Here is my thing. Would you like Perry to a) not do this, or b) do it more, or c) do it only in egregious cases where the person in question was leading a statewide investigative unit specifically tasked with prosecuting cases of Public Integrity
I think this is a pretty good example of how the line item veto can grant the executive pretty extraordinary powers should they choose to abuse it. And I think in this case it was certainly abuse. So no, I would rather the executive use the bully pulpit to sway the public opinion of voters in that district, rather than just make an end run around their choice for elected representative.
I just wonder how comfortable you will be with this kind of politically motivated veto power when texas starts going purple, and then eventually blue.
Here is my thing. Would you like Perry to a) not do this, or b) do it more, or c) do it only in egregious cases where the person in question was leading a statewide investigative unit specifically tasked with prosecuting cases of Public Integrity
I think this is a pretty good example of how the line item veto can grant the executive pretty extraordinary powers should they choose to abuse it. And I think in this case it was certainly abuse. So no, I would rather the executive use the bully pulpit to sway the public opinion of voters in that district, rather than just make an end run around their choice for elected representative.
I just wonder how comfortable you will be with this kind of politically motivated veto power when texas starts going purple, and then eventually blue.
Ann Richards was a pretty good governor, and Bob Bullock was a fantastic Lt. Gov.
That "when" part though. Such hopeful. So certainty. Very paternalism.
oh wow
spool32 on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach. Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support. Immigration ranks high on their list of issues but broad-based amnesty gets little support.
It's going to be an interesting decade in Texas. Whether they can manage to shift the party and shift the voters is an open question, but nobody's asleep at the switch on this issue. It's do or die, and everybody in the GOP knows it.
I think it's kind of offensive and gross the way Democrats treat minority votes like they're a given, but it's also going to make it easier to pull the rug out from under the DNC.
spool32 on
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach. Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support. Immigration ranks high on their list of issues but broad-based amnesty gets little support.
It's going to be an interesting decade in Texas. Whether they can manage to shift the party and shift the voters is an open question, but nobody's asleep at the switch on this issue. It's do or die, and everybody in the GOP knows it.
I think it's kind of offensive and gross the way Democrats treat minority votes like they're a given, but it's also going to make it easier to pull the rug out from under the DNC.
I forget - how many TX House R's voted against immediate deportation earlier this month again?
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach. Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support. Immigration ranks high on their list of issues but broad-based amnesty gets little support.
It's going to be an interesting decade in Texas. Whether they can manage to shift the party and shift the voters is an open question, but nobody's asleep at the switch on this issue. It's do or die, and everybody in the GOP knows it.
That's impressive for the Texas GOP, National GOP is a different story.
I think it's kind of offensive and gross the way Democrats treat minority votes like they're a given, but it's also going to make it easier to pull the rug out from under the DNC.
They're a given since Democrats literally have no competition with the GOP in most states and nationally in getting their votes. The DNC is hardly flawless, but it doesn't have to be given what the RNC is doing reaching out to minorities.
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach. Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support. Immigration ranks high on their list of issues but broad-based amnesty gets little support.
It's going to be an interesting decade in Texas. Whether they can manage to shift the party and shift the voters is an open question, but nobody's asleep at the switch on this issue. It's do or die, and everybody in the GOP knows it.
I think it's kind of offensive and gross the way Democrats treat minority votes like they're a given, but it's also going to make it easier to pull the rug out from under the DNC.
I forget - how many TX House R's voted against immediate deportation earlier this month again?
You'd think this would be the sort of thing that would make a bunch of Hispanic people in Texas mad...
Turns out, not so much. Immigration is a complex issue and the more national Democrats think "as much and as easily as we can manage" is the way to ensure the Hispanic vote, the easier it's going to be to keep Texas red.
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach.
National Republicans have been trying to do outreach to women and minorities since Juneish 2012. Greatest accomplishment thus far: telling white Republican men to stop saying stupid things about rape, which several people proceeded to ignore.
Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support.
Are Hispanics in Texas different from Hispanics in the rest of the country, then? Because a whole bunch of polls have shown majority support for marriage equality and such among Hispanics in general, higher than among whites.
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach. Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support. Immigration ranks high on their list of issues but broad-based amnesty gets little support.
It's going to be an interesting decade in Texas. Whether they can manage to shift the party and shift the voters is an open question, but nobody's asleep at the switch on this issue. It's do or die, and everybody in the GOP knows it.
I think it's kind of offensive and gross the way Democrats treat minority votes like they're a given, but it's also going to make it easier to pull the rug out from under the DNC.
I forget - how many TX House R's voted against immediate deportation earlier this month again?
You'd think this would be the sort of thing that would make a bunch of Hispanic people in Texas mad...
Turns out, not so much. Immigration is a complex issue and the more national Democrats think "as much and as easily as we can manage" is the way to ensure the Hispanic vote, the easier it's going to be to keep Texas red.
this is trending sorely off-topic, but i'll counterpoint your strawman of "the more national Democrats think "as much and as easily as we can manage"" with the actuality of the R position of "none now and none ever".
relevant citation to the actual Democrat position:
we really can't say what the effect will be until the next election. so "turns out, not so much" may be a presumptive assumption (or it may not). I know which way I think this burgeoning electorate will lean tho...
Is your argument that Texas isn't going to keep getting less white, or is it that the GOP will somehow start appealing to minorities? Either seems pretty such hopeful to me.
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach.
National Republicans have been trying to do outreach to women and minorities since Juneish 2012. Greatest accomplishment thus far: telling white Republican men to stop saying stupid things about rape, which several people proceeded to ignore.
Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support.
Are Hispanics in Texas different from Hispanics in the rest of the country, then? Because a whole bunch of polls have shown majority support for marriage equality and such among Hispanics in general, higher than among whites.
More 1st generation here. Having the long border makes for all sorts of weird permutations of things. It's pretty interesting and by no means do I think it's a solved problem for the GOP, but it's a problem they're aware of and actively addressing at the district level. Lots and lots of prominent voices in the party talking about the need to move leftward on various policies related to the hispanic minority, and lots of people arguing that if we just social conservative hard enough it's sure to work. No idea right now which one is going to prevail.
