China

[Garmel]

If someone violates a restraining order and tells the judge she's going to keep violating it, that's pretty flagrant contempt. Yes, it's enough to throw her in the slammer.

It's enough but the question is should he have. Could you be that heartless? I couldn't. Texas Supreme Court didn't think it was right either..

 

[Horn6721]

It will be interesting to read the Texas Supreme Court reasons for the decision.

 

[Monahorns]

I doubt it, because the cop wasn't personally doing anything wrong. He was just doing his job and wasn't hurting anybody

Again, I agree with most of what you are saying.

But I have to point out that cops who are just doing their jobs can be doing something wrong. Enforcing unjust law or other government edicts that infringe on the Constitutional or God Given Rights of citizens is wrong.

That policeman at Lake Austin wasn't hurting anybody, but he was wrong. US citizens have a Constitutional Right to assemble and God Given Rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is what people at Lake Austin were doing.

 

[Horn6721]

So officials in Dallas think it is so dangerous that they release convicted felons but this Judge thought it was ok to sentence her to the very place officials found dangerous.
He could have delayed the beginning of her sentence until this was over.
i hope people remember his azzholeness at election time.
I bet there are plenty of black single mothers in his district and hope they sympathize wanting to feed her kids.

Whatever he thought he now looks like a bitter fool

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's enough but the question is should he have. Could you be that heartless? I couldn't.

I get that, but it's hard for me to fault a judge for enforcing the laws and orders. If he lets her get away with it, it can easily snowball.

Texas Supreme Court didn't think it was right either..

LOL. No offense, but I know too much about the Texas Supreme Court to presume any kind of faithfulness to the law. I'm not saying they're automatically wrong, but purely from a commitment to the law, they're less deserving of deference than most.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So officials in Dallas think it is so dangerous that they release convicted felons but this Judge thought it was ok to sentence her to the very place officials found dangerous.
He could have delayed the beginning of her sentence until this was over.
i hope people remember his azzholeness at election time.
I bet there are plenty of black single mothers in his district and hope they sympathize wanting to feed her kids.

Whatever he thought he now looks like a bitter fool

I would agree that on a superficial political level, he looks bad.

 

[Garmel]

I get that, but it's hard for me to fault a judge for enforcing the laws and orders. If he lets her get away with it, it can easily snowball.



LOL. No offense, but I know too much about the Texas Supreme Court to presume any kind of faithfulness to the law. I'm not saying they're automatically wrong, but purely from a commitment to the law, they're less deserving of deference than most.

Okay, Deez I don't know who's right or wrong in this case but sometimes justice (the spirit in this case) is more important than the absolute letter of the law.

Edit-would you really put her in jail? Come on.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Again, I agree with most of what you are saying.

But I have to point out that cops who are just doing their jobs can be doing something wrong. Enforcing unjust law or other government edicts that infringe on the Constitutional or God Given Rights of citizens is wrong.

I do agree that officers doing their jobs can still be doing something wrong. That is true.

That policeman at Lake Austin wasn't hurting anybody, but he was wrong. US citizens have a Constitutional Right to assemble and God Given Rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is what people at Lake Austin were doing.

He told them to stand six feet apart. He didn't tell them they had to lock themselves up their in their bathrooms at home. He wasn't violating their constitutional rights. FWIW, the guy who pushed him in admits he was wrong.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Okay, Deez I don't know who's right or wrong in this case but sometimes justice (the spirit in this case) is more important than the absolute letter of the law.

Edit-would you really put her in jail? Come on.

Yes, I would. Two reasons why. First, as a judge, it would be my job to enforce the entire law, not just laws that I like. It's easy for you and me to say to go light on Luther. We don't like the law she's violating. However, as a judge, that isn't supposed to matter.

Second, bear in mind that she wasn't being jailed for the underlying offense of opening her salon. She had already received a verbal instruction on that. She was being jailed for contempt of court. That's a separate offense. When a judge imposes a punishment for contempt, it's supposed to be severe enough to deter continued contempt and to encourage others not to do what she did. Well, she basically told him to screw himself and that she was reopening her salon whether he liked it or not. In light of that, I'm not sure what other measure he could have taken that would have ensured compliance or what level of contempt she'd have to show that would justify incarceration.

