The criminalizing of political opposition.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Its funny how all the things the left blamed Bush for they actually do. The latest indictment of Perry in TX is a joke. I 1st heard it and thought uh-oh, but then learned it only comes from his use of a veto. The progressives are determined to criminalize any opposition. They did it to Delay, they tried to do it to bush but had to settle for Libby, tried to on Scott Walker and of course try to on the teaparty by labeling them terrorists at every opportunity.

Does it strike anyone else that the grand jury system is corrupt and broken when they use it in such a way?

[zrct02]

The Travis County (Austin, TX) DA was stopped for a traffic violation. She blew 3 times the legal limit and had an open bottle of vodka in her car. Perry asked her to resign as DA. She refused. He threatened to defund a ethics watchdog agency the DA ran. She still refused. He kept his promise and defunded the agency.
Let's see - A drunk running an ethics watchdog agency - Yeah, right. Evidently said watchdog agency said nothing about the drunk DA.

[HiTemp]

This is all smoke and mirrors. They don't stand a chance in court as veto powers are well established in dozens of state courts, federal courts, even the SCOTUS as a power vested solely in the office. That means Perry has the right to veto legislation because he fears it might lead to war with Martians and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Just like the president has authority to grant pardons as he so sees fit. He doesn't have to give a reason for them, and can therefore offer any reason, true or false, and the legality of the pardon stands. So it is with vetoing legislation. Perry is free to veto that legislation because he doesn't like someone's shade of lipstick or what kind of sneakers they wear or because he thinks it doesn't go far enough in solving global warming. Veto power is the prerogative of his office and no court has the right to tell him he can't. That's basic separation of powers that solved in the courts about 200 years ago. Perry is on solid ground. Any court that claims legality to deny his veto therefore is claiming power to judicially review every action of vote by the governor. If that stands, they must also have that same power to deny/review legislative body votes, and could then tell the Texas Senate they got a vote wrong and have to go back and recast it.

The only other place where this has happened in the 20th century is in Massachusetts where the state Supreme court found the MA legislature violated the state constitution by banning gay marriage. That is their jurisdictional prerogative. But they took it one step further and ORDERED the legislature to go back and re-craft a law that allows it. That they do NOT have the power to do. No court has the right to ORDER a legislature to pass a law of the court's desire. They are a separate government power and one does not have power to compel the other to do anything. If the legislature cows to them and does so, that's on them, but they had every right to tell the court to STFU.

If the TX court can compel the governor, then the SCOTUS can compel the president to veto or not veto legislation. I seriously doubt many liberals want to see Justice Thomas or Chief Justice Roberts telling Obama he can't veto a piece of legislation passed by Congress. There would be liberal heads exploding all over Washington.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I'm glad you guys fleshed that out, all of which is spot on, I didn't take the time earlier. But it bothers me that a grand jury can come up with an indictment despite 1) he was fully within his constitutional power and no legal basis for one, and 2) in doing so is an abuse of power itself. All these grand jurors and prosecutor could then be indicted for using their constitutional powers as an abuse of power. Its so stupid that the progressives would use this and try this except they know everyone on the right is so gutless they will not reciprocate apparently believing ignoring a strategy will make it go away. IMO fighting fire with fire would end this subversion of the system for political agenda quicker than a slurry drop.

Its really all about giving Perry a the title of "indicted" before a campaign cycle. And the group that started this is a Soros and other progressive funded election smear team. I suspect he is probably Vlad Dracula under a new identity, but I keep hoping that old bastard dies sooner than later, and I don't say that very often about anyone. Though he has probably bred a dozen more just like him to take his place when gone.

[HiTemp]

The grand jury has only one function; listen to the evidence presented to it by the prosecutor and decide if that evidence merits prosecution on THAT charge. This isn't court with two sides making a case, it's a prosecutor only presenting only the evidence he wishes to present, and of course it's almost always going to be evidence supporting the charge.

In this case with Perry, the question before the grand jury was whether or not official power was abused, and one such way it can be abused is through threat. Perry did threaten to veto the legislation if the woman in charge of the TX Ethics Junk Yard Dogs or whatever they're called didn't resign. He did make a threat to use official power in a certain way and then carried it out.

