|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sweet! [message #59054 is a reply to message #59049] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 14:52   |
PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (2nd Degree) |
|
|
|
though I was not expecting to see such good sense from Detroit. First good thing I've seen the Criminal Liberties Union supporting in a while. If only those SOB's would refrain from hobbling folk who're dealing with illeagal immigrant legislation.
cheers,
Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wash Post: "A Judicial Misfire" [message #59061 is a reply to message #59049] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 08:17 |
elektratig
Messages: 348
Registered: May 2009
|
Grand Master |
|
|
|
I rarely agree with the Post, but I do agree with many points made in its editorial today, "A Judicial Misfire." Whether the result ultimately proves right or wrong, the entire opinion is amateurish. If a junior associate, or a judge's law clerk, produced work product like this, he/she would be put on warning or terminated. It's also demeaning to the federal judiciary to look so blatantly partisan. In the end, the chief victim of the decision is going to be the judge's reputation, not the administration.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Wash Post: "A Judicial Misfire" [message #59062 is a reply to message #59061] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 08:33 |
Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (13th Degree) |
|
|
Yes but it has accomplished what we wanted. If you follow the developement of this situation the Administration has always tried this case in the media but has been very reticent to actually involve the courts. Now they must be hauled into the eye of the court and argue their case where it counts and answer for their conduct in a forum more serious than the media.
Thats the positive outcome from this ruling. The Judge is irrelevant here in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