There's a disconnect between the national media (who seem to be taking a "politics as usual" tack), and the local media, who are treating the story as serious. It's worth reminding people that this is the exact same pattern we saw with McDonnell in VA and Christie in NJ.
The indictment was not brought by any Democrats, and in fact several of the officials involved were Perry appointees.
The "criminalization of politics" argument being forwarded by the national media is an exceptionally poor and dangerous one. (I recommend reading the Pierce piece I linked earlier for more on why this is.)
@spool32 has claimed that this piece was poorly done and that he could tear it apart - I welcome him to try.
Admittedly, it's getting difficult to keep straight all of the GOP indictments. Might have to start a separate subforum for them.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Pierce makes an excellent point about the blindness that the national media has shown towards these state-level scandals:
But the jury [in the McDonnell case] understood the facts and they understood the law. (And their relatively short deliberation indicates that they got the point fairly quickly, and that they were not distracted by the baroque details of how the McDonnell marriage came apart.) This should come as something of a cautionary tale for people like Scott Walker, and Rick Perry, and Chris Christie, to say nothing of the political reporters who too easily dismiss the trouble they could be in back home. People, especially people on juries, understand more than you think they do.
I don't think it's that they can't understand if you legally require them to sit in a room and have shit explained to them for six months.
It's that they don't care enough to pay attention otherwise.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There's a disconnect between the national media (who seem to be taking a "politics as usual" tack), and the local media, who are treating the story as serious. It's worth reminding people that this is the exact same pattern we saw with McDonnell in VA and Christie in NJ.
The indictment was not brought by any Democrats, and in fact several of the officials involved were Perry appointees.
The "criminalization of politics" argument being forwarded by the national media is an exceptionally poor and dangerous one. (I recommend reading the Pierce piece I linked earlier for more on why this is.)
@spool32 has claimed that this piece was poorly done and that he could tear it apart - I welcome him to try.
There's a disconnect between the national media (who seem to be taking a "politics as usual" tack), and the local media, who are treating the story as serious. It's worth reminding people that this is the exact same pattern we saw with McDonnell in VA and Christie in NJ.
The indictment was not brought by any Democrats, and in fact several of the officials involved were Perry appointees.
The "criminalization of politics" argument being forwarded by the national media is an exceptionally poor and dangerous one. (I recommend reading the Pierce piece I linked earlier for more on why this is.)
@spool32 has claimed that this piece was poorly done and that he could tear it apart - I welcome him to try.
OK let's begin by pointing out that this is a Salon article. Here's the article again. At the risk of giving more clickthroughs to Salon, everyone who cares about this post should open it and read along.
That it was published by Salon is, and I think we can all agree on this, a solid strike against taking it seriously at the outset. Salon is a forcefully partisan leftwing outpost, and makes no bones about objectivity or fairness or even accuracy in its reporting. They are red meat for the progressive reader, and in this they're no different than NRO would be for the conservative analog.
I mention this firstly because it shadows everything they write, and secondly because this article is a good example of it. The piece begins by making some disparaging comments about Perry, just so you know where we're going to be working from. Jokes about his disaster at the debate, a quote pulled out of context and used to mock him.
The full quote, which they do in fairness link to, is here:
“I’ve been indicted by that same body now for I think two counts, one of bribery, which I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really understand the details here,”
On to the second paragraph, which asserts that you don't have to be smart to understand what's up but that the media is dumb and, we assume, this writer is going to help us grasp the obvious details. OK then.
3rd graf is our first real source, and no surprise it's Progress Texas, a leftwing lobbying group / PAC opposed to Perry, the Republicans, and every quasi-conservative thing that comes across their desks. They exist specifically and solely to oppose the GOP in Texas however they can. We begin with an appeal to authority that wouldn't fly on these forums, and then in the next paragraph, he lets the director of this lobbying group frame the disagreement via straw men so he can thoroughly trounce the pretend disagreement.
His point 1: That the Perry indictments were the product of a nest of angry but unsophisticated Austin liberals
We discussed this briefly, but none of the legal analysis or the articles I've posted throughout this thread make this argument. It's cherry-picked and doesn't address the meat of the disagreements at all. Apart from the odd snicker at Austin from folks living here, it's been entirely absent from our own discussions and the sources we used.
point 2) That it was a governor’s constitutional power of the veto that was being challenged.
This was instantly discarded and most, possibly all of the people discounting this indictment were at pains to say exactly the opposite. This argument from the director of Progress Texas is smoke and mirrors. No one serious is making it.
Our article's author asserts that "these two do seem to be most central". He makes this assertion with literally no evidence or examples whatsoever - just the word of the partisan director of an organization designed to attack Perry and the GOP. At this point, reasonable people should be skeptical of anything that follows to support attacking the "central" points that the author and his only source so far have established as the crux of the issue. The center is fake, ginned up to make the argument sound good.
But we will continue.
Smith (from Progress Texas) continues by instructing the national media on how they should do journalism. He has a quick wank about Watergate because this is the era he's from and it feels good. Then he claims two things:
1) That two Republican judges did not act as a partisans and discard a complaint means there must be something to the complaint. This is a false conclusion that none of us would accept here. Judges can be honest even if they are Republican, and that they did not act dishonestly to quash an inquiry is no proof of damning evidence.
2) that the special prosecutor is a conservative. This is false.
In 2009, McCrum was nominated by President Obama to be the U.S. attorney in San Antonio. Both Congressman Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, and Texas’ two Republican U.S. senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, supported McCrum’s nomination.
McCrum has never revealed his political affiliation, does not vote in primaries, donates to both political parties, was nominated by a Democratic President to a position and received bipartisan support from senators and representatives. He's a good lawyer by all accounts, but to call him a conservative is a fabrication. Moreover, and this is important in the course of shitting on this article, it's a fabrication that destroys all the 'credibility' that Smith has as a source. He goes on for two paragraphs about how Real Reporters would know to look deeper given that all these conservatives were involved, but to accept that you have to accept that a) it's impossible to be Republican and have integrity, and b) McCrum has a party affiliation known to the locals.
