Burn of the Day
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Perfect. 👍
Yet another judge violating the Constitution. Article 2 powers for Article 3 despots.
It really doesn’t matter what Trump does. Whatever he does some foreign born judge who has probably never read the Constitution will issue an injunction usurping his powers as president. Including pardoning the turkey.
What judge? Sounds like Babylon Bee.
What judge? Sounds like Babylon Bee.
It is the Babylon Bee but like most things The Babylon Bee says there’s a significant element of truth to it. I get fed so many stories about judges issuing injunctions and the crazier they are the more they sound like the Babylon Bee. In other words, nothing would surprise me.
In Minnesota back in August we had a jury convict a man of defrauding taxpayers for millions of dollars through fraud. It was so blatant that the jury barely needed to deliberate before returning a guilty verdict. In Hennepin county of all places.
Recently a judge decided, nah, the jury’s reasoning wasn’t good enough. She admits that there was fraud, that there was tons of evidence that the defendant was engaged in fraud, and that the jury made reasonable inferences to conclude that he was responsible for the fraud. But the judge said that even so, the evidence wasn’t quite good enough so you can’t convict.
I’ve heard that this is due to some quirk of Minnesota law which makes judges in trial cases more powerful here than in other states, particularly in saying which evidence is “circumstantial.” But even if so, who cares. We all know that the same reasoning could be used to throw out hundreds of other convictions, but it never happens, because the defendants aren’t put of state approved victim groups.
It is this sort of thing that leads to vigilantism more than anything else. If you have someone who is obviously guilty and a jury finds him guilty but a judge says he still must go free (not even via a pardon), what are many people in the public going to conclude? (NOTE: I am not advocating for any vigilante justice in this case.)