The Problem With Democrats

stockingfull wrote:Your arithmetic summarizes your posts here pretty well.

Man crush? Get Scott McClellan's new book and see if your boy Dubya still looks good to you.

In the end, Bill will tower over this loser in the judgment of history.

I've got the book. Mine came with a special message for you.

Let me simplify the math for you then. One lieing weasal + one lieing weasal equals a pair of lieing weasals. They are the same as they ever were. If you couldn't see that until this campaign, you are as dumb as a stump.

coalkirk wrote:

stockingfull wrote:Your arithmetic summarizes your posts here pretty well.

Man crush? Get Scott McClellan's new book and see if your boy Dubya still looks good to you.

In the end, Bill will tower over this loser in the judgment of history.

I've got the book. Mine came with a special message for you.

bush finger.jpg

Let me simplify the math for you then. One lieing weasal + one lieing weasal equals a pair of lieing weasals. They are the same as they ever were. If you couldn't see that until this campaign, you are as dumb as a stump.

Right back atcha in the Dumbya fanclub!

Speaking Democrat:

A Massachusetts democrat representative



arguing against Jessica’s Law.

http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/0 ... -morality/

On the Michigan Republican Congressman "teaching" us all how to speak "Democrat," he's from the Detroit area and he's about to become extinct (as a Republican in Michigan), which, judging by his presentation, will be a merciful thing for his constituents.

On the second piece, the Mass legislator obviously was referring to a requirement, in a proposed new law, that kids take the witness stand and be subject to cross-examination by defense counsel in order to send the sexual predators targeted by the law to the slammer. In case you don't recognize it, most courts -- and legislation -- go to great lengths to avoid subjecting kids to giving sworn testimony for a variety of reasons having to do with its inherent unreliability, not least of which is the consideration that defendants have a constitutional right (and their lawyers the duty) to confront and cross-examine their accusers, particularly in criminal causes. So the guy actually was critiquing the law because it goal of sending the predators away would exact too high a cost from the already traumatized young victims.

So, once again, Fake News shows us how taking a few words completely out of context can be used to inflame and completely distort the political debate on nearly any question. Which is why Faux is useless.

From Boston Herald....some more "Fake News"
Jessica’s Law dad blasts Mass. rep
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1102761


I guess this is fake too...
Barack Obama dismisses James Dobson criticism about Bible
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view/2008_06_24_Barack_Obama_dismisses_James_Dobson_criticism_about_Bible/
so who's lying Dobson or Obama? ...hmm, why do I ask? It's just fake news.

Same website so I guess this would be fake also...
Spokesman: Bill Clinton will do what ’he is asked’ to help Obama
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/v ... id=1102930
...has to be fake...I just can't believe that Bill will do whatever 'he is asked' to help Obama...must be fake... or is it Faux?..maybe it's a faux pas?


opinion about the first article...I guess you need to be a great Democratic Liberal Lawyer to...

"grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

or do you just need to be a Democratic Liberal Lawyer to understand and defend another Democratic Liberal Lawyer/politician who actually thinks that way.

FACT...Thank God I'm not a Democratic Liberal because I fully understand what that father is saying in that article...

“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?”

The Herald is the Boston version of the Washington Times, or the NY Post, i.e., right wing-nut fish wrap.

So no wonder that they have it distorted too. The legislator was doing what legislators are duty-bound to do: call the attention of the legislative body to infirmities in the proposed law. Not all cross-examinations on behalf of criminal defendants are conducted by "liberal" defense counsel. But the whole purpose of cross-examination -- regardless of who's conducting it -- is to undermine the testimony given against the defendant, whether by questioning the perceptions of the witness, or the biases of the people who've prepared that witness for testimony, or the biases of the witness him- or herself, or the consistency of the testimony with itself or with other evidence. And it's the absolute duty of EVERY defense counsel to represent his/her client zealously to the best of his/her ability within the bounds of the law. The direct consequence of these competing demands is that cross-examination is never fun, which is why the law doesn't subject kids to it in the absence of truly compelling circumstances.

So the legislative question becomes whether putting these bad people away for some additional increment of time is worth the trauma which cross-examination would bring to the juvenile victim.