What the grand jury is not there to decide is whether or not a veto constitutes an abuse. That, as I've said, is already a decided legal matter and was not before the grand jury. So it doesn't surprise me that the grand jury, presented with evidence a threat was made, evidence the body of that threat was carried out, returns an indictment. All that indictment means is that they felt there was sufficient cause to hold a trial where the facts will be decided. It doesn't mean anything in terms of guilt or innocence, though you'd be hard pressed to determine that from the way our media treats indictments. Look at Ferguson and the Trayvon Martin thing; all the cries are to "indict" the officer and in the Martin case, indict Zimmerman, as though once they secure an indictment it's case closed. Look at how many in the media were flummoxed by the Zimmerman case outcome. "How can this be... innocent? We INDICTED him!" They simply don't care to acknowledge the difference. Hell, even the show "COPS" puts up a little thing on the screen saying the idiots shown on screen are innocent until proven guilty.

It's always a sure sign that there's more to the story when there is such a hard effort to incite indictments and stoke the fires calling for justice. If the crime was as egregious as claimed, justice would come down on the guilty. It's only when people know full well "justice" means they have to bury their son knowing he, for whatever reason, was not the college-dreaming innocent they thought but was the street thug they didn't want him to become. You'll never convince me those parents didn't see who Brown was hanging with, didn't know the culture of what that kind of hanging out represents, and never saw him show up with merchandise beyond what should be his ability to afford. None of my kids, preparing for college, could afford a $49 box of cigars. Were they to show up with one I would certainly have curiosity about where they got them.

I can understand them being angry and upset about their son's death. I don't understand them stooping to reputation vigilantism as a way in which to try and settle the score. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

True, a judge appoints but does not instruct the grand juries on any constitutionality, usually its a prosecutors show.

[zrct02]

I wonder if she'll be drunk when she presents her 'evidence'.

[HiTemp]

Ha! That would be great wouldn't it, for her to show up to court jammed? LOL

I wonder if this will even make it to trial. I suspect it's going to be decided by pre-trial motions to dismiss with a possible outreach to the TX Supreme Court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of a Governor's power to veto. If that happens, it's all over. This is settled law and has been for over 150 years. To quote Al Gore, "there is no controlling legal authority" with the power to command any Governor to NOT veto anything. If he wasn't suing Al Jezera for oil money so that he can continue his global campaign against oil, Gore might be able to clear this whole thing up.

Either way, the Travis Co. DA now has the reputation of an idiot who can't stand the taste of her own medicine. Why isn't she in jail?

[Stetto, man...]

This is the "art" of identity politics. They "legally" attach a negative connotation to someone they see as a risk to their goals, ie. elections, and have their media branch make said connotation into part of that person. Cristy, Walker, heck, they STILL refer to GW as having convictions when brought up in conversation. The "Enthusiastic Supporters" amongst us depend on those name tags to remember both who to vote for and what their fallback position will be in a political discussion.

The media is a HUGE component of the identity-creation industry, and they can even run in reverse when one of theirs is threatened--Just think of Teddy the Swimmer or Dan Rather.

Orwell, Bradbury, Caldwell, Rand, even Paul Harvey foresaw this decades ago, before the dems threw the Soviet flag over the ass's back.

[zrct02]

From MSN.
Top Republicans have been especially quick to defend him, though, since a jail video following Lehmberg's April 2013 arrest showed the district attorney badly slurring her words, shouting at staffers to call the sheriff, kicking the door of her cell, and sticking her tongue out. Her blood alcohol level was also three times the legal limit for driving.

Seems to me she was abusing her power by shouting at staffers to call the sheriff. Oh, but that doesn't count 'cause she was drunk.

[HiTemp]

Predictably, Politico ran a piece yesterday by a Dem strategerist that proclaimed how open an shut a case this is, how Perry is going down, etc. Didn't cite a single legal reference or anything resembling case law. Basically, the piece was to point out that two other DAs in TX have done the same thing and there was no call for them to step down.

I think it was amazingly obvious that neither of the other two were running an ethics investigatory unit. The writer attempted to link Perry to an ongoing investigation by that ethics unit with the call to step down being a way for Perry to replace the DA with one who was not inclined to continue the investigation. Here on display once again is the idea that if someone is being investigated that means they are guilty as suspected and therefore any action is motivated by them trying to extract their own backside from the fire. No Dem would ever engage in anything like that, would they? Like Clinton? Kennedy? Obama? Holder? Naw, couldn't possibly be. Only Rs do that.

That's what I got from the Politico OpEd. Basically came across as one of those you can't accuse me because you're doing X. Most childish and blatant attempt to justify bad behavior since Michael Jackson's publicists tried using the "it's lonely at the top" thing to justify his wild excursions from normal behavior.