Neither of those are true. At this point we can discard the entire "where there's Republican smoke, there's illegal fire" attack. it was fake to start with, and supported by insults and lies.
The Salon author instead goes on to develop this point by claiming that you need special magic understanding to see the real truth. He turns to yet another leftwing partisan attack outfit to provide these insights, Media Matters.
To support this idea that the Texas media is taking seriously what the national hacks are brushing off, the salon author quotes Media Matters as they pull another quote out of context:
The Chronicle wrote that the indictments “suggest that the longest-serving governor in Texas history has grown too accustomed to getting his way when it comes to making sure that virtually every key position in state government is occupied by a Perry loyalist.”
The full quote, (and again hats off to Salon for at least providing some links to the source material here) is:
The indictments may turn out to be nothing but an annoyance for a man who seems to be gearing up for another presidential run. Annoyance or not, they suggest that the longest-serving governor...
It goes on to speculate with no evidence about why the indictment might be a problem for Perry, but, and this again stomps on the "local journos have the right eye" theme that we've already abused, it doesn't provide any new info that wasn't mentioned by national outfits.
The other article, from the Dallas Morning News, asks a bunch of questions but answers none of them even speculatively, and merely argues it's in all our best interests that the case be heard fairly so there's no cloud of partisanship.
Our Salon author links to and pulls from the Slater article we've linked to and discussed already. He sets up 5 straw men, 4 of which we've dealt with over and over:
1) the political angle. Reasonable people disagree on whether this is politically motivated, but if so, it's about the political power of the governor vs the legislature and the judicial system, not about Republican vs Democrat.
2) The drunk driving punishment: This straw man is actually defeated by his previous point, while brushing off the obvious explanation: this was something Perry could do a thing about, since he had power over the PIU's money.
3) the veto: no one is arguing the thing that Slater proves wrong in this point.
4) the corruption angle: I've linked previously to why this was bunk to begin with, a red herring created by Progress Texas and disproved by the very local reporting that our intrepid Salon article lauds.
5) Election 2016: Slater speculates lots here but it's ultimately pointless and even he doesn't take a position.
Back to the Salon article. The author goes on to debunk things we're not confused by and quotes Smith (Progress Texas Director, remember?) in a different venue as he repeats the lie that McCrum is a conservative and pushes the Progress Texas talking points. Let's note that a decent author would write:
It’s worth quoting at length from Smith, writing in the Texas Tribune:
but our Salon author doesn't do that... he hopes that you've forgotten who Smith is, and just says
It’s worth quoting at length from Smith at the Texas Tribune:
Smith is not at the Tribune. He is at Progress Texas, as their Director. This is intentionally dishonest. But then this whole article is intentionally dishonest. Let's continue.
The next couple of paragraphs repeat the Slater straw men, dismissed above. After that, the author concludes that the national media must be clueless because it, I suppose, hasn't fallen for the tactics of partisan attack groups spreading false information and authors casting aspersions like they're interviewing for jobs at Fox.
We get some quotes from Maddow doing her shtick, in which she says nothing of consequence but echos the above sentiment that at least we should take it seriously. The idea that people aren't taking it seriously in the national media, let's remember, is false and has no relationship to the many legal reasons posted in this thread explaining why the charge is probably bunk and Perry will walk.
Sidebar: I'd like to take a moment to mention that we should fold the corner down on this thread, so that when Perry does get off we can see if Progress Texas, Maddow, salon, and the rest of the folks we've been talking about forget that republican prosecution was proof of seriousness, and instead use it as proof of dishonesty.
We can skip past some of this, because it's Salon quoting Maddow interviewing Slater about the things that Salon quoted Slater talking about earlier in this article and reiterated themselves in the same 5-point structure. This is not new info, it's just noise from a different speaker.
Salon moves on to interviewing James Fallows to see if he agrees with the book he wrote. Turns out that he totally does. Then the author tackles all the credible Democrats who think the indictment is nonsense by saying that they were wrong before (Iraq waaaaaaar!!) and also not progressive enough anyway. He drives home the broader point about local reporting and also progressivism are awesome and fighting against corruption is awesome. No word on the Travis County DA's corruption indictments or her threats to use her office to quash a drunk driving conviction but this author is too busy waving the banner and lamenting how the right-wing has co-opted the idea of being anticorruption to realize how ironic the final sentence of his article is:
...it really is best to keep focused on the facts. Let’s hear them first; only then can we have informed opinions.
Indeed.
If only this article had touched on the legal reasoning against conviction, the statutes or amendments we've talked about, the demolishing of the cancer research corruption theory, or the resume of the special prosecutor, it would have helped us reach for an informed opinion.
Instead we got lies, dishonest attribution, repetition as substitute for evidence, poor reporting, contradictory sentiments, and the use of partisan attack dogs in the process of pushing a set of talking points as legitimate sources of info.
I took the liberty of referencing discussions we've had earlier in the thread, rather than writing them all out again or digging up all the links. I hope you'll forgive me - a search of my name in this thread will turn up all the arguments and source links I mentioned.
First, so much of your argument hangs on "partisan = untrustworthy", without any real argument as to why this is the case. You try to bring up an equivalence argument, looking to equate Salon with National Review Online purely on partisan grounds, ignoring the very real criticisms leveled at the latter which explain why it has a low level of trust. And without the argument that partisanship means an untrustworthy argument, you can't just dismiss the work of either Progress Texas or Media Matters out of hand. In short, your argument is built fundamentally on a rotten support, and taking it out causes the argument to collapse.
Second, you try to argue that the fact that neither judge dismissing the argument means nothing. This shows a weak understanding of the law - weak claims are regularly dismissed, and a judge would be derelict in their duty to not dismiss a poorly substantiated claim. At the very least, the refusal to dismiss means that a legitimate question of law was put forth.
Is there any information about the judges not dismissing the indictments, that includes facts about someone asking the court to dismiss?