And that's a perfectly legitimate legislative question, completely lost in the wing-nut coverage. Which is why Fox, and the Herald if they didn't put it in that context, do a disservice to the public they serve by the sensational reporting.

They'd be just the kind of rags which would never recognize the disconnect when, in a year or two, they were castigating lawyers (no doubt "liberals") for the juvenile suicides which would result after the cross-examinations at the trials contemplated by this new statute.

If you want change, vote for Obama.

stockingfull wrote: The legislator was doing what legislators are duty-bound to do: call the attention of the legislative body to infirmities in the proposed law. Not all cross-examinations on behalf of criminal defendants are conducted by "liberal" defense counsel. But the whole purpose of cross-examination -- regardless of who's conducting it -- is to undermine the testimony given against the defendant, whether by questioning the perceptions of the witness, or the biases of the people who've prepared that witness for testimony, or the biases of the witness him- or herself, or the consistency of the testimony with itself or with other evidence. And it's the absolute duty of EVERY defense counsel to represent his/her client zealously to the best of his/her ability within the bounds of the law. The direct consequence of these competing demands is that cross-examination is never fun, which is why the law doesn't subject kids to it in the absence of truly compelling circumstances.

oh....so that's what he meant by....

grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody

it's so much clearer for me now, I actually thought he was talking about legally verbally torturing children that already have to live knowing that they've been raped. Nice guy!

gee...I wonder what his stance is on "water boarding" adult POW's in GITMO?

Bugs, you're still not getting it. The legislator, no matter how "liberal" you think he is, isn't going to be defense counsel for every one of these defendants. He won't be conducting those cross-examinations. But he knows that they will be traumatic for the kids under the best of circumstances, let alone the worst.

So he's informing his colleagues of the risk to the young victims of the public's emotional zeal to exact further retribution from those accused of these horrendous crimes. And don't forget: every one of these defendants is entitled to the same constitutional protections as you would be if you were wrongly accused of the offense.

The mistake so commonly made in this area is the assumption that every defendant is guilty. But that's simply not the case, and it's certainly not the principle on which our criminal laws are founded.

Cross-examination is a constitutional right of due process to which all defendants are entitled. When a law may subject a young victim to that, the legislature should proceed with great caution, a point completely lost in the Fake News piece.

To date, 33 states have enacted some form of Jessica’s Law into law. They include the following:

1. Alabama: Passed the Community Notification Act
2. Alaska: Passed Senate Bills 218 and 303
3. Arkansas: Passed the Child Protection Act
4. Arizona: Passed 13-1423 and 13-604.01
5. California: Passed Proposition 83
6. Connecticut: Passed Senate Bill 1458* (25-year mandatory sentencing, Gov. Rell signed into law 7/31/07)
7. Delaware: Passed Jessica’s Law (House Bill 404)
8. Florida: Passed Jessica’s Law
9. Georgia: Passed House Bill 1059
10. Indiana: Passed Senate Bill 0012 and House Bill 1155
11. Kansas: Passed House Bill 2567
12. Louisiana: Passed Senate Bills 164, 612-2006 (Act 663), 2 (Act 103), House Bill 80 (Act 24), House Bill 561 (Act 36)
13. Maryland: Passed House Bill 2* (2006), amended law by passing House Bill 930, Senate Bill 413 (March 2007, Gov. O’Malley signed into law 5/1707)
14. Michigan: Passed Jessica’s Law, House Bills 5421-22, 5531, and 5532
15. Missouri: Passed Jessica’s Law
16. Montana: Passed Senate Bill 547 (Gov. Schweitzer signed into law 5/11/07)
17. Nebraska: Passed Legislative Bill 1199
18. Nevada: Passed Senate Bill 341 (NRS 179B.250)
19. New Hampshire: Passed House Bill 1692-FN
20. North Carolina: Passed House Bill 1896* (legislation pending for 2008)
21. North Dakota: Passed House Bills 1216 & 1217, Senate Bill 2029 (Gov. Hoever signed into law 4/24/07)
22. Ohio: Passed Senate Bill 260
23. Oklahoma: Passed Senate Bill 631
24. Oregon: Passed House Bill 3511
25. Pennsylvania: Passed Senate Bill 944
26. Rhode Island: Passed the Jessica Lunsford Act
27. South Carolina: Passed Jessica’s Law*
28. Tennessee: Passed Jessica’s Law
29. Texas: Passed Jessica’s Law (House Bill 8)
30. Virginia: Passed House Bill 486
31. Washington: Passed House Bill 3277*
32. West Virginia: Passed The Child Protection Act of 2006
33. Wisconsin: Passed Jessica’s Law (AB 784 and 591)

And, in every one of them where the victim must take the stand, the risk identified in Mass is there.

