial.  Letting Phillips single-handedly decide military policy on behalf of a complainant with questionable standing sets a bad precedent and allows just about anyone to find some perceived offense and file a suit with a sympathetic judge whther they have standing or not.  You should worry about that.

VW

 

 

This Isn't Democracy, Is It?

I'm not sure what to call it, but this whole deal over the various health care bills doesn't resemble any kind of democracy (representative or otherwise) that I've ever seen.  Despite what the far left wants, Americans don't want a single payer system nor do they want some kind of public option that is designed to thwart the private system.  Poll after poll shows that.  People want the system fixed, but they don't want to break it further.

The Senate is now considering some Frankenstein-esque monstrosity of a bill that is not even the bill they will eventually even vote on.  I've never wholly understood the proceedings of our Congress and their arcane rules, but something is definitely wrong with this entire process.  If this is supposed to be democracy, it's some kind of weird perverted kind.  It's readily apparent that the majority party is way out of step with the majority of Americans.

If I thought for one second that any of these bills would fix the problems, you would find no one more willing to fight for them.  They won't and there is every indication that they will make things even worse.  They use a few budgetary sleights of hand to make it seem like there will be no impact on the budget.  One of their tricks is to front load the taxes and defer the implementation for several years.  By the time it kicks in, they've raised half of the money and spent it on other things.  This is a form of fraud.  It may not be exactly illegal, but it's highly unethical.

Part of the problem with the Congress is that for too long, we've put up with and even encouraged unethical behavior.  We re-elect the same people time and again and this is the result.  We have a de facto ruling elite that twist, subvert and pervert the will of us, the people.  It goes for both parties, but the Democrats seemed to have taken it to a new level with health care.

VW

The Real Victims?

According to KOMO-TV in Seattle, the real victims of the Chrysler bankruptcy are not the bond holders or the share holders or the dealers or the banks. None of those are the real victims.  The real victims, dear reader, are the trial lawyers victims of Chrysler negligence!

Yes friends, the real victims are those who are in the process of suing the old Chrysler,  That company no longer exists.

Now that Fiat owns Chrysler, the new company is no longer responsible for any dangerous defects with the old Chrysler products.

This is going to affect people injured in Chrysler products and those who might get hurt in the future because of a design defect.

Consumer advocates say the bankruptcy court wiped out more than a billion dollars in pending class action and product liability lawsuits, and put the brakes on any future product liability claims.

Oh the humanity!!!!!  No damned wonder the cost of a car is in the tens of thousands of dollars.  

Seattle attorney Sim Osborne handles product liability cases. He says anyone with a vehicle made by the old Chrysler - the company that existed before bankruptcy - just lost some of their legal rights.

"If you buy a used Chrysler made before today and something goes wrong that causes an injury or causes a family member injury or death, (you have) no right, no product liability claims," Osborne said.

In short, you have no right to sue Chrysler. 

In short, trial lawyers are gonna lose some business!

Life for Jeanne and Joseph Polio of East Haven, Conn., changed forever on July 1, 2005. They were driving their 2000 Jeep Cherokee when it was T-boned by another vehicle. The Jeep rolled over and its roof collapsed, leaving Jeanne a quadriplegic with medical bills that have already exceeded a million dollars.

The Polios sued Chrysler, claiming the Jeep's roof was defective. Chrysler says it's vehicle was not defective and met all government safety standards at the time.
"All they are looking for is their day in court," says the couple's attorney, Timothy Pothin. "Chrysler's action and the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding may deprive them of that."

"It's not honorable for Chrysler to be able to just walk away from this responsibility," said Jeanne Polio.

I'm really sorry for the Polios.  It was a tragic accident and I'm sure it's made their life Hell, but was it really a faulty product?  I'm no structural engineer, but I can think of a lot of things that get crushed and bent in an accident.  I've been T-boned before by a drunk driver running a red light.  I was lucky it didn't kill me.  I can think of a lot of scenarios where the roof will collapse.  If the windshield breaks and the side frame pieces get mangled, the structure holding the roof isn't there!  It also depends on how fast the car that hit them was going, what type of vehicle it was and where it actually impacted the Jeep.  This one might be valid, but we don't know any of the facts.  I suspect it probably is not.