That they didn't rule on a motion not before them means nothing. Judges do not dismiss criminal indictments of their own volition. Unless I'm missing something wacky about Texas District Court procedure.
"Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury."
Why could Stubblefield and Richardson dismissed the complaint? Someone help me out here. All I can find are that Perry's current lawyers have made a motion to dismiss recently. (EDIT: One in August, one in Sept that quotes Louis XIV lollllllll /wanking motion)
Is there any information about the judges not dismissing the indictments, that includes facts about someone asking the court to dismiss?
That they didn't rule on a motion not before them means nothing. Judges do not dismiss criminal indictments of their own volition. Unless I'm missing something wacky about Texas District Court procedure.
"Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury."
Why could Stubblefield and Richardson dismissed the complaint? Someone help me out here. All I can find are that Perry's current lawyers have made a motion to dismiss recently.
McCrum could have looked at it and exercised prosecutorial discretion, he didn't, so that make sense.
I would imagine that Perry's team would have sent in requests for summary dismissal as part of his defense. If the case was truly as weak as was claimed, such an argument should have been sustainable.
Is there any information about the judges not dismissing the indictments, that includes facts about someone asking the court to dismiss?
That they didn't rule on a motion not before them means nothing. Judges do not dismiss criminal indictments of their own volition. Unless I'm missing something wacky about Texas District Court procedure.
"Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury."
Why could Stubblefield and Richardson dismissed the complaint? Someone help me out here. All I can find are that Perry's current lawyers have made a motion to dismiss recently.
McCrum could have looked at it and exercised prosecutorial discretion, he didn't, so that make sense.
I would imagine that Perry's team would have sent in requests for summary dismissal as part of his defense. If the case was truly as weak as was claimed, such an argument should have been sustainable.
While it was a complaint? Before grand jury? I need more info about this procedure.
Also there is no summary judgment in criminal cases, like there is civil cases, where you can get the court to dismiss for failure to state a claim. They'd have to file a constitutional demurrer like what they filed in August/Sept. Was something filed earlier? Surely we would have it?
Is there any information about the judges not dismissing the indictments, that includes facts about someone asking the court to dismiss?
That they didn't rule on a motion not before them means nothing. Judges do not dismiss criminal indictments of their own volition. Unless I'm missing something wacky about Texas District Court procedure.
"Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury."
Why could Stubblefield and Richardson dismissed the complaint? Someone help me out here. All I can find are that Perry's current lawyers have made a motion to dismiss recently. (EDIT: One in August, one in Sept that quotes Louis XIV lollllllll /wanking motion)
Most courts can dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim, no?
e: Different in criminal cases? But I think a lot of states' rules allow it.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
In Texas, a criminal case is initiated with a complaint:
Art. 2.04. SHALL DRAW COMPLAINTS. Upon complaint being made before a district or county attorney that an offense has been committed in his district or county, he shall reduce the complaint to writing and cause the same to be signed and sworn to by the complainant, and it shall be duly attested by said attorney.
Art. 2.05. WHEN COMPLAINT IS MADE. If the offense be a misdemeanor, the attorney shall forthwith prepare an information based upon such complaint and file the same in the court having jurisdiction; provided, that in counties having no county attorney, misdemeanor cases may be tried upon complaint alone, without an information, provided, however, in counties having one or more criminal district courts an information must be filed in each misdemeanor case. If the offense be a felony, he shall forthwith file the complaint with a magistrate of the county.
Here is the initiating complaint filed in June in Travis County:
The complaint is a felony so it would have been "registered" with a magistrate. The DA of Travis County has a conflict here, obviously. The first judge recused herself, the case was eventually assigned to Judge Richardson. Judge Richardson assigns special prosecutor McCrum.
Art. 2.07. ATTORNEY PRO TEM. (a) Whenever an attorney for the state is disqualified to act in any case or proceeding, is absent from the county or district, or is otherwise unable to perform the duties of his office, or in any instance where there is no attorney for the state, the judge of the court in which he represents the state may appoint any competent attorney to perform the duties of the office during the absence or disqualification of the attorney for the state.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, if the appointed attorney is also an attorney for the state, the duties of the appointed office are additional duties of his present office, and he is not entitled to additional compensation. Nothing herein shall prevent a commissioners court of a county from contracting with another commissioners court to pay expenses and reimburse compensation paid by a county to an attorney for the state who is appointed to perform additional duties.
(b-1) An attorney for the state who is not disqualified to act may request the court to permit him to recuse himself in a case for good cause and upon approval by the court is disqualified.
(c) If the appointed attorney is not an attorney for the state, he is qualified to perform the duties of the office for the period of absence or disqualification of the attorney for the state on filing an oath with the clerk of the court. He shall receive compensation in the same amount and manner as an attorney appointed to represent an indigent person.
(d) In this article, "attorney for the state" means a county attorney, a district attorney, or a criminal district attorney.
(e) In Subsections (b) and (c) of this article, "attorney for the state" includes an assistant attorney general.
(f) In Subsection (a) of this article, "competent attorney" includes an assistant attorney general.
(g) An attorney appointed under Subsection (a) of this article to perform the duties of the office of an attorney for the state in a justice or municipal court may be paid a reasonable fee for performing those duties.
McCrum then took the case to grand jury, which issued an indictment for Perry. He was booked on that indictment and his lawyers have now filed legal motions in the case.
I am not all the way searching through Texas's code of crim procedure, but if someone else sees something that allows a judge to dismiss a criminal complaint before it is shown to grand jury and indictment issued let me know. I don't think it's accurate to say the judges involved pre-grand jury could have dismissed the complaint.
Is there any information about the judges not dismissing the indictments, that includes facts about someone asking the court to dismiss?
That they didn't rule on a motion not before them means nothing. Judges do not dismiss criminal indictments of their own volition. Unless I'm missing something wacky about Texas District Court procedure.
"Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury."
Why could Stubblefield and Richardson dismissed the complaint? Someone help me out here. All I can find are that Perry's current lawyers have made a motion to dismiss recently. (EDIT: One in August, one in Sept that quotes Louis XIV lollllllll /wanking motion)
Most courts can dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim, no?
e: Different in criminal cases? But I think a lot of states' rules allow it.
