Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: HankB on June 06, 2017, 12:29:32 PM
-
Just a "Feel Good" story to raise everyone's spirits . . .
A Rochester, NY circuit court judge was led out in handcuffs for missing a court appearance for her drunken driving conviction.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ny-judge-arrested-led-from-courthouse-in-handcuffs/ar-BBC6AKq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ny-judge-arrested-led-from-courthouse-in-handcuffs/ar-BBC6AKq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP)
Oh . . . and she's a Democrat. :rofl:
-
Wow, that article really rips her up. It reads as if it were unbiased: fact, fact, fact, and I hope it is.
It's a must read, to my mind.
Though she still receives her paycheck, Astacio has been prohibited from presiding over cases since before her drunken driving conviction in August and has been barred from entering non-public areas of the courthouse since November. Her annual salary is $173,700.
Wowsa.
-
10 year terms? Wow, talk about avoiding public accountability for your job performance. He'll, if she doesn't get removed, no one will remember this when she runs again in 2023.
-
10 year terms? Wow, talk about avoiding public accountability for your job performance. He'll, if she doesn't get removed, no one will remember this when she runs again in 2023.
I notice the big smiles as she's being led away in handcuffs.
Must be nice having a job that you cannot lose for 10 years and are likely to retain because you check the right diversity boxes for the voters.
-
Wowsa.
You know, I'm all fine with people retaining their jobs and even being paid while sitting in jail waiting for trial, but I can't help but think that the military actively kicks out people convicted of DUI?
Why does she get to keep her paycheck when she's been determined to be unable to do her job? Most of the military guys can at least do that, but they're still on their way out after a conviction.
And of all the people to miss a court appearance, when she's still in the courthouse, presumably doing some sort of make-work?
That said, it looks like she's ignoring the court orders in other things as well. She's the one *expletive deleted*ing up her life.
As for judge elections:
1. I'm somewhat opposed to them. Should be confirmation vote only, I think(keep or get rid of)
2. 10 years is a pretty normal time for judicial elections, where they are held.
3. I would hope that she wouldn't be allowed to run, being ineligible to sit on the bench.
-
Just a "Feel Good" story to raise everyone's spirits . . .
A Rochester, NY circuit court judge was led out in handcuffs for missing a court appearance for her drunken driving conviction.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ny-judge-arrested-led-from-courthouse-in-handcuffs/ar-BBC6AKq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ny-judge-arrested-led-from-courthouse-in-handcuffs/ar-BBC6AKq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP)
Oh . . . and she's a Democrat. :rofl:
I'm confused. We're supposed to feel good because a drunk is being paid $173,xxx a year to NOT work?
-
You know, I'm all fine with people retaining their jobs and even being paid while sitting in jail waiting for trial, but I can't help but think that the military actively kicks out people convicted of DUI?
Why does she get to keep her paycheck when she's been determined to be unable to do her job? Most of the military guys can at least do that, but they're still on their way out after a conviction.
And of all the people to miss a court appearance, when she's still in the courthouse, presumably doing some sort of make-work?
That said, it looks like she's ignoring the court orders in other things as well. She's the one *expletive deleted*ing up her life.
As for judge elections:
1. I'm somewhat opposed to them. Should be confirmation vote only, I think(keep or get rid of)
2. 10 years is a pretty normal time for judicial elections, where they are held.
3. I would hope that she wouldn't be allowed to run, being ineligible to sit on the bench.
Here in Ohio judges are elected for 6 year terms, still too long.
-
Here in Ohio judges are elected for 6 year terms, still too long.
Why is it too long? In many places we're already electing so many people that many just vote party line.
Personally, I think that most judges should be like cops. Employees, not elected officials. That way they can be fired relatively quickly.
-
Why is it too long? In many places we're already electing so many people that many just vote party line.
Personally, I think that most judges should be like cops. Employees, not elected officials. That way they can be fired relatively quickly.
Fired by who? The other elected politicians. I am not sure that is an improvement. I was thinking about the average police chief versus the average sherif. You could probably make a case for each way.
I thought there were states who appointed judges. Any comparison?
