tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3502012703051879155..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Should 'progressive' DAs pay dues to reactionary DA associations? Still waiting on 2017 prison data. and other storiesGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-43765760650189089342018-10-08T16:09:17.228-05:002018-10-08T16:09:17.228-05:00RE: Dues to reactionary DA associations...
For t...RE: Dues to reactionary DA associations...<br /><br />For that matter, should elected officials be allowed to use tax money to pay dues to ANY associations that lobby for ANY legislation? For example, my city and county pay dues to associations that oppose legislative action to protect property owners from sharp tax increases without direct voter approval. Should taxpayers pay for your sheriff or police chief to belong to organizations that oppose--or support--immigration reform, given that some of their constituents don't agree with those organizations' positions.<br /><br />Let 'em pay dues out of their OWN salaries, not mine!Replicantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-60608944670252092072018-10-08T11:08:39.270-05:002018-10-08T11:08:39.270-05:00Electing judges is a terrible thing, but as we hav...Electing judges is a terrible thing, but as we have just seen in Washington, appointing judges may be worse. The question will always be, who appoints the judges from what list and who gets to approve them and how long will they serve and how can a judge be removed. By electing judges, the means of removal is present and obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-8121990230675759622018-10-06T15:01:27.408-05:002018-10-06T15:01:27.408-05:00@5:57-
You had me at "reform" in quotes...@5:57-<br /><br />You had me at "reform" in quotes, "pro-criminal", "luxurious accommodations" and "coddle the criminal".<br /><br />Are you a descendant of Frank Luntz?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66414077432429731432018-10-06T09:17:25.169-05:002018-10-06T09:17:25.169-05:00Dont you know Grits? Opinions are like belly butt...Dont you know Grits? Opinions are like belly buttons... Nobody likes it when you stick your nose in theirs :D<br /><br />As always a great read, keep up the good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-670914597385650342018-10-06T08:14:01.630-05:002018-10-06T08:14:01.630-05:00One more thing, 5:47, you suggested that reformers...One more thing, 5:47, you suggested that reformers "continue to promote new policies without giving any thought whatsoever to the potential impact on public safety."<br /><br />So I'm guessing you missed this post: "<b><a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-public-safety-case-for-bail-reform.html" rel="nofollow">The public safety case for bail reform</a></b>." Turns out, public safety improves when release decisions are based on risk instead of wealth. Who'da thought?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-91809639678223954472018-10-06T07:23:12.268-05:002018-10-06T07:23:12.268-05:00I'm hardly "advocating" that, 5:47, ...I'm hardly "advocating" that, 5:47, I'm acknowledging reality. <br /><br />Also, the federal judges in question are all Republicans - Lee Rosenthal was appointed by GW Bush, and the 5th Circuit is the most conservative of all federal appellate courts. Your whining about liberal judges doesn't jibe with reality.<br /><br />You say the state will "continue to take leadership" by paying for pretrial detention, but they have never done so, ever. You don't want them to "continue" paying, you want them to "start."<br /><br />In the meantime, counties are in charge of bail mechanisms and make pretrial detention decisions, not the state. TDCAA is saying the state should do nothing unless they can find a bunch of money to throw at the problem. (It will be a red-ink budget session, so that's unlikely.) However, the reality is the federal courts are going to force change either way. The "do nothing" option is no longer on the table. So if the Lege does nothing, counties will have to pay, anyway. And it's not because me or Republican judges or whoever else you want to blame are liberal criminal coddlers. It's because counties have been doing a crappy job, violating people's rights, and now they're unhappy they might be required to do better. Cry me a river!Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-523901705682028462018-10-06T07:01:45.174-05:002018-10-06T07:01:45.174-05:00Oh my gosh 5:47...holding counties to constitution...Oh my gosh 5:47...holding counties to constitutional standards is hardly a "new" policy with "no regard to public safety." And bond/bail has absolutely nothing to do with accommodation standards. Lord love a duck! Someone didn't get their coffee this morning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-57741918027564413602018-10-06T06:53:55.832-05:002018-10-06T06:53:55.832-05:00Have you considered switching to decaf?Have you considered switching to decaf?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-85088136170993352702018-10-06T05:47:04.377-05:002018-10-06T05:47:04.377-05:00I love how GFB and other so called criminal justic...I love how GFB and other so called criminal justice "reform" advocates continue to promote new policies without giving any thought whatsoever to the potential impact on public safety. The bail reform issue discussed in this post is the perfect example. The playbook on many of these issues is, and has been for years, getting a liberal federal judge to force pro-criminal policies on the states and counties without regard to cost and the impact on safety. This strategy is one reason, among several others, that the whole federal court nomination process has become so contentious. Policy legislating from the bench. In other words, what Grits is advocating here, typically, is that a one size fits all bail reform be forced down the counties throats and totally on their dime. A liberalized, pro criminal pretrial release policies with no regard to public safety. He argues that counties have no right to look to the state for comprehensive support and assistance in dealing with these complex issues. His advice to rural poor counties--If a violent criminal commits a crime in your county and you can't afford the luxurious accommodation standards to suit some detached left leaning federal judge, that's your problem! The crime happened in your county so you pay for it! And if you don't sufficiently coddle the criminal, we'll haul your ass back to federal court and tattle on you! I might add at this juncture that here's another reason the libs are losing their mind over the Kavanaugh confirmation. The days of federal courts mandating costly liberal policies on local jurisdictions may, thankfully, be finally drawing to an end. Bottom line, the state will continue to take a leadership and funding role in any real bail reform to insure that all Texans remain safe from violent criminals and that public safety isn't compromised just because some counties don't have the same tax base as others. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com