Show me some, I'd be curious to see. Judges can certainly rule that after the state has presented evidence in a trial, they haven't met their burden to even get to the jury pursuant to a motion for judgment of acquittal/directed verdict by the defense. But sua sponte before trial, or before indictment? I've never heard of that.
First, so much of your argument hangs on "partisan = untrustworthy", without any real argument as to why this is the case. You try to bring up an equivalence argument, looking to equate Salon with National Review Online purely on partisan grounds, ignoring the very real criticisms leveled at the latter which explain why it has a low level of trust. And without the argument that partisanship means an untrustworthy argument, you can't just dismiss the work of either Progress Texas or Media Matters out of hand. In short, your argument is built fundamentally on a rotten support, and taking it out causes the argument to collapse.
Second, you try to argue that the fact that neither judge dismissing the argument means nothing. This shows a weak understanding of the law - weak claims are regularly dismissed, and a judge would be derelict in their duty to not dismiss a poorly substantiated claim. At the very least, the refusal to dismiss means that a legitimate question of law was put forth.
Firstly, my argument doesn't hang on partisan = untrustworthy. Progress Texas has an agenda, of that there can be no doubt. Progress Texas is the source of much of the counterargument, in various venues. In some cases they're even quoted commenting on ideas as though they were news, when they are the initial source of the ideas. Salon is also guilty of this, as I show in the review.
If you want to discard my assertion that Salon is an awful source that exists only to collect ad revenue from progressives who like to be validated, feel free to do that and instead move on to the substantive criticism of the article itself. It was substantial!
Secondly, I think SiG has gone most of the way to demonstrating that not only was the "conservative" claim false, but the "judges could dismiss" claim was also incorrect.
First, so much of your argument hangs on "partisan = untrustworthy", without any real argument as to why this is the case. You try to bring up an equivalence argument, looking to equate Salon with National Review Online purely on partisan grounds, ignoring the very real criticisms leveled at the latter which explain why it has a low level of trust. And without the argument that partisanship means an untrustworthy argument, you can't just dismiss the work of either Progress Texas or Media Matters out of hand. In short, your argument is built fundamentally on a rotten support, and taking it out causes the argument to collapse.
Second, you try to argue that the fact that neither judge dismissing the argument means nothing. This shows a weak understanding of the law - weak claims are regularly dismissed, and a judge would be derelict in their duty to not dismiss a poorly substantiated claim. At the very least, the refusal to dismiss means that a legitimate question of law was put forth.
Firstly, my argument doesn't hang on partisan = untrustworthy. Progress Texas has an agenda, of that there can be no doubt. Progress Texas is the source of much of the counterargument, in various venues. In some cases they're even quoted commenting on ideas as though they were news, when they are the initial source of the ideas. Salon is also guilty of this, as I show in the review.
If you want to discard my assertion that Salon is an awful source that exists only to collect ad revenue from progressives who like to be validated, feel free to do that and instead move on to the substantive criticism of the article itself. It was substantial!
Secondly, I think SiG has gone most of the way to demonstrating that not only was the "conservative" claim false, but the "judges could dismiss" claim was also incorrect.
Scientists have a clear agenda, does that mean we should dismiss all arguments that human actions are fucking over future generations?
Is there any information about the judges not dismissing the indictments, that includes facts about someone asking the court to dismiss?
That they didn't rule on a motion not before them means nothing. Judges do not dismiss criminal indictments of their own volition. Unless I'm missing something wacky about Texas District Court procedure.
"Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury."
Why could Stubblefield and Richardson dismissed the complaint? Someone help me out here. All I can find are that Perry's current lawyers have made a motion to dismiss recently. (EDIT: One in August, one in Sept that quotes Louis XIV lollllllll /wanking motion)
Most courts can dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim, no?
e: Different in criminal cases? But I think a lot of states' rules allow it.
Show me some, I'd be curious to see. Judges can certainly rule that after the state has presented evidence in a trial, they haven't met their burden to even get to the jury pursuant to a motion for judgment of acquittal/directed verdict by the defense. But sua sponte before trial, or before indictment? I've never heard of that.
Ohio has interpreted their Rule 48 to allow sua sponte dismissal as soon as the court sees the complaint, I gather.
I couldn't say whether this is common in state codes, but I figure that states mostly copy the federal standard, where courts can usually dismiss sua sponte whenever there are grounds for dismissal. I assume that a facially invalid complaint meets that standard but I'm no expert.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
First, so much of your argument hangs on "partisan = untrustworthy", without any real argument as to why this is the case. You try to bring up an equivalence argument, looking to equate Salon with National Review Online purely on partisan grounds, ignoring the very real criticisms leveled at the latter which explain why it has a low level of trust. And without the argument that partisanship means an untrustworthy argument, you can't just dismiss the work of either Progress Texas or Media Matters out of hand. In short, your argument is built fundamentally on a rotten support, and taking it out causes the argument to collapse.
Second, you try to argue that the fact that neither judge dismissing the argument means nothing. This shows a weak understanding of the law - weak claims are regularly dismissed, and a judge would be derelict in their duty to not dismiss a poorly substantiated claim. At the very least, the refusal to dismiss means that a legitimate question of law was put forth.
Firstly, my argument doesn't hang on partisan = untrustworthy. Progress Texas has an agenda, of that there can be no doubt. Progress Texas is the source of much of the counterargument, in various venues. In some cases they're even quoted commenting on ideas as though they were news, when they are the initial source of the ideas. Salon is also guilty of this, as I show in the review.
If you want to discard my assertion that Salon is an awful source that exists only to collect ad revenue from progressives who like to be validated, feel free to do that and instead move on to the substantive criticism of the article itself. It was substantial!
Secondly, I think SiG has gone most of the way to demonstrating that not only was the "conservative" claim false, but the "judges could dismiss" claim was also incorrect.
Scientists have a clear agenda, does that mean we should dismiss all arguments that human actions are fucking over future generations?