-
Fired by who? The other elected politicians. I am not sure that is an improvement. I was thinking about the average police chief versus the average sherif. You could probably make a case for each way.
I thought there were states who appointed judges. Any comparison?
My state appoints judges. All levels except Probate. I don't remember if the appointments are 10-year, or lifetime.
-
Not the only one recently.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/08/lurlyn-winchester-monroe-judge-federal-charges/379961001/
-
^
Well, I'm not clear on such long-gone details, but didn't Hillary buy a condo or something in New York just to establish residency to run for Senator? While it's impossible to read "intent" into that, the chronology strongly suggested it.
-
Not the only one recently.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/08/lurlyn-winchester-monroe-judge-federal-charges/379961001/
Wow. I'm all for having legal consequences for defrauding a company; though I think that is mostly a civil matter depending. However this probably shouldn't carry a longer sentence than most violent crimes.
Winchester faces one count of making false statements to a mortgage lending business, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.
-
She's going to jail . . . =D
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-sentenced-to-60-days-jail-3-years-probation/ar-BBDVNxe?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-sentenced-to-60-days-jail-3-years-probation/ar-BBDVNxe?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP)
But only for a short time . . . =(
And it would seem that she still may be getting her pay . . . :mad:
-
Here in Ohio judges are elected for 6 year terms, still too long.
Judges here have to be voted OUT of office, so in essence, it's a lifetime gig.
-
I vote against everyone every election.
-
Our election board puts out a guide for voters on the issues. Over the years I've found it's pretty bias-free. One of the "issues" is whether judges up for retention in office are to be retained in office.
I do pick and choose as to whom to vote for one way or another based on their reviews. I look for comments on their scholarship, the opinions of the lawyers in their courtrooms, etc, etc.
I don't think it's fair to us --or to our gun rights --to adopt a "boot 'em all out" attitude (though I sometimes sound that way when I talk about our legislators and term limits).
However, I suspect that the "I vote against everyone every election" attitude might be valid in some jurisdictions, largely related to population density.
Terry
-
Unless the judge admits to herself that she is the problem, there will be no healing.
-
I vote against everyone every election.
I may start that policy in a limited basis.
-
The question of how to get judges in office is an ongoing debate in the justice system. On the plus side, elected judges have accountability to the public for their actions. But you end up with politicians on the bench, and decisions being influenced by the political impact of the outcome, especially as you get closer to the elections. Appointed judges have the benefit of being free from politics, in that decisions can be made solely on the law with no regard to potential electoral ramifications. On the negative, though, you end up with judges who have no accountability to the public they are appointed to serve. So states have tried to split the difference, with judges who are appointed but there are retention votes by the public to determine if the appointment should continue. In theory, you get the best of both, in that you have judges who can act solely on what the law says without concern about having to explain decisions each election cycle. In reality, you end up with what becomes a lifetime appointment because an uninformed electorate simply votes for the incumbent, just as they tend to do in most elections. Without some judge seriously screwing the pooch and creating an organized effort to remove that judge, you usually keep the same faces on the bench.
What's the best answer? Don't know. All I do know is that I'm quickly learning that my 23+ years of experience as a prosecutor and judicial officer seems to be less important to the party than my lack of history serving the party, working on elections in the past, and blindly supporting past candidates. The fact that as first as a prosecutor assigned as a civil attorney to the board of elections, and now as a judicial officer that I am prohibited from publicly supporting a candidate is irrelevant. Oh, and my private support for a local teacher's union who went on strike (for all the right reasons, IMHO), was against the party platform, and is a black mark on my potential candidacy.
-
My father was a life-long Republican. Not for any reasons he could actually explain, in words that made sense. He just hated Democrats. My father would have voted for Attila the Hun for President if Attila had run as a Republican. This, IMHO, is exemplary of all that's wrong with our current two-party system. It's not about the qualifications of the candidate, it's about his or her loyalty to the party.
