Someone will have to hear this case eventually

November 3, 2005

Tom DeLay’s legal team asked State district Judge Bob Perkins not to consider DeLay’s money-laundering case because Perkins gave money to Dems and progressive causes. So a new judge took on the case — until he was booted too.

Two days after U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay won a fight to get a new judge in his case, prosecutors on Thursday succeeded in ousting the Republican jurist responsible for selecting the new judge.

Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub recused himself after District Attorney Ronnie Earle filed a motion asking for his removal from the case.

Schraub said he will ask the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court name a judge to preside over DeLay’s conspiracy and money laundering trial.

Perkins contributed more than $5,000 to Dems, Schraub contributed more than $5,000 to Republicans, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a key DeLay ally and major figure in the re-redistricting effort that is part of this case.

Now all they have to do is find a judge in Texas who can be considered neutral and impartial by both sides.

This could take a while.

I think Earle was making a larger point about the ideologicalization of the judiciary:

“Still, Earle wrote that prosecutors believe Schraub to be “completely fair and impartial, with a sterling reputation of honesty and integrity.

“However, as the recusal of Judge Perkins reflected, such is unfortunately no longer the standard in our state for the judiciary,” he said.”

Not just Texas.

  • Do you think this may be why politicalization of judicial races is not looked upon as a positive in some places? Judges cannot be viewed as impartial if they are party oriented. I may be wrong but I think the Pro-lifers are responsible for this debacle. They wanted to brand the bay killer judges, um I mean non-strict constructionists. Now we cannot even send the EX House Majority Leader to prison without partisan bickering. Add this to the list of reasons I want nothing to do with Texas.

  • This shows why (a) you should never have elected judges, and the unelected judges should be ethically bound to remain out of political activities and (b) why the first judge should never have been removed absent a showing of inability to do his job – render impartial justice. Once you let the genie out by removing a judge due to political activities, it is terribly hard to get the genie back under control.

  • I don’t understand this aspect of the US. Why is everyone associated with a political party? In Canada it doesn’t seem to be like that; you’re called a “Liberal” or a “Conservative” on an “NDP” if you’re in one of those parties which usually only refers to people who sit in legislatures or are running for seats in those legislatures.
    I’ve never heard of people here associated judges or mayors or city councilors or aldermen with political parties. The idea that even the most minor local official is associated with a political party seems ridiculous and also so does the fact that a lot of ordinary citizens refer to themsevles as “Democrates” and “Republicans” – are all you guys actually registered with these parties? What’s the point of this?

  • CBBB, that is an interesting observation and question.
    The drivers of such widespread party identification are largely technical.

    First is the collection of state and federal campaign finance laws, which strongly favor not just parties, but specifically the “two-party system.” Because of this bias towards two strong parties at the national and state level, those parties have a large incentive to “partisan-ize” every last office and election — and candidates for even the smallest offices also stand to gain a lot of help they couldn’t afford if they can tap into those party structures.

    The second is the “closed primary” or “closed caucus.” That is, there are a lot of important elections in which the only way to participate is to register as a partisan. In a lot of places, the real race is the primary, and you have to declare a party affiliation to play.

    Then there is just that general American bizarre hyper-competitiveness/desire to identify in terms of us-and-them. The labels “Democrat” and “Republican” are more or less “Celtics” and “Lakers” or “Michigan” and “Ohio State.” (Or, to more crassly call out certain Trent Lott types, “black” and “white.”) We all have to belong to our defining groups so we know who is with us and agin’ us.

  • Also, CBBB, it boils down to cash money. The root of all ills in American government, in my opinion. People have to be a Democrat or Republican to get into office because that’s where the bling is. Without that, you’re just a third party with crazy off the wall ideas (read no money).

  • Well it’s similar with us at the national and provincial levels. Minor parties don’t get anywhere and the only parties of any real significance at the Liberals and Conservatives. But at the local level no one associates with parties.
    Well I have to say I don’t like the idea that ordinary people belong to political parties or to register to vote you register with a political party. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the President is such a strong figure. We have party conventions in which a party will elect it’s leader (who becomes Prime Minister if the party wins the election), much like your Primeries – except they don’t take nearly as long and are much less drawn out. But being Prime Minister in Canada or Britain is not as big a deal as being President in the US because Prime Ministers can rise and fall a lot easier than a President can. Because of this electing the Presidential Candidate is probably a bigger deal than electing a party leader.

  • I suppose moving the trial to Wisconsin is out of the question?

    Or sending Libby on an extended inspection tour of those Soviet-era prisons in Eastern Europe we’re making such good use of now? Strictly in the interests of science, of course.

    Just a thought.

  • I meant DeLay on that last comment, of course, although Scooter would make a great traveling companion.

  • It’s all about the Benjamins.

    And it’s not just Tejas.

    In California, we’re despearatly trying to get that big money out of government, i.e. through http://www.caclean.org

    Next week’s “Special Interest Election” is a great example of what’s completely fucked about California. If we can get AB 583 passed, we’re well on our way to Clean Money which will totally change the political landscape here– much for the better!

  • Isn’t the chief of the texas supremes the main squeeze of harriet miers?

  • The judiciary in Texas – where I live – tends to be quite political. In fact, in most recent elections that I recall, just about every judiciary race had a Republican running unopposed. So much for having a choice. I elected not to vote in those races, for obvious reasons.

    I agree 100% that we need to de-politicize the judiciary. It’s flat out wrong. And I think this Tom Delay case – and no doubt MANY others to come…(think Libby, et al) – brings this important issue to the fore. Judges should be beyond the political fray. It should be their ethical and moral obligation to maintain absolute fairness and impartiality when it comes to political views. We as citizens DESERVE not to be judged based on our political leanings, but on whether or not we’ve broken the law.

    This creates quite the quandary when it comes to politicians who have broken the law in the “us vs. them” political maelstrom in which we find ourselves today.

    • Comments are closed.