Like spool said, there's a lot of stuff in his argument beyond "Salon is a crappy news site, " so maybe we should move beyond that claim and into substantive critique?
(I don't have enough knowledge of the case to opine on whether it's a slam dunk or not, though I certainly think it bears investigation. )
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
First, so much of your argument hangs on "partisan = untrustworthy", without any real argument as to why this is the case. You try to bring up an equivalence argument, looking to equate Salon with National Review Online purely on partisan grounds, ignoring the very real criticisms leveled at the latter which explain why it has a low level of trust. And without the argument that partisanship means an untrustworthy argument, you can't just dismiss the work of either Progress Texas or Media Matters out of hand. In short, your argument is built fundamentally on a rotten support, and taking it out causes the argument to collapse.
Second, you try to argue that the fact that neither judge dismissing the argument means nothing. This shows a weak understanding of the law - weak claims are regularly dismissed, and a judge would be derelict in their duty to not dismiss a poorly substantiated claim. At the very least, the refusal to dismiss means that a legitimate question of law was put forth.
Firstly, my argument doesn't hang on partisan = untrustworthy. Progress Texas has an agenda, of that there can be no doubt. Progress Texas is the source of much of the counterargument, in various venues. In some cases they're even quoted commenting on ideas as though they were news, when they are the initial source of the ideas. Salon is also guilty of this, as I show in the review.
If you want to discard my assertion that Salon is an awful source that exists only to collect ad revenue from progressives who like to be validated, feel free to do that and instead move on to the substantive criticism of the article itself. It was substantial!
Secondly, I think SiG has gone most of the way to demonstrating that not only was the "conservative" claim false, but the "judges could dismiss" claim was also incorrect.
Scientists have a clear agenda, does that mean we should dismiss all arguments that human actions are fucking over future generations?
Like spool said, there's a lot of stuff in his argument beyond "Salon is a crappy news site, " so maybe we should move beyond that claim and into substantive critique?
(I don't have enough knowledge of the case to opine on whether it's a slam dunk or not, though I certainly think it bears investigation. )
The problem with his argument isn't "Salon is crappy", it that he's said "all these groups speaking out about Perry are partisan, so they're inherently untrustworthy," without providing any real evidence that they are untrustworthy. He tries to defend this by equating Salon to NRO, but the comparison doesn't work - we don't distrust NRO because they're right-leaning, we distrust them because they have a history of being economical with the truth. Without that cover to just dismiss what's being said outright, the argument falls apart because he's not actually rebutting the points made.
Posts
I think this is a pretty good example of how the line item veto can grant the executive pretty extraordinary powers should they choose to abuse it. And I think in this case it was certainly abuse. So no, I would rather the executive use the bully pulpit to sway the public opinion of voters in that district, rather than just make an end run around their choice for elected representative.
I just wonder how comfortable you will be with this kind of politically motivated veto power when texas starts going purple, and then eventually blue.
Ann Richards was a pretty good governor, and Bob Bullock was a fantastic Lt. Gov.
That "when" part though.
oh wow
Probably the most intense set of discussions and arguments within the Texas GOP over the last 2 years has been how to do hispanic outreach. Texas hispanic people tend to be mostly catholic and socially very conservative, but also poor and in need of social programs Republicans don't tend to support. Immigration ranks high on their list of issues but broad-based amnesty gets little support.
It's going to be an interesting decade in Texas. Whether they can manage to shift the party and shift the voters is an open question, but nobody's asleep at the switch on this issue. It's do or die, and everybody in the GOP knows it.
I think it's kind of offensive and gross the way Democrats treat minority votes like they're a given, but it's also going to make it easier to pull the rug out from under the DNC.
I forget - how many TX House R's voted against immediate deportation earlier this month again?
That's impressive for the Texas GOP, National GOP is a different story.
They're a given since Democrats literally have no competition with the GOP in most states and nationally in getting their votes. The DNC is hardly flawless, but it doesn't have to be given what the RNC is doing reaching out to minorities.
You'd think this would be the sort of thing that would make a bunch of Hispanic people in Texas mad...
Turns out, not so much. Immigration is a complex issue and the more national Democrats think "as much and as easily as we can manage" is the way to ensure the Hispanic vote, the easier it's going to be to keep Texas red.
this is trending sorely off-topic, but i'll counterpoint your strawman of "the more national Democrats think "as much and as easily as we can manage"" with the actuality of the R position of "none now and none ever".
relevant citation to the actual Democrat position:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill
relevant citation to the actual Republican position:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr5272/text
we really can't say what the effect will be until the next election. so "turns out, not so much" may be a presumptive assumption (or it may not). I know which way I think this burgeoning electorate will lean tho...
More 1st generation here. Having the long border makes for all sorts of weird permutations of things. It's pretty interesting and by no means do I think it's a solved problem for the GOP, but it's a problem they're aware of and actively addressing at the district level. Lots and lots of prominent voices in the party talking about the need to move leftward on various policies related to the hispanic minority, and lots of people arguing that if we just social conservative hard enough it's sure to work. No idea right now which one is going to prevail.
@spool32 has claimed that this piece was poorly done and that he could tear it apart - I welcome him to try.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Admittedly, it's getting difficult to keep straight all of the GOP indictments. Might have to start a separate subforum for them.
It's that they don't care enough to pay attention otherwise.
Hey
@spool32 are you still working on the ripping up?
I am willing to wait for a good ripping up. Make it a good long one.
Juries don't care if they lose access to the defendants when they vote the wrong way.
"Deceptively insightful" seems like a good phrasing for this. It takes a second to get it. Then you get it again.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Hey Spool,
You still working on this.
If so fuck. This is some magnum opus shit.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/rick_perry_might_go_away_for_a_long_long_time_what_even_the_liberal_media_isnt_reporting_about_his_indictment/
That it was published by Salon is, and I think we can all agree on this, a solid strike against taking it seriously at the outset. Salon is a forcefully partisan leftwing outpost, and makes no bones about objectivity or fairness or even accuracy in its reporting. They are red meat for the progressive reader, and in this they're no different than NRO would be for the conservative analog.