After his retirement, my father was a member of the local Republican Town Committee. After one election, there was a vacancy on the local planning and zoning commission. I'm an architect with experience in planning, so I suggested that I'd be a good choice for the slot. My father's response was that he wouldn't suggest me because I wasn't a republican. (I have always been an unaffiliated voter.) So they appointed some hack. Two elections later, there was another vacancy, and I repeated my suggestion. I guess my father was softening as he aged, because he did take it to the RTC. They compromised -- they elevated a loyal Republican from alternate to full member, and then appointed me as one of three alternates. I was the only alternate who regularly attended meetings so, six months later, when the chairman resigned because he was moving out of town, I was picked to move up to full member. And when none of the regular members wanted the chairmanship, I was made Chairman.
Which was serendipitous for the Republicans, because when the Democrats complained that the Republicans were stacking all the appointed boards, the mayor was able to point out that, after all, the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission was an unaffiliated voter. :facepalm:
This country needs at least one more viable party, preferably at least two more. The problem is how to bootstrap that into being when everyone is terrified of giving "the other" party an advantage while building up a third party that's in line with their leanings.
-
....
This country needs at least one more viable party, preferably at least two more. The problem is how to bootstrap that into being when everyone is terrified of giving "the other" party an advantage while building up a third party that's in line with their leanings.
I've long wished for that out loud, knowing full well that it was impossible in today's political milieu without a country-wide referendum, and most die-hard party members, R or D, would not vote for it.
^ As noted by Hawkmoon.
The major objection seems to be, "but nothing will get done, because you have to form a coalition of diverse interests to pass anything."
My first reaction to that is a sardonic, "So what's wrong with not getting anything done? You call these people 'legislators,' and by golly, they feel duty-bound to keep legislating."
I sometimes add, "And it is the essential function of any government of any form, to progressively limit freedom."
Me second reaction is that the empty words, "I'm the President of all the people," would have to take on genuine form and substance.
Terry
(Edited for clarity 10 Jul 17)
-
I've long wished for that out loud, knowing full well that it was impossible in today's political milieu without a country-wide referendum, and most die-hard party members, R or D, would not vote for it.
As noted by Hawkmoon.
The major objection seems to be, "but nothing will get done, because you have to form a coalition of diverse interests to pass anything."
My first reaction to that is a sardonic, "So what's wrong with not getting anything done? You call these people 'legislators,' and by golly, they feel duty-bound to keep legislating."
I sometimes add, "And it is the essential function of any government of any form, to progressively limit freedom."
Me second reaction is that the empty words, "I'm the President of all the people," would have to take on genuine form and substance.
Terry
No one who has any amount of understanding would object that nothing would get done. They would object that the Democrats would have total control fairly quickly.
The solitary, and only pertinent objection is that a "first past the post" system, as ours is, means that whoever gets the most votes wins. The party that gets more votes wins, period.
"Splitting" the two parties so it feels like it's ok to vote for a different party more closely aligned to your views will eventually mean some people will realize they get more votes by merging interests earlier... leading to 2 of the proposed 4 parties dying and getting back to two.
That's why when the Republican party was created, it killed the Whigs. Three parties cannot compete in a system such as ours. (Nor larger numbers).
-
Well, that's exactly what Hawkmoon noted in that last paragraph.
You will also note that I said "I've long wished for that out loud..."
Not to pump Trump, but I suspect that a viable third party lurks in the back of his mind. But it would require strict term limits for everybody, which damned few politicians would allow.
Truly, power aggrandizes itself, whence the also-unviable remark of William F. Buckley, Jr. about selecting random people for office out of the phone book.
(Well, he said the "Boston" phone book, which is a real fly in the ointment, to me.)
Wishful thinking aside, it pays to bring up stuff like term limitations and coalitions and so forth to strike fear in the hearts of the entrenched powermeisters.
I guess the root problem is that half of humans want to be dictated to, the other half want to do the dictating. (Heinlein?)
Terry, 230RN
REF:
https://youtu.be/2nf_bu-kBr4
-
Not to pump Trump, but I suspect that a viable third party lurks in the back of his mind. But it would require strict term limits for everybody, which damned few politicians would allow.
At this point, I figure that a usurpation of one of the existing parties is more likely.
-
I vote against everyone every election.