The other scenario is even worse:

In September of 2003, Nicholas Pullano was leaving for work when his Jeep wouldn't start. He was run over by the vehicle while he was under it, trying to jump-start it.

The 54 year old will spend the rest of his life in bed or a wheel chair.

"He cries a lot," his wife said. She blames stress for her heart attack. "It turned from a very loving, happy home to a very loving sad home."

The Pullanos sued Chrysler, claiming the vehicle's design and a lack of safety devices allowed the Jeep to roll over onto Nicholas Pullano. But Chrysler says it is not to blame for this accident. Because of the bankruptcy filing, the lawsuit is on hold and a jury may never get to decide.

I'm pretty sure that Pullano is an idiot.  I've never heard of going under a vehicle to jump start it.  If I was going to go under a vehicle that might possibly start or was running, I would make sure the parking brakes was firmly engaged and the wheels were blocked. 

They could build crash proof cars.  In fact, they do, except that they are not really cars, they are tanks.  You couldn't afford them and most people wouldn't want to have one as a family car.  That means there are trade-offs.  They make them lighter to save on weight which helps save fuel.  They put lots of windows in them so you can see around you.  They make them so they go faster than ten miles per hour so you can get where you are going in a reasonable amount of time.  All of these things can detract from how safe a vehicle is.  I mentioned that I got T-boned once.  I was driving a 1972 Ford LTD much like the one pictured here.  I was lucky to get 10 mpg in that tank!  And that is why I survived, it was like a tank.  The policeman at my accident told me a woman in a Toyota was killed in a similar accident a few days earlier.  My accident happened in Ogden Utah in 1987.  I was hit by a drunk driver that ran a red light.  As an aside, I see that the pic I swiped has a Colorado plate on it.  They drunk that hit me was from Colorado.

My point is that many of these lawsuits are an attempt to win the lawsuit lottery.  Only a trial attorney could make the case that these people are the real victims.

VW

Satire? Yeah right....

Thanks Instapunk.

THE AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT

Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans.

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real ambition or skills...

'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer.

'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.'

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the Transportation Security Administration, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. 

Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U. S. employer of Persons of Inability. Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%).

At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.

The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. 

With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen,   regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.'

Ecuador Invites Chaos To Reign

Rights.  Everybody talks about rights.  Human rights, animal's rights, criminal's rights, victim's rights, voter rights, you name it, somebody wants a right.  It seems that for every cause or situation, someone comes along with some kind of "right" to remedy it.

In Ecuador, there is a vote coming up that would give everything in nature similar rights granted to people.

The South American republic of Ecuador will next week consider what many countries in the world would say is unthinkable. People will be asked to vote on Sunday on a new constitution that would give Ecuador's tropical forests, islands, rivers and air similar legal rights to those normally granted to humans. If they vote yes - and polls show that 56% are for and only 23% are against - then an already approved bill of rights for nature will be introduced, and new laws will change the legal status of nature from being simply property to being a right-bearing entity.

The proposed bill states: "Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights."

Thomas Linzey, a US lawyer who has helped to develop the new legal framework for nature, says: "The dominant form of environmental protection in industrialised countries is based on the regulatory system. Governments permit and legalise the discharge of certain amounts of toxics into the environment. As a form of environmental protection, it's not working.

"In the same way, compensation is measured in terms of that injury to a person or people. Under the new system, it will be measured according to damage to the ecosystem. The
new system is, in essence, an attempt to codify sustainable development. The new laws would grant people the right to sue on behalf of an ecosystem, even if not actually injured themselves."

Can you imagine the legal ramifications of something such as this here in the US.  Every nutball environmentalist would be suing on behalf of everything imaginable!  We'd all starve to death.  In order for us to eat, we'd have to kill it, be it animal or vegetable.  An apple would have the right to hang on to the tree until it fell and then attempt to reproduce!  No trees could be chopped.  You couldn't even dam up a river to make electricity.  You couldn't burn coal or any other fossil fuel (the air will have rights too!).  Cars would be verboten!  As a matter of fact, you'd have to stop passing gas.  Methane is a pollutant.

Silly?  maybe, but then when you have a few million trial lawyers with lots of time on their hands, nothing would be safe!

