The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Impeachment? Really? Why? Because grabbed a young man by the scruff of the neck? Sen. Vitter committed adultery with prostitutes (a crime, obviously). Do you think he should be impeached too? He's got a 20 pt lead in the polls for reelection. The public doesn't seem to care.
ReplyDeleteClassic. Kid should have responded..."I'm about to be your daddy!"
ReplyDeleteOh leave him alone. Guy had a bad day.
ReplyDeleteBTW- put on your seat belt Scalia lover, I'm getting ready to blast you, unless you really agree with Scalia's view of the right to counsel.
HR
I couldn't agree with David more. Etheridge was way off here. Nobody knows exactly what Vitter did and secondly his alleged crime was beyond the statute of limitations anyhow. Here, it's clear that Etheridge assaulted the student and more importantly engaged in conduct unbecoming an officeholder, which is his refusal to answer a simple question on the street. What Vitter did was behind closed doors and was merely innuendo.
ReplyDeleteHoly crap - is this kid pressing charges? I would freak out if someone grabbed me like that. The camera did seem a bit close to the guys face, but still...
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you are falling for a heavily edited video from the same group who falsely edited the ACORN video, and invaded Mary Landrieu's office to tap her phones (and pled out to a lesser charge).
ReplyDeleteYou're smarter than that.
Also, at the beginning, it appears the guy has his camera right up in the Congressman's face -- wouldn't you at least push it away?
Leave him alone? Rumpole, you are an ass.
ReplyDeleteThis being a law blog, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that it's not even clear that members of Congress are subject to impeachment. Even assuming they are, the traditional (and more expedient) way for the House to remove one of its members is to expel him or her by a 2/3rds vote, as provided for in Art. I., sec. 5. of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe there is not more outrage that the S.Ct. has not decided the Bliski case yet. What's taking so long?
ReplyDeleteMr. Markus,
ReplyDeleteI am a young lawyer in need of advice from your readers. I have a client who has been charged with a serious crime. We have a winnable motion to suppress. But the client, in my opinion, is in need of treatment. I'm thinking about not filing the motion and persuading my client to take a plea in order for him to get the help he needs. What do you think?
I hear the guy that is the SUPERLAWYER of the year and criminal defense lawyer phenom says his duty is to protect society from scary people and ensure they go to jail and get the treatment they need. I mean that is what criminal lawyers are obligated to do? Right? Protect society from these bad people? No? I mean filing a motion because law enforcement violated that scary person's rights is unethical? Isnt it?
ReplyDeletesigned
the death of the defense bar