Sadly Jim, there's just no enough of us. I do the same thing.
-
Moar judges behaving badly:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article160397884.html
-
Reply #22:
No one who has any amount of understanding would object that nothing would get done. They would object that the Democrats would have total control fairly quickly.
The solitary, and only pertinent objection is that a "first past the post" system, as ours is, means that whoever gets the most votes wins. The party that gets more votes wins, period.
"Splitting" the two parties so it feels like it's ok to vote for a different party more closely aligned to your views will eventually mean some people will realize they get more votes by merging interests earlier... leading to 2 of the proposed 4 parties dying and getting back to two.
That's why when the Republican party was created, it killed the Whigs. Three parties cannot compete in a system such as ours. (Nor larger numbers).
I agree that a re-coalition back to two parties is a possibility, nay, danger, but I think forming a viable third (or fourth) might be worth at least a "gedankexperiment," a "thought experiment."
While a thought experiment* allows one to play with concepts "without getting your hands dirty," in this case it also serves the admirable purpose of scaring the powermeisters into washing their hands.
Whew! That's stretching a metaphor, ain't it?
But exactly what you fear, that is, a re-coalescence into two parties, is what has happened so far:
There ain't a crap's worth of difference between the R party and the D party nowadays.
In other words, it would merely be a return to the present situation anyway.
Thus, this gedankexperiment is certainly worth playing with, but I don't expect President Trump to toy with it until later in his term... perhaps after the 2018 elections.
Terry
* EXAMPLE (Optional reading): The classic example of a thought-experiment is when Galileo conceived of dropping a five pound weight and a ten pound weight from the tower of Pisa to destroy the prevailing concept that heavier weights fall faster than lighter weights.
Except the weights would be chained together.
Would the five pound weight thereby "hold back" the ten pound weight so they fell at an intermediate speed, or would the two, taken together, weigh fifteen pounds and thereby fall faster than either of them by themselves?
This time the gedankexperiment (without the chain) was performed, with the result that they both fell at the same rate. (Or accelerations, to be proper about it.)
This was one famous case where the experimenter actually "got his hands dirty" in order to demonstrate reality.
-
Reply #22:
I agree that a re-coalition back to two parties is a possibility, nay, danger, but I think forming a viable third (or fourth) might be worth at least a "gedankexperiment," a "thought experiment."
While a thought experiment* allows one to play with concepts "without getting your hands dirty," in this case it also serves the admirable purpose of scaring the powermeisters into washing their hands.
Whew! That's stretching a metaphor, ain't it?
But exactly what you fear, that is, a re-coalescence into two parties, is what has happened so far:
There ain't a crap's worth of difference between the R party and the D party nowadays.
In other words, it would merely be a return to the present situation anyway.
Thus, this gedankexperiment is certainly worth playing with, but I don't expect President Trump to toy with it until later in his term... perhaps after the 2018 elections.
Terry
* EXAMPLE (Optional reading): The classic example of a thought-experiment is when Galileo conceived of dropping a five pound weight and a ten pound weight from the tower of Pisa to destroy the prevailing concept that heavier weights fall faster than lighter weights.
Except the weights would be chained together.
Would the five pound weight thereby "hold back" the ten pound weight so they fell at an intermediate speed, or would the two, taken together, weigh fifteen pounds and thereby fall faster than either of them by themselves?
This time the gedankexperiment (without the chain) was performed, with the result that they both fell at the same rate. (Or accelerations, to be proper about it.)
This was one famous case where the experimenter actually "got his hands dirty" in order to demonstrate reality.
We had that experiment, actually. People were so dissatisfied with the Whigs that they did form a 3rd party, the Republican Party. And, as I said, the Whigs promptly died.
Having the experiment again would produce the same situation: Democrats would have total control for a time while the new party gets its feet under it. The Republicans would die and the "new" party would take over. (Whether or not a civil war erupts when that happens is up for debate.)
-
But talking it up introduces the fear factor and "raises consciousness" about their longevity in office.
After all, a new (hypothetical) party might make better pie in the sky and freebies for all promises.
Or, less pie in the sky and freebies for all promises.