We need to understand the difference between a protection and a right.  A right (in this instance) is defined as a "just or legal claim or title".  I think I would add that in most cases, one must be capable of understanding their rights before we can actually say they have rights.  In other words, based upon the assumption that most humans are self-aware and have the ability to make a claim, then that is the justification for something to be a right.  People can agree or disagree over what is a right and what isn't, but no right can exist unless someone claims it.  I would therefore posit that animals or any other non human substances or entities do not have rights.  They have no self-awareness or ability to make any claim to a right.

Since animals cannot lay claim to any right, it is up to us to grant protections that they themselves cannot provide.  These protections are usually laws that attempt to prevent abuse and wanton slaughter. They have no right to anything.  We decide what is allowed.  Obviously the vast majority of us understand that many animals are used for food.  That means that they have no real right to life.  It is within our purview to end an animals life in order to supply us with food or even it's fur or other parts if we so deem in our laws.  To kill a human for a meal is not a right and is considered murder.  Killing a cow for food is perfectly legal and acceptable.

Similarly, we treat the rest of nature with forms of protection in order to protect resources and ensure the health of our population.  We can cut down trees for wood, but we've come to understand that we need wood and if we want to keep using wood, we must replant where we've cut.  We also understand that resources are finite and we are learning how to best protect them from extinction and to develop alternative sources.  We have learned to reduce atmospheric pollution, not because we are granting the air any rights, we are asserting OUR right to have clean air to breathe!

Protecting the environment is undoubtedly of the utmost importance, but it is a task we as humans must take on, not for nature's sake, but for our own sake.  We aren't doing it because air or water have a right, but because we have rights and it is up to us to protect those rights by providing good stewardship over our resources.

Common sense needs to prevail but it usually doesn't these days.  I'm willing to bet that if this passes in Ecuador, it will soon be in a legislature near you!

VW

Robert Lee Yates

I'm giving politics a break tonight.

Robert Lee Yates is a serial killer.  He was convicted of killing 15 women, mostly in the Spokane area.  Mr. Yates pleaded guilty in Spokane in 2000 and was given 408 years for his plea avoiding the death penalty.  Two of those women were killed in Pierce County near Tacoma.  Pierce County did not agree to the plea deal and held out to try him and ask for the death penalty.

Two years later, after much legal wrangling (Check it out for yourself!), Mr. Yates was convicted of aggravated First Degree Murder and was sentenced to die.  Well the case has dragged on for the last six years.  His case has been all the way up the court system and back again and a death warrant was signed last week assigning September 19th, 2008 as the day he shall meet his Maker. 

Of course our boy has filed for a stay.  Here are his reasons.

1.  Ineffective Counsel.

And if it's true, disbar the attorneys if they are that stupid!  It's probably not true and it will get thrown out.

2.  Lethal injection is cruel and unusual

Yawn!  I think this one's been settled more than once now.

These are standard excuses and they will be played out for another five or six years.  In my opinion lethal injection isn't anywhere near cruel or unusual enough!

This guy has had his day in court and there is no question as to his guilt or innocence.  Unfortunately for us, this piece of dried buzzard vomit will probably die of natural causes before they get around to actually placing a needle in his arm.

Years ago, I had someone try and tell me that killers should be left alive so they can contemplate what put them in jail for the rest of their lives.

There are two things wrong with that kind of thinking.

First, if he is sentenced to life without parole, you cannot guarantee to me that he will never walk out of a prison in some form or fashion.  He might escape, some idiotic legislature could change the laws or some governor could either commute his sentence or out right pardon him.  I realize the chance of any of that happening is really slim, but you can't say with 100% surety that they won't.

Second is the fact that they really don't want to die.  Their kills are trophies.  These people are sociopaths.  They have no remorse or conscience.  They might have to spend a life in prison, but they are famous!  Books will be written, people will know who they are!  These people do not want to die!  Life imprisonment is not some kind of mental hell for these guys.  They LIKE thinking about their victims and long for more!!!

Yates will die in prison if he doesn't get lucky in some way and get out.  When he dies, it will probably be of natural causes or another prisoner might wax him, but it won't be the state's needle.

If he does die from lethal injection, it will surprise the daylights out of me!

VW

The 2nd Amendment Lives!