So, again, the question becomes what the best balance between the sanction and the additional trauma to the victim is.

That's all the member was pointing up in the statement he made to the legislature.

For the record, I'm not against these laws; I'm for looking at them as part of a coherent policy which not only punishes the guilty but avoids additional unnecessary trauma to young victims. For example, what's wrong with using good old DNA evidence in these cases and bypassing the kids?

BTW, the Supreme Court today held that the death penalty for child rapists is unconstitutional. As I understand it, the basis for the holding in no small part is that danger of unreliable testimony from the juvenile victims. Know how many Republicans are on the Supremes? SEVEN. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. Only Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are Dems.

So it just goes to show ya, a decent brain and a little time to think about the implications of what we're doing can yield sensible, principled results, even from Republicans!

"a decent brain and a little time to think about the implications of what we're"

saying would have prevented some moron from saying...

"I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer."

Instead of using his chosen tactic to preach against portions of this law he should have used your tact...

"For the record, I'm not against these laws; I'm for looking at them as part of a coherent policy which not only punishes the guilty but avoids additional unnecessary trauma to young victims. For example, what's wrong with using good old DNA evidence in these cases and bypassing the kids?"

BUT he didn't.

Trust me...I get it...I've got it from the beginning. This public figure used specific words and a tactic to make a point, an argument, in order to point out flaws in a law.

The problem I have with it is that he didn't say "Defense Lawyers" will "make sure that the rest of their life is ruined..." He said "I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined..." When you use that tactic, stating it in 1st person, to me that means you support that tactic to "grill" a child. Since he stated it in 1st person, I believe his mind is no better than the child rapist's mind. Would he or any other defense lawyer still choose this course of action of "grilling" even if all other evidence is so overwhelming against their client and the client still demands that he is innocent? I believe he and his supporters would because....

...the whole purpose of cross-examination -- regardless of who's conducting it -- is to undermine the testimony given against the defendant, whether by questioning the perceptions of the witness, or the biases of the people who've prepared that witness for testimony, or the biases of the witness him- or herself, or the consistency of the testimony with itself or with other evidence. And it's the absolute duty of EVERY defense counsel to represent his/her client zealously to the best of his/her ability within the bounds of the law.

Do I believe that innocent people are found guilty for crimes they have not commited so therefore we need defense lawyers? Yes I do.
Do I believe that all criminals have the right to a fair trial?
Yes I do.
Do I believe that a lawyer who believes in zealously grilling a child on the witness stand in order to defend his/her client should be hung by his/her speech devices (lips and tongue)?
Yes I do. (I had to go with lips and tongue instead of genitals because...lawyers like the ones J.Fagan describes don't have genitals big enough to wrap a thread around)
However...do I believe that there are good, honest, moral, lawyers in this world? Damn right I do (more than most people think...the way I see it is if people were good, honest, moral...there'd be a lot of defense lawyers out of work)

“What do you call 100 lawyers (or politicians) at the bottom of the ocean?…. A good start”.

Do I believe that Fagan and those that believe in his tactic should be the first of the 100....
Damn right I do.

(Stockingful...I know you are defending Democrats and lawyers...I perfectly understand that, expect it, and respect it...if J.Fagan was a far Right Republican Lawyer Politician...I would not have hesitated to respond in the same manner...By the way...I recant my statement of him being Liberal...I can't find anything stating how liberal he is)

Fagan

Amazing...his name comes up censored! That's perfect, symbolic, and appropriate!!!

Dan Abrams had the guy on MSNBC last night and he said that it all occurred in a fairly heated debate and that he regretted the way it came out. But he didn't regret the effort to get the lawmakers to realize that there was a significant downside to the version of the law they were debating at the time.

But you're right, even when intentions are good, words do matter.