tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post1154578780370816690..comments2024-01-25T14:51:13.377-05:00Comments on Gamso - For the Defense: Tell It To the JudgeJeff Gamsohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-41504805382928340162010-10-13T10:36:45.749-04:002010-10-13T10:36:45.749-04:00One of the problems with computers is that they ma...One of the problems with computers is that they make it easy to screw some things up. I'm going to copy your comment to the Keller post, which is where you meant it to go. <br /><br />(I'd just move it there, as from you, but it's beyond my technical expertise to do that.)<br /><br />And then I'll add a response.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-72436879289339180412010-10-13T10:24:22.072-04:002010-10-13T10:24:22.072-04:00Cynicism is too often rewarded, as yours was in th...Cynicism is too often rewarded, as yours was in this case, but as my father often says, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. You were right about how it turned out.<br /><br />The weird part is I'm pretty sure the SCJC was told at the closed session after the public arguments that they couldn't do the warning. I say this because the E.D. Seanna Willing came out that afternoon with a clarifying statement to the media that the board only had the three options, which I dutifully published along with others. In retrospect, it was clearly something that had come up that day or she wouldn't have felt the need to clarify it!<br /><br />From the appellate hearing it was pretty clear they'd done the wrong thing. Did the SCJC blow the case up intentionally? The ones I know on there aren't stupid people (including the county judge from my home county in East Texas), but they made a decision seemingly against advice of counsel to grant what Keller called "lawless" leniency. I blame them more than the judges after listening to the oral arguments. But I also don't understand why the judges couldn't just kick it back for re-sentencing.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-35193311911705404182010-10-07T20:48:42.790-04:002010-10-07T20:48:42.790-04:00Somehow, this reminds me of the time that the memb...Somehow, this reminds me of the time that the members of a 'sportsman's club' in Toledo thought it would be a great idea to begin each meeting by reciting the pledge of allegiance. Good idea, right? Great idea, right? Only, there was one small problem... the only person in the entire room who knew the pledge was my brother, Shotgun Bob. <br /><br />It gets better.<br /><br />I originally learned the pledge from my grandmother, who knew it without the phrase 'under God'. I also recited the pledge every morning in grade school, right before the Lord's prayer. I think Shotgun Bob learned it about the same way. As you can tell, both of us grew up terribly damaged from having to say the pledge of allegiance and the Lord's prayer every day. Well, every school day anyhow. The point is that we weren't harmed and we learned something useful.<br /><br />As for this attorney who didn't want to recite the pledge, if he's a citizen of the United States who is not using this refusal as some kind of civil disobedience protest against the government, I say let him recite the pledge. At the same time, the judge should not be able to jail him for contempt any more than a cop should be able to arrest me for resisting arrest. Both do though, don't they.Mad Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06190137186843630543noreply@blogger.com