I mention this firstly because it shadows everything they write, and secondly because this article is a good example of it. The piece begins by making some disparaging comments about Perry, just so you know where we're going to be working from. Jokes about his disaster at the debate, a quote pulled out of context and used to mock him.
The full quote, which they do in fairness link to, is here:
On to the second paragraph, which asserts that you don't have to be smart to understand what's up but that the media is dumb and, we assume, this writer is going to help us grasp the obvious details. OK then.
3rd graf is our first real source, and no surprise it's Progress Texas, a leftwing lobbying group / PAC opposed to Perry, the Republicans, and every quasi-conservative thing that comes across their desks. They exist specifically and solely to oppose the GOP in Texas however they can. We begin with an appeal to authority that wouldn't fly on these forums, and then in the next paragraph, he lets the director of this lobbying group frame the disagreement via straw men so he can thoroughly trounce the pretend disagreement.
His point 1: That the Perry indictments were the product of a nest of angry but unsophisticated Austin liberals
We discussed this briefly, but none of the legal analysis or the articles I've posted throughout this thread make this argument. It's cherry-picked and doesn't address the meat of the disagreements at all. Apart from the odd snicker at Austin from folks living here, it's been entirely absent from our own discussions and the sources we used.
point 2) That it was a governor’s constitutional power of the veto that was being challenged.
This was instantly discarded and most, possibly all of the people discounting this indictment were at pains to say exactly the opposite. This argument from the director of Progress Texas is smoke and mirrors. No one serious is making it.
Our article's author asserts that "these two do seem to be most central". He makes this assertion with literally no evidence or examples whatsoever - just the word of the partisan director of an organization designed to attack Perry and the GOP. At this point, reasonable people should be skeptical of anything that follows to support attacking the "central" points that the author and his only source so far have established as the crux of the issue. The center is fake, ginned up to make the argument sound good.
But we will continue.
Smith (from Progress Texas) continues by instructing the national media on how they should do journalism. He has a quick wank about Watergate because this is the era he's from and it feels good. Then he claims two things:
1) That two Republican judges did not act as a partisans and discard a complaint means there must be something to the complaint. This is a false conclusion that none of us would accept here. Judges can be honest even if they are Republican, and that they did not act dishonestly to quash an inquiry is no proof of damning evidence.
2) that the special prosecutor is a conservative. This is false.
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/18/mccrum-story/
McCrum has never revealed his political affiliation, does not vote in primaries, donates to both political parties, was nominated by a Democratic President to a position and received bipartisan support from senators and representatives. He's a good lawyer by all accounts, but to call him a conservative is a fabrication. Moreover, and this is important in the course of shitting on this article, it's a fabrication that destroys all the 'credibility' that Smith has as a source. He goes on for two paragraphs about how Real Reporters would know to look deeper given that all these conservatives were involved, but to accept that you have to accept that a) it's impossible to be Republican and have integrity, and b) McCrum has a party affiliation known to the locals.
Neither of those are true. At this point we can discard the entire "where there's Republican smoke, there's illegal fire" attack. it was fake to start with, and supported by insults and lies.
The Salon author instead goes on to develop this point by claiming that you need special magic understanding to see the real truth. He turns to yet another leftwing partisan attack outfit to provide these insights, Media Matters.
To support this idea that the Texas media is taking seriously what the national hacks are brushing off, the salon author quotes Media Matters as they pull another quote out of context:
The full quote, (and again hats off to Salon for at least providing some links to the source material here) is:
It goes on to speculate with no evidence about why the indictment might be a problem for Perry, but, and this again stomps on the "local journos have the right eye" theme that we've already abused, it doesn't provide any new info that wasn't mentioned by national outfits.
The other article, from the Dallas Morning News, asks a bunch of questions but answers none of them even speculatively, and merely argues it's in all our best interests that the case be heard fairly so there's no cloud of partisanship.
Our Salon author links to and pulls from the Slater article we've linked to and discussed already. He sets up 5 straw men, 4 of which we've dealt with over and over:
1) the political angle. Reasonable people disagree on whether this is politically motivated, but if so, it's about the political power of the governor vs the legislature and the judicial system, not about Republican vs Democrat.
2) The drunk driving punishment: This straw man is actually defeated by his previous point, while brushing off the obvious explanation: this was something Perry could do a thing about, since he had power over the PIU's money.
3) the veto: no one is arguing the thing that Slater proves wrong in this point.
4) the corruption angle: I've linked previously to why this was bunk to begin with, a red herring created by Progress Texas and disproved by the very local reporting that our intrepid Salon article lauds.
5) Election 2016: Slater speculates lots here but it's ultimately pointless and even he doesn't take a position.
Back to the Salon article. The author goes on to debunk things we're not confused by and quotes Smith (Progress Texas Director, remember?) in a different venue as he repeats the lie that McCrum is a conservative and pushes the Progress Texas talking points. Let's note that a decent author would write:
but our Salon author doesn't do that... he hopes that you've forgotten who Smith is, and just says
Smith is not at the Tribune. He is at Progress Texas, as their Director. This is intentionally dishonest. But then this whole article is intentionally dishonest. Let's continue.
The next couple of paragraphs repeat the Slater straw men, dismissed above. After that, the author concludes that the national media must be clueless because it, I suppose, hasn't fallen for the tactics of partisan attack groups spreading false information and authors casting aspersions like they're interviewing for jobs at Fox.
We get some quotes from Maddow doing her shtick, in which she says nothing of consequence but echos the above sentiment that at least we should take it seriously. The idea that people aren't taking it seriously in the national media, let's remember, is false and has no relationship to the many legal reasons posted in this thread explaining why the charge is probably bunk and Perry will walk.
Sidebar: I'd like to take a moment to mention that we should fold the corner down on this thread, so that when Perry does get off we can see if Progress Texas, Maddow, salon, and the rest of the folks we've been talking about forget that republican prosecution was proof of seriousness, and instead use it as proof of dishonesty.
