In this case all I'm doing is passing on what the News reported Holder said. I have no idea what he really thinks about the Siegelman case, nor if he really DOES have a review underway or in mind...
My commentary should not be so construed to assert that you are reporting anything other than what you read.
However, with respect for what you (or anyone else has has, or may read) "believability" is the so-called name of the game when it comes to reporting. And thus, believability and truth are inseparable.
Seeing it is such, at this juncture, I hold great skepticism on anything the Newhouse News-owned Birmingham News might report on any alleged case.
At this juncture, it's a "he said, she said" game.
And what an abysmally sorry remark it is!
They CAN and SHOULD do BETTER!
NO EXCUSES!
Others have reported that there are EXCEEDINGLY MORE irregularities in the Siegelman/Scrushy case than were in the Ted Stevens case.
So, go figure. It certainly makes no sense to believe otherwise.
Thus, we have come full circle - believability and truth.
In the Stevens case there was a Judge who continuously criticized the Prosecutors for their misbehavior, in the Siegelman case the Judge appeared to be pro-prosecution. That may make it more difficult to address allegations of prosecuturial misconduct, no?
While the issue of jurists' impartiality (or lack thereof) certainly may be treading upon treacherous territory, I have always held that judges should be impartial - that is, open minded to the extent they withhold judgment (remember, the determination of guilt is a jury's charge) until verdictified. (Good grief! Doncha' just love that word?) Perhaps it would be more appropriately "until a verdict is rendered."
As well, a jurist's responsibilities are to uphold the rules of procedure in the courtroom. Some might call it legal, or courtroom "decorum."
Thus, we see that the judge is supposed to be an impartial arbiter in all things "courtroom."
That a judge may hold an opinion that tends toward the prosecution or the defense at the outset of a case is definitely disconcerting.
Thus, any allegation(s) of such impropriety (vis-à-vis, partiality, or partisanship) are, or could be substantial grounds for higher judicial review.
Judges should warn the defense or prosecution if they are misbehaving. That is precisely a jurist's job. For them to purposely ignore misbehavior would constitute judicial misconduct, and be grounds for their own impeachment.
Yeah... right.
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe that?
In this case all I'm doing is passing on what the News reported Holder said. I have no idea what he really thinks about the Siegelman case, nor if he really DOES have a review underway or in mind...
ReplyDeleteMy commentary should not be so construed to assert that you are reporting anything other than what you read.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with respect for what you (or anyone else has has, or may read) "believability" is the so-called name of the game when it comes to reporting. And thus, believability and truth are inseparable.
Seeing it is such, at this juncture, I hold great skepticism on anything the Newhouse News-owned Birmingham News might report on any alleged case.
At this juncture, it's a "he said, she said" game.
And what an abysmally sorry remark it is!
They CAN and SHOULD do BETTER!
NO EXCUSES!
Others have reported that there are EXCEEDINGLY MORE irregularities in the Siegelman/Scrushy case than were in the Ted Stevens case.
So, go figure. It certainly makes no sense to believe otherwise.
Thus, we have come full circle - believability and truth.
In the Stevens case there was a Judge who continuously criticized the Prosecutors for their misbehavior, in the Siegelman case the Judge appeared to be pro-prosecution. That may make it more difficult to address allegations of prosecuturial misconduct, no?
ReplyDeleteWhile the issue of jurists' impartiality (or lack thereof) certainly may be treading upon treacherous territory, I have always held that judges should be impartial - that is, open minded to the extent they withhold judgment (remember, the determination of guilt is a jury's charge) until verdictified. (Good grief! Doncha' just love that word?) Perhaps it would be more appropriately "until a verdict is rendered."
ReplyDeleteAs well, a jurist's responsibilities are to uphold the rules of procedure in the courtroom. Some might call it legal, or courtroom "decorum."
Thus, we see that the judge is supposed to be an impartial arbiter in all things "courtroom."
That a judge may hold an opinion that tends toward the prosecution or the defense at the outset of a case is definitely disconcerting.
Thus, any allegation(s) of such impropriety (vis-à-vis, partiality, or partisanship) are, or could be substantial grounds for higher judicial review.
Judges should warn the defense or prosecution if they are misbehaving. That is precisely a jurist's job. For them to purposely ignore misbehavior would constitute judicial misconduct, and be grounds for their own impeachment.