the best little read ive had in a long, long time
- Thread starter ziggity
- Start date
*Daddy Alt walks in...."Now calm down now children, we all know what happens when you've been naughty and have to go to Castle Anthrax as punishment"
(For those of you that didn't catch it, that was a Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference. Personally, its my favorite scene in the whole movie)
(For those of you that didn't catch it, that was a Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference. Personally, its my favorite scene in the whole movie)
dcwrestlefan
Sexy Member
Just for the record, since I posted the first response here, I was NOT attacking or criticizing you personally Zig. No name calling here. I was attacking the judge's speech. Its apparent you love your country and thats great. I do too, just not the current batch of creeps that are running it and the bad decisions they are making.
I found the judge's patriotic drum beating out of line because its not what he is there for, and our nation is currently involved in killing Iraqis based on a lie. Our soldiers are dying. Its wrong. We said we were going there because Saddam had WMDs. He did not. As long as this unjust war continues, Shrub and the judge have no right to go around saying how much we love freedom. We don't have it here. We should be hunting down Osama Bin Laden, not gunning down people in Iraq.
Just wondering if I read this right in a previous post. You WANT to be involved in this war personally?
Resigning from the string at this point. I'm going to go sit down and eat my pudding.
For what it's worth, I thought the judge's speech reflected very poorly on him. The thing contained no reference to any special knowledge of the case the judge may have had - you'd think, should have had - and therefore gives the impression that the trial made no difference, that it was a mere formality. The presumption that the judge knows the prisoner's motivation better than the prisoner, his counsel, and the prosecuting counsel is sheer lunatic arrogance - especially when it's such an unlikely reason.
If the judge had brought in a little CD player to play some stirring patriotic music while he spoke, it wouldn't in the least have surprised me. But perhaps he likes the sound of his own voice too much.
If the judge had brought in a little CD player to play some stirring patriotic music while he spoke, it wouldn't in the least have surprised me. But perhaps he likes the sound of his own voice too much.
- jonb,
"Lunatic" is a good way to describe it. The ideal judge shouldn't be swayed by politics. But then again, we've got a Supreme Court which has no problem ruling that Bush won 2000 and admitting in their opinion that they have no legal basis. (In fact, the majority opinion specifically says Bush v. Gore won't set a precedent, and in favor of an injunction because a recount would do "irreparable harm" to "Bush's reputation as the legitimate winner".)
Honestly, I don't think law has mattered to the courts in ages; to prove my point, I'll bring up the Oliphant v. Suquamish and Duro v. Reina opinions.
Honestly, I don't think law has mattered to the courts in ages; to prove my point, I'll bring up the Oliphant v. Suquamish and Duro v. Reina opinions.
Similar threads
