And, like them, he's not really from Tejas . . .
PDiddie -- Thanks for the Statesman article. Jeff Wentworth is my rep, and he's screwed up loudly and visibly so many times it's a wonder he got reelected last time (I worked pretty hard for his Dem opponent). I'm surprised Dewhurst is playing fair on this (apparently). The guy's my neighbor out hyar in ranch country and IMO he's a.... well, I don't like to foul up A2K with nasty language!!
Tartarin, do you have any knowledge of the post I made yesterday:
BillW wrote:Tartarin, I remember some talk about a redistricting deadline that passed when the legislature was in OK. I thought that this was a federal deadline - but as can happen, I may be wrong.
Sorry Bill, I meant to address that. Truthfully, I don't know. My understanding is that the census (federal) makes redistricting an obligation to the states in the year following the census results. That happened. There was redistricting in Texas over a year ago. I don't think the feds have any obligation beyond the original 2001 redistricting except to keep their sticky fingers out of the situation, while the states have the right (but not the obligation) to redistrict as often as they want. Betcha PDiddie or Edgar will have more info on this...?
It wasn't a federal deadline, Bill; the redistricting legislation before the House expired at the end of the regular session (because the Dems denied a quorum), per Texas state law.
Without researching the Texas Constitution on this, I believe that the reason now that redistricting must be raised in the Texas Senate (where the odds for defeating it are more favorable) is precisely because the bill died in the House at the end of the term and cannot be put forth there again in a special session.
It seems odd to me that Dewhurst, the Republican lieutenant governor and the officeholder in Texas who wields the most power from a legislative standpoint, would be 'inclined', as my previous link quotes him, to keep in place the parliamentary rule that prohibits debate on legislation without a two-thirds majority.
Democratic state senators number 12 of 31; which means only 11 of them have to vote 'no' in order to kill the redistricting debate, and the consideration of the bill (which is why it was originally raised in the House, where the Repubs had the majority).
Something may be afoot, procedurally (IMO).
According to local radio, Perry (gov) has called a special session just now.
Re: Texas: an independent state of mind
Tartarin wrote: It's a long story and there's a very interesting piece of Texas law which is revealed (which I certainly didn't know about): An undercover or other officer of the law may state in court his reasons for believing in the guilt of the accused WITHOUT having to provide any evidence. This comes from an Amarillo lawyer who takes civil rights cases, just interviewed on Talk of the Nation (npr.org).
??? While that certianly SOUNDS ominous it doesn't really say anything.
Any lawyer anywhere in the country can call anyone to the stand as a witness and ask them to state their beliefs and their reasons for having those beliefs without requiring that the witness provide any evidence. Whether the beliefs and reasons are relevant to the case and hold any weight are up to the judge and jury.
Either something significant is missing here or this civil rights lawyer is just trying to play games with words.
This means that a law officer can go on the stand and say you are guilty of murder - got no evidence - hard or circumstantial, I just know you are guilty - then you are convicted based upon that evidence only.
Of course, they are many terrorist trials being conducted under this exact scenario - even less, Ashcroft decides, alone
Ominous!!!!!!!!!
That's how I understood it Bill -- and Fishin' (don't have the transcript). In the no-witness-but-just-the-corrupt-sheriff trial in Tulia which has caused so much grief and embarrassment, that loophole was used. The police presented no evidence. Not beliefs, Fishin'. Statements of "fact." Presented to the jury as known fact. Period. No argument.
Furthermore, Fishin', I don't like the sound of "this civil rights lawyer.." as though a civil rights lawyer would necessarily twist words and not, as an officer of the court, state the facts as he knows them. The guy is a well-to-do Texas lawyer who is among those who does pro bono civil rights cases when they come along. Probably puts his pants on just the same way you and I do, and pays taxes too...
First of all, the police don't present evidence. The prosecutor presents evidence. In the cases in Tulia the prosecutor presented a witness, a corrupt rent-a-cop (He isn't even an employee, he was a contractor working for the Sheriff's dept.), who lied his ass off.
But, that is no different than any other prosecutor calling one witness in any other trial. You have a trial where you have the word of the cop/witness vs. the word of the accused. The point being that what was listed earlier as being something unique to Texas is applicable to every state in the country.
What most of the rest of the country DOESN'T have is a judge and jury pool that are gullible enough to take the word of a single person and convict people with nothing else repeatedly.
Tartarin wrote:Furthermore, Fishin', I don't like the sound of "this civil rights lawyer.." as though a civil rights lawyer would necessarily twist words and not, as an officer of the court, state the facts as he knows them.
He wouldn't twist words? I'd guess that's exactly the same thought process that went into everyone in Tulia buying into the rent-a-cops story.
Face it, this case isn't something that just came up yesterday. It's been boiling for months and it's being tried in the court of public opinion just as much as it is in the courtrooms. If he doesn't realize that then he should turn in his ABA card. You can bet every last dollar you've got that he's going to word things exactly the way he wants to for maximum effect in that court of public opinion.
I've been following it since the get-go (thanks in large part to Bob Herbert whose interest preceded any interest in the papers here!). To be honest, I think you're being contentious here. THE point is, Texas has a law (and a few other states do to) which allows unsubstantiated testimony from the authorities. That's what caught my eye and ear... And I'm pretty tired of broad brush, politically fashionable dismissal of lawyers whether that's precisely what you meant or not. Thank god for the lawyer/professor and students at Northwestern who investigated the probable innocence of many on death row.
The there was the interview I heard on NPR from the lady who said that her son told her the were drugs all over the town and these people that were in jail were the guilty looking ones anyway and therefore are the ones!
Did you hear the interview with the rancher who helped raise a stink about all this and get them out of jail? White rancher who realized something funny was going on? Knew some of the victims personally and knew they had nothing to do with drugs? He talked about the fact that the town wanted to get rid of the Af-Ams altogether. The technique was, Get out of town or we'll find a way of getting you out, permanently. The prosecutions were the way they found to get rid of those who wouldn't "obey" and leave town. Apparently (and this rings a bell, folks) the blacks are "immoral" because some live together in wedlock, or are single and have kids. Said the rancher (I believe, or it may have been a follow-up interview) the Christian Right and these townsfolk have simplified things for themselves: murder=sex=beingblack=immoral etc. etc. Ironically, it's okay to lie about matters of national security but not okay to lie about sex.
It was the same program. The interview I write about lead the proram. I just loved her righteous indignation.
It's a helluva story, the whole thing. Make ya proud to be an Amurrican, don' it!
Is Tulia part of America? I cut wheat in Pampa and Gruver back in 1967 and milo in Earth in 1971 and know what these people can be like -
