You automatically assume that the Nat. Review version is the correct one
The Natl Review article appears to be extremely well researched. The other one appears to be totally without supporting information. The Natl Review article appears credible, the other one doesn't, at least in my view. I think it clear the author of the Natl Review article is the authority on the subject; I've seen him a couple of TV shows and he comes across totally informed about the subject. I don't know WHERE the other article came from, but it appears to be just a summary of people's opinions.
Extremely well researched? Where is there mention that Pickering asked for a motion for a new trial? Its a matter of public record. You mean to tell me that the Congressional Committee got the facts all wrong? If so, this country is in a lot more serious trouble than I thought.
Plus neither you nor the Nat. Review see the obvious......the sentence for the 17 year old was extemely light given his past behavior and his kingpin position in the group. Why?
that the sentence of the D. Swan should match that of the 17 year old
I don't think he was looking to make them "match" -- he was just dealing with an issue that judges deal with daily -- disparate sentencing. It is an element of basic fairness -- a guy who was more complicit should not get a lighter sentence than one who was less complicit.
Was the 17 year's old sentence a fair one? I don't think so. Why, then, is Pickering, a man supposedly schooled in the law, comparing Swan's sentence with one that is inappropriate? In addition, the other two co-conspirators readily admitted their guilt and clearly implicated Swan......and yet asshole Swan is in major denial and pleads not guilty. So thousands of dollars of public monies are spent trying this racist jerkoff, tying up a judge and a public defender when there are more serious crimes to be tried, and yet you, the Nat. Review and Pickering think this guy needs special judicial treatment. Why?
Assuming that Pickering did motion for a new trial, why would he do that? Its usually the defendant's attorney who makes the motion, not the judge. Why did Pickering care so much? Its clear all three of these people were serious scum.
I can't imagine why you, a good liberal, would be in favor of a heavier sentence for one who less involved in the commission of a crime. The 7-year sentence for "burning a cross" is totally inappropriate, anyway, in my view -- but clearly, Pickering was trying to avoid throwing the book at the wrong guy.
Its clear any sentence beyond no sentence was considered inappropriate by the people involved with this crime. Why don't you see that?
It is about basic judicial fairness, and it is clear Pickering went the extra mile to insure fairness.
The motivation behind the extra mile is questionable given the nature of the defendants, the crime they committed and the way the case was treated. Pickering behavior is really worrisome; the fact that he called the Attorney General of the USA to talk about this racist, bs crime suggests he either has poor judgement, or an inflated image of himself, or believes in coddling racists. I don't believe Pickering should be judge period,let alone a federal judge. Is this the best the GOP has to offer?
Again, why are you blind to this perspective? It is so obvious that there was considerable bs with this crime.
ted |
