Skip to main content

As a resident of Alabama, I long have been appalled by the prosecution of Don Siegelman, our former Democratic governor. I've been disgusted that the Obama administration has pretty much refused to root out federal lawlessness in Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and other states where Democrats were targeted for political reasons during the Bush years. I've been dismayed that the Siegelman case largely has faded from the public's consciousness over the past several months.

That changed the other day, however, and insight came from an unexpected source--the nation's foremost conservative columnist. Yep, it took George Will to bring matters of profound constitutional importance back to public awareness.

Per the Legal Schnauzer blog:

Who could have imagined that George Will would prove to be more progressive than Barack Obama on fundamental matters of justice?

Will, probably the nation's foremost conservative columnist, writes in his most recent piece that the U.S. Supreme Court should review the convictions of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy to ensure that overzealous prosecutors are not criminalizing standard political behavior.

The Obama Justice Department, meanwhile, has stated that the Siegelman case was correctly decided and should not be reviewed by the nation's highest court. That presents a disturbing scenario for Democrats as they think about heading to the polls in November: George Will actually is more enlightened than Barack Obama on constitutional issues of profound importance to many progressives.

The Will piece is titled "Is It Bribery Of Just Politics?" If you care about matters of fundamental justice, it's must reading.

Could Will have gone even further in his piece? Probably so, writes Legal Schnauzer:

The real issue in the Siegelman case is not the law but judicial buffoonery (or corruption, take your pick). U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee who oversaw the Siegelman trial in the Middle District of Alabama, got it wrong by giving jury instructions that were contrary to established law. The Eleventh Circuit got it wrong by stating, more or less, that Fuller's instructions were "in the ballpark," and that's good enough for a criminal conviction.

That notion should send a shiver down the spine of every sentient being in America. After all, as Don Siegelman has said many times, "if they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone."

I admire George Will's intellect, even if I don't agree with him on much. This is a time when I definitely appreciate Will's efforts to educate the public:
George Will does not go far enough in his column. He correctly addresses the issue of lawless prosecutors while ignoring the fact that our federal courts also are filled with lawless judges. They are the real danger to our democracy. Prosecutors can do only so much harm, without the aid of corrupt judges. The Siegelman/Scrushy case, sadly, has featured rogue judges from the outset.

Still, George Will makes a valuable contribution to our nation's understanding of issues raised in the Siegelman case. This thought probably would turn Will's stomach, but progressives who care about justice should be singing his praises today.

As for the Obama administration . . . the president and Attorney General Eric Holder should be ashamed of themselves.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I believe you are a sockpuppet for Roger Shuler... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found, MGross

    ...who was banned last October.  I will be writing to the administrators to look into this.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 11:31:48 AM PST

    •  Is your 'belief' based on something other (6+ / 0-)

      than a hunch that anyone disgusted by the Siegelman situation must be Roger Shuler?

      If that is the basis of your accusation, then I would venture that many people who have reviewed the Siegelman affair, including over 50 bipartisan states Attorneys General, are also Roger Shuler.

      I actually had no idea Roger had been banned; what for?

      •  It's based on the fact that this account appeared (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, MGross, gzodik

        ...two months after Roger was banned, and the fact that the diaries are mostly on the same issue, citing Roger's website.  But we have people who can make the determination more fairly and accurately than I can, and who are entitled to do it, so I've asked them to do just that.  They can look into it, or not, at their discretion.

        I don't know exactly why Roger was banned, but I assume it was for repeatedly accusing a wide range of people of crimes up to and including murder with no evidence whatsoever.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I was a longtime advocate (in the comments) of banning him as a conspiracy theorist, but I contacted anyone about it.

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 11:49:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never contacted anyone about it, I mean. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lost and Found

          But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

          by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 11:50:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, this user has posted eight diaries (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rich in PA, gzodik

          and six of them are based on blog posts and other writings by the bojoed Roger Schuler. When I and others asked about this connection in an earlier diary, "murphymom" responded by spewing ridiculous CT accusations of a kind that one would not expect from someone who was simply a reader of Schuler's blog.  If this is not outright sockpuppetry, it does seem likely that there is some off-site coordination going on with Schuler.

          •  Wow, that's really bad sock-puppetry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lost and Found

            If ever I were banned and wanted to return, I would first make a careful study of my tendencies so as not to repeat them too blatantly.

            But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

            by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 12:28:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This diary . . . (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FlamingoGrrl, aliasalias, tgrshark13

              is about Don Siegelman, George Will, and the constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

              And yet you turn this into a discussion about someone who hasn't posted here for several months?

              I find that very peculiar, borderline sick. Why would you be so obsessed with one contributor to Daily Kos, someone you probably don't even know? Is your life that devoid of activities or interests?

              Unbelievably sad and lame. Life must be boring up in PA. A lot of things suck about AL, but at least we have plenty of things to keep our minds occupied

              For the record, I don't even know what a sockpuppet is. I like the Legal Schnauzer blog, partly because I live in Alabama and it's one of the few progressive voices in my home state--so sue me.

              I've written a few diaries here, some that reference Legal Schnauzer, some that do not. Is that OK with you?
              What law of the universe does that violate?

              And you call Mr. Shuler a conspiracy theorist? Try looking in the mirror, bub.

              I've heard more intelligent commentary among third graders at recess.


              •  I'll leave it to others to sort this out. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lost and Found

                Obviously I've already formed my opinion.  

                But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

                by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 05:34:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  nothing to sort out. I'm not Roger Shuler and I'm not his "sockpuppet," I'm an avid reader of the Legal Schnauzer blog, as are many progressives in Alabama (and around the country, from what I understand; the blog recently posted that it had passed 1 million page views, so I'm hardly alone in finding valuable information there.)

                  Until you brought up Mr. Shuler's name, I'm not sure I could have told you who writes Legal Schnauzer. I know the blog is written by someone who gives his real, full name (unlike you), but I think of it as Legal Schnauzer. I don't think I've used Mr. Shuler's name in any of my DK diaries because I'm not practicing "sockpuppetry" for him or any person. I'm sharing information with Kos readers from a blog that I think addresses important issues--ones that must be over your head because you seem incapable of making a substantive comment. I also share information with Kos readers that has nothing to do with Legal Schnauzer, which comes from other sources entirely.

                  You created an issue where none exists, apparently because you have nothing better to do with your time. I can only wonder why this non-issue matters so much to you. Are you someone's "sockpuppet"? That's how you come across--as that or someone who seriously needs to get a life.

                  That you would take a diary about the Don Siegelman case and turn it into a bogus discussion about "sockpuppetry" tells me you must be one "shallow Hal."

                  And by the way, nobody gives a damn about your opinion.

    •  I was wondering where he'd gone. (3+ / 0-)

      The admins actually banned him?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site