Sounds like the going rate for his vote is $20K.
2 Likes
btw, this reminds me of a couple Star Trek episodes.
Thanks for providing that info. I’m curious how much the $20,000 stands out. Is that an amount so large that he would have known about it? I assume he doesn’t commit to memory the name of every bloke who sends in $5. But how many people send in $20,000? Is it reasonable to assume he would have known that the person involved in the case had done so?
If so, I can see thinking he should have remained recused due to a natural bias. If not then it does seem like a nothingburger. I have no idea what kind of money it takes to run for that office though so I’m undecided.
Also… how is that normally handled? Some people and businesses donate to both sides. If I’m a rich bad guy I assume that I can’t just send $20,000 to every single judge or judicial candidate and then none of them can hear my case.
Or if I only send money to the Democrats does that mean only the Republicans can hear my case? Or vice versa? If I only send money to the judges known for doling out harsh sentences can I guarantee a judge that is more lenient because the harsh judges will all need to recuse themselves?
I can see a lot of potential for abuse in both directions, actually.
I think I mentioned this earlier but thanks for putting the link. Nothing like subverting the will of the voters before she’s even sworn in. I guess you have to hold on to power anyway you can.
I can tell is this is a serious question or just conservative pretzel logic but $20,000 is the individual limit on contributions to a candidate in Wisconsin so I’m guessing anyone who donates $20k is going to be candidates gold circle or whatever they call it. Yes $20k is fairly big and I would expect any judge to Republican or Democrat to recuse themselves from their top donors, though I’d be surprised if many do. I mean why would people make contributions if it didn’t buy them influence?
This is a pretty good primer of what’s total f-Ed up with out whole political system with both sides to blame. Thank you Anton Scalia May you RIH.
1 Like
Guess he didn’t learn the knuckles thing of knowing which months have 31 days.
2 Likes
Well that’s about as anti-woke as you can get. you’re move Florida.
Ah, good to know.
I certainly agree that it’s pretty f-ed up to force our judges to be politicians. I’d prefer all judges be appointed. Let them focus on the law, not on politics. Plenty of places have appointed judges & it works fine.
Only slightly less terrible that our legislators are politicians. Worst form of government except for everything else that’s ever been tried & all that.
Although that’s got to be a typo. You’d not proclaim a whatever-month on the last day of that month. I’d bet somebody “corrected” it and the gov just didn’t read the last copy.
To me, the biggest “darndest” is that almost the whole writeup could be used to declare this CRT month.
Anyone know if Trump’s lawyer is a Republican?
From Insider
1 Like
Probably should say March, but whatev’s.
Meanwhile Jackson is a real hole, and I don’t mean the Wyoming ski resort kind:
(Not a darndest thing, but whatev’s.)
Democracy dies in broad daylight.
6 Likes
Apparently they expelled the 2 young black guys but let the older white lady stay. ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.
2 Likes
ACLU? Because “they let the older white lady stay”? Who are they going to go after?
Republican leadership tried to oust all three of them but failed to secure enough votes to remove the white lady.
Unlike the two African-American men, it seems that she never used the megaphone. Some House members who voted to oust the two men but not the woman said something along the lines of thinking that her not using the megaphone made her actions less bad / not expulsion-worthy.
Assuming that those facts are materially correct (she didn’t use the megaphone and the two men both did)… then I think it would be very difficult to prove that constituted racism on the part of the individual House members who voted “yes, yes, no” on the removal.
And as for the ones who voted “yes, yes, yes”… they can claim they voted to remove anyone involved regardless of race.
I don’t see any way of proving that it was racism. Obligatory IANAL.
Possibly worth adding… the expulsion votes were not the same for the two men either. Some people only voted to remove one of them. I’m guessing that one was maybe more of a “ring leader” than the other??? Or the other has a few more friends?
I dunno. But I presume that it would also be hard to prove that voting to remove one of the black men but not the other black man or the white woman was racist.
And all of this presupposes that the ACLU can get involved in state legislative votes. I thought that as a general rule law-makers had pretty wide legal latitude for legislative-issues.
Again, IANAL. Just thinking “aloud”.
None of the three did anything worthy of expulsion. The fact that some people will say, “well, the white lady was even LESS worthy of expulsion, so it’s not racism,” says a lot about the speaker. I can 100% guarantee you that if Gloria were black, she’d have been expelled, too.
If you want evidence of racism, go back and watch the way the GOP members spoke to the three Democrats during “questioning.” The tone was completely different. They would never speak to a white person like they spoke to Jones and Pearson.
If you want to spew uninformed, lazy opinions all over the internet, I can’t stop you. You can type anything into the machine in your hands and it will show up online. But you’ll seem a lot smarter if you do the homework first.
4 Likes