We can skip past some of this, because it's Salon quoting Maddow interviewing Slater about the things that Salon quoted Slater talking about earlier in this article and reiterated themselves in the same 5-point structure. This is not new info, it's just noise from a different speaker.
Salon moves on to interviewing James Fallows to see if he agrees with the book he wrote. Turns out that he totally does. Then the author tackles all the credible Democrats who think the indictment is nonsense by saying that they were wrong before (Iraq waaaaaaar!!) and also not progressive enough anyway. He drives home the broader point about local reporting and also progressivism are awesome and fighting against corruption is awesome. No word on the Travis County DA's corruption indictments or her threats to use her office to quash a drunk driving conviction but this author is too busy waving the banner and lamenting how the right-wing has co-opted the idea of being anticorruption to realize how ironic the final sentence of his article is:
Indeed.
If only this article had touched on the legal reasoning against conviction, the statutes or amendments we've talked about, the demolishing of the cancer research corruption theory, or the resume of the special prosecutor, it would have helped us reach for an informed opinion.
Instead we got lies, dishonest attribution, repetition as substitute for evidence, poor reporting, contradictory sentiments, and the use of partisan attack dogs in the process of pushing a set of talking points as legitimate sources of info.
I took the liberty of referencing discussions we've had earlier in the thread, rather than writing them all out again or digging up all the links. I hope you'll forgive me - a search of my name in this thread will turn up all the arguments and source links I mentioned.
First, so much of your argument hangs on "partisan = untrustworthy", without any real argument as to why this is the case. You try to bring up an equivalence argument, looking to equate Salon with National Review Online purely on partisan grounds, ignoring the very real criticisms leveled at the latter which explain why it has a low level of trust. And without the argument that partisanship means an untrustworthy argument, you can't just dismiss the work of either Progress Texas or Media Matters out of hand. In short, your argument is built fundamentally on a rotten support, and taking it out causes the argument to collapse.
Second, you try to argue that the fact that neither judge dismissing the argument means nothing. This shows a weak understanding of the law - weak claims are regularly dismissed, and a judge would be derelict in their duty to not dismiss a poorly substantiated claim. At the very least, the refusal to dismiss means that a legitimate question of law was put forth.
That they didn't rule on a motion not before them means nothing. Judges do not dismiss criminal indictments of their own volition. Unless I'm missing something wacky about Texas District Court procedure.
"Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury."
Why could Stubblefield and Richardson dismissed the complaint? Someone help me out here. All I can find are that Perry's current lawyers have made a motion to dismiss recently. (EDIT: One in August, one in Sept that quotes Louis XIV lollllllll /wanking motion)
I would imagine that Perry's team would have sent in requests for summary dismissal as part of his defense. If the case was truly as weak as was claimed, such an argument should have been sustainable.
While it was a complaint? Before grand jury? I need more info about this procedure.
Also there is no summary judgment in criminal cases, like there is civil cases, where you can get the court to dismiss for failure to state a claim. They'd have to file a constitutional demurrer like what they filed in August/Sept. Was something filed earlier? Surely we would have it?
Most courts can dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim, no?
e: Different in criminal cases? But I think a lot of states' rules allow it.
In Texas, a criminal case is initiated with a complaint:
Here is the initiating complaint filed in June in Travis County:
http://info.tpj.org/press_releases/pdf/Threatcomplaint.coxescamilla.pdf
The complaint is a felony so it would have been "registered" with a magistrate. The DA of Travis County has a conflict here, obviously. The first judge recused herself, the case was eventually assigned to Judge Richardson. Judge Richardson assigns special prosecutor McCrum.
McCrum then took the case to grand jury, which issued an indictment for Perry. He was booked on that indictment and his lawyers have now filed legal motions in the case.
I am not all the way searching through Texas's code of crim procedure, but if someone else sees something that allows a judge to dismiss a criminal complaint before it is shown to grand jury and indictment issued let me know. I don't think it's accurate to say the judges involved pre-grand jury could have dismissed the complaint.
Show me some, I'd be curious to see. Judges can certainly rule that after the state has presented evidence in a trial, they haven't met their burden to even get to the jury pursuant to a motion for judgment of acquittal/directed verdict by the defense. But sua sponte before trial, or before indictment? I've never heard of that.
Firstly, my argument doesn't hang on partisan = untrustworthy. Progress Texas has an agenda, of that there can be no doubt. Progress Texas is the source of much of the counterargument, in various venues. In some cases they're even quoted commenting on ideas as though they were news, when they are the initial source of the ideas. Salon is also guilty of this, as I show in the review.
If you want to discard my assertion that Salon is an awful source that exists only to collect ad revenue from progressives who like to be validated, feel free to do that and instead move on to the substantive criticism of the article itself. It was substantial!
Secondly, I think SiG has gone most of the way to demonstrating that not only was the "conservative" claim false, but the "judges could dismiss" claim was also incorrect.
Scientists have a clear agenda, does that mean we should dismiss all arguments that human actions are fucking over future generations?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Ohio has interpreted their Rule 48 to allow sua sponte dismissal as soon as the court sees the complaint, I gather.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/criminal/CriminalProcedure.pdf
I couldn't say whether this is common in state codes, but I figure that states mostly copy the federal standard, where courts can usually dismiss sua sponte whenever there are grounds for dismissal. I assume that a facially invalid complaint meets that standard but I'm no expert.
Like spool said, there's a lot of stuff in his argument beyond "Salon is a crappy news site, " so maybe we should move beyond that claim and into substantive critique?
(I don't have enough knowledge of the case to opine on whether it's a slam dunk or not, though I certainly think it bears investigation. )
The problem with his argument isn't "Salon is crappy", it that he's said "all these groups speaking out about Perry are partisan, so they're inherently untrustworthy," without providing any real evidence that they are untrustworthy. He tries to defend this by equating Salon to NRO, but the comparison doesn't work - we don't distrust NRO because they're right-leaning, we distrust them because they have a history of being economical with the truth. Without that cover to just dismiss what's being said outright, the argument falls apart because he's not actually rebutting the points made.