As I'm sure most of you know, the Supreme Court gave those of us who are for gun rights a reason to celebrate.  In a 5-4 (otherwise known as a "split decision") ruling, the Supreme Court said that gun ownership cannot be banned.  As I understand it, it can be regulated, but outright bans for honest and sane (whatever that might be) Americans are unconstitutional.

And that is a good thing.  There does need to be a modicum of regulation to keep them out of the hands of people whose intent is to cause some kind of harm.  Just as there are some limits on free speech, there needs to be some limits on who can legally own a gun.  The Court said that reasonable regulations such as not allowing felons to have them or to ban them from such places as schools, etc. is OK. 

Personally, I don't own guns.  I'm not against them and I am in fact contemplating purchasing a firearm at some point in the future.  I grew up around them.  My Dad was a cop and kept a fully loaded .38 in the house.  For as long as I can remember, I knew where it was kept hidden.  I knew where it was because he showed me where he kept it.  Along with that knowledge came dire warnings of great physical harm if I ever touched it without him present.  I can assure you they were not idle threats and I knew it.  As I grew up, my Dad purchased some rifles and shotguns from time to time.  Again, I knew where they were kept.  On occasion, we would go out and target shoot.  Between the ages of 16-18, a buddy and I even did a little hunting.  It was perfectly legal back then to do so without an adult.  For me, guns are not scary things that, once in my hand, will force me to train it on some poor innocent person and pull the trigger.  Guns are tools.  All tools carry some danger and degree of risk.

The only problem I have with this ruling is not the ruling itself.  I think the Court ruled wisely and I think it was long overdue.  My problem lies in its perceived fragility.  This was not a 6-3 or 7-2 decision.  This was, by every definition, a close call.  If Obama is elected, this ruling could be in danger.  He will appoint judges and justices that think that the 2nd amendment gives the military the right to bear arms and not the citizenry.  He will most likely have the opportunity to select at least two Justices and possibly up to four if he gets a second term.  While it is rare that the Supreme Court ever reverses itself, it can happen.  If they do revisit an issue, they usually try and  disambiguate their previous ruling.  If the ideological makeup of the court is sufficiently shifted, it is possible they could indeed reverse this decision.

I didn't read through the entire opinion.  It's 157 pages of legalese and I'm no lawyer.  Here is the link if you want to slog through it for yourself.  I did scan through it.  It seems as if both sides spent considerable amount of space trying to define "keep and bear arms" 

In his dissent, Stevens used the old liberal idea that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, it's a group thing:  (From Page 83)

This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.

In other words, the 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to carry a gun if you are in the military.  Again, I'm no legal scholar, but it begs the question:  Why in the name of everything sacred and profane would you need a guaranteed right to carry a gun in the Army?  If there is anyone who thinks that is what the Constitution is saying, please enlighten me why the framers went to such lengths as to guarantee the rights of the military to have a weapon?   Just being in the military at any level, whether National Guard, Reserves or full time active duty, implies that you will at some point "bear arms". It's the nature of the business, no amendment needed.

The Constitution, however, is focused primarily on individual rights.  In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, he writes:

1. Operative Clause.  (From Page 8 and 9)

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

Soon the courts will be filled with cases seeking to define the limits of firearms regulation.  There will be some communities that will try and push the envelope of this ruling.  The more the court rules, the more trial attorneys seek to twist and squeeze contextual meanings and individual definitions not intended by the Court out of the pages of the majority opinion.  Such is our system, I suppose.

In any case, a mighty blow was struck for individual freedom.   Justices Stevens and Breyer are great examples why Obama should not be elected.  We don't need Justices who think group rights trump individual rights.

VW

Judging The Judge Again

You've probably heard by now of the less than patriotic judge (Yes, I'm questioning her patriotism) who denied a young foster child's petition to enter the USMC delayed enlistment program.  Her decision was not based on any kind of law or legal precedent; it was way more shallow than that.

From the CA Daily News:

In denying the Royal High School student delayed entry into the Marine Corps, Children's Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel reportedly told Sage and a recruiter that she didn't approve of the Iraq war, didn't trust recruiters and didn't support the military.

"The judge said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason why we're over there," said Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley USMC recruiting office.

"She just said all recruiters were the same - that they `all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.' She said she didn't want him to fight in it."

Sage, 17, said he begged for Mackel's permission.

