Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Ron
If, as the commentators say, she did make the right decision based on Arkansas
law, then why should she recuse herself? She based her decision on the evidence
so there was no bias. I bet those who didn't like the decision would not have
felt she should recurse herself if she had let the trial go forward, despite it
being a wrong *legal* decision. Unpopular *legal* decisions, if based on the
law, are not biased, only those that cater to the politics of the time.
jackief
Ronald Helm wrote:
> "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Whether this is the correct decision or
> not, this judge should have recused herself, probably even had the
> venue changed to another state. Not only was she appointed by
> Clinton, she was a student of his also, a situation that would be
> difficult to avoid anywhere in Arkansas. Hillary would have been less
> biased than this Judge! Bill probably did not even to have to bribe her or
> threaten her, and you can bet she will be right at the top of the promotions
> list. Ron
>
> Women have their faults. Men have only two.
> Everything they say. Everything they do.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