I don't have any kind of legal background besides doing a couple of stints of jury duty.  I'm like most folks in that legalese is sometimes as mysterious a language and culture as anything coming out of an Amazon jungle.  There are a few things I've gleaned over the years about our arcane and confusing legal system and one of those things is that judges, usually liberal judges, are prone to make up things as they go along.

Her entire decision was based solely on her hatred for the military and the Bush administration.  That's it.  No legal precedent, no law, no scholarship, just her own misinformed opinion.

Given that she makes her decisions based upon her opinions, how fair can she be?  Could I expect, as a retired veteran of the military,  to get a fair and impartial hearing in her court? 

Liberals will lie to you and tell you that they are not prejudiced or bigoted.  They are tolerant of others and believe in some mythical beast called "diversity".  The ugly truth is that their hatred, intolerance, and bigotry may not be aimed at the "oppressed classes", but is aimed squarely at individuals and institutions that they disagree with.  Instead of deciding this case based upon discussions with the boy, the foster parents and the social worker, she decided it upon her own anti-military bigotry.  Shawn Sage never had a chance for any kind of a fair hearing.  This woman's mind was made up long before Shawn sage ever walked into her courtroom.

In my opinion, this Commissioner's prejudice and willingness to make decisions based sole upon that prejudice should be enough to disqualify her as a court commissioner.  We all have our opinions and our prejudices, but we expect our judges to rule in accordance with the law and make up their minds according to the facts, not their opinion.

She says all recruiters are the same.  Are all black people the same, all men, all women, all anyone?  Hardly and if she's said that (for the sake of example) all Mexicans are the same, she'd be rightfully dismissed from bench.

Since her bigotry was aimed at the military, that's somehow OK. 

Welcome to Amerika, comrade.

VW

Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

When I heard that Scooter Libby's sentence was commuted, I imagined that most of the leftys were pounding the fists in absolute bloody rage; their heads ready to explode like an overripe melon.

I think the President did the right thing.  Libby lied, but it essentially hurt no one but himself.  Libby was a first offender with a stellar record of public service.  That should count for something.

Here in WA state, If I steal a car, I'll likely not get jail time and that is even if I have a criminal record.  Sandy Berger purloins ultra top-secret documents and never serves a day and gets off with a misdemeanor. 

Libby was convicted.  He'll have a felony on his record.  That's more than Bill Clinton got for lying to a grand jury.

The left just wanted a scapegoat.  They didn't get it. 

VW

Twisted Justice

Mike Nifong's career is ruined and well it should be.  His egregious actions were a black eye to the city of Durham and to his office.  He falsely accused three young men of a crime they did not commit and then he did everything in his power to contrive the evidence to make his allegations fit.  It was a lot like trying to jam a three inch circle into a one inch square hole.  In the process, he cost the defense millions of dollars and his office a big huge chunk of credibility.  He will most likely have his socks sued off, but from what I've read, it's doubtful that he will spend any time in jail.  There is some speculation that he could be brought up on some criminal contempt charge, but that remains to be seen.  Even if convicted, he wouldn't receive much jail time.

Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to an investigator.  I don't know whether he did or not.  I did not sit in a juror's seat and listen to the testimony over the entire length of the trial.  Many conservatives say he was innocent, a victim of a witch hunt!  I suppose there is some truth to that, but again, a jury of his peers said he lied.  Unless he wins on appeal, I doubt much will change that.  Here's the rub.  Even if he lied, he actually hurt no one.  He wasn't the one that outed Valerie Plame and his misstatements had absolutely no bearing on Plame's status.  Libby may have lied, but as far as I can tell, there was no injury to anyone but himself.  Truth or lie, neither one would have had any impact on the eventual outcome of the Special Prosecutor's inquisition except for Mr. Libby.  Mr. Libby, now convicted, was sentenced to 30 months in prison.  30 months for a lie that essentially harmed no one. Go figure that one out

I'm a law and order kind of guy.  I believe the punishment should fit the crime.  I admit that I'm no legal beagle, but from all that I've read about these two cases, this just isn't fair.

Both men's career's are ruined and most likely will cost them a huge amount monetarily, but only one will have a felony hung around his neck and it ain't the guy who did any real harm.  That's twisted.

VW