Let me throw this out there. This doesn't have to be binary. It's possible for both of them to be right. I understand why she wants to reopen her salon, and frankly, I sympathize with small business owners. They're getting massively screwed in this, and the political media and most Democrats are largely unsympathetic to their plight. In fact, their plight is often approached with scorn and ridicule. However, I also understand the plight of a judge whose job it is to ensure compliance with the law whether I agree with the law in question or not and whether I like the politics of the judge or not.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

"Luther’s GoFundMe page has received over $500,000 in donations since its establishment."​

Maybe she should send da judge a fruitcake?

 

[Monahorns]

He told them to stand six feet apart. He didn't tell them they had to lock themselves up their in their bathrooms at home. He wasn't violating their constitutional rights. FWIW, the guy who pushed him in admits he was wrong.

Is standing 5 feet apart an evil that must be eliminated by the wise and righteous police? I think it is unjust to command people regarding how far apart they must be from one another, if no one else in the area is being forced stay that close.

I know this is a minor thing in some ways, and it seems funny that I am making such a big deal about. But I think the situation is very illustrative of government overreach. The order makes a person guilty for standing in a public park in a specific area. Sounds pretty fascist to me, in the vernacular sense.

 

[Horn6721]

The judge could have delayed the start of her jail time . Wonder why he didn't?

 

[Garmel]

The judge could have delayed the start of her jail time . Wonder why he didn't?

I'm just glad justice was finally done.

 

[Horn6721]

Me too
and I hope everyone in his district remembers what an Ahole he is

 

[4th_floor]

.........In light of that, I'm not sure what other measure he could have taken that would have ensured compliance or what level of contempt she'd have to show that would justify incarceration.......

Given that the jail can't be made covid safe, he could have fined her instead of giving her what could turn out to be a death sentence. Of course if the judge wasn't on a power trip, he wouldn't have issued a legal order for her to close in the first place.

 

[Horn6721]

4th
He did fine her $7k
He had every legal right to fine and jail her.
Not sure why in the light of Dallas releasing convicted felons due to virus he didn't delay the sentence

 

[4th_floor]

4th
He did fine her $7k
He had every legal right to fine and jail her.
Not sure why in the light of Dallas releasing convicted felons due to virus he didn't delay the sentence

The fact that he sent her to jail shows that he has poor judgement and is on a power trip. He may have thought he was following the law. That doesn't excuse his poor judgement. If I catch my neighbor's teenager breaking into my house, I may have the right to blow him away with my shotgun. I would not shoot him, unless he is trying to shoot me.

 

[Galvestonhorn]

The dumb *** judge who was trying to prove a point is making her very rich. And the go fund me page that’s over $500k is going to be a small part of her windfall because of yet another idiotic, power hungry democrat who seem to always have their decisions backfire on them.

 

[Horn6721]

I bet she will do something very worthy with that money.

 

[Monahorns]

I hope Shelley blows the money on whatever whim she has.

 

[Garmel]

Yes, I would. Two reasons why. First, as a judge, it would be my job to enforce the entire law, not just laws that I like. It's easy for you and me to say to go light on Luther. We don't like the law she's violating. However, as a judge, that isn't supposed to matter.

Second, bear in mind that she wasn't being jailed for the underlying offense of opening her salon. She had already received a verbal instruction on that. She was being jailed for contempt of court. That's a separate offense. When a judge imposes a punishment for contempt, it's supposed to be severe enough to deter continued contempt and to encourage others not to do what she did. Well, she basically told him to screw himself and that she was reopening her salon whether he liked it or not. In light of that, I'm not sure what other measure he could have taken that would have ensured compliance or what level of contempt she'd have to show that would justify incarceration.

Let me throw this out there. This doesn't have to be binary. It's possible for both of them to be right. I understand why she wants to reopen her salon, and frankly, I sympathize with small business owners. They're getting massively screwed in this, and the political media and most Democrats are largely unsympathetic to their plight. In fact, their plight is often approached with scorn and ridicule. However, I also understand the plight of a judge whose job it is to ensure compliance with the law whether I agree with the law in question or not and whether I like the politics of the judge or not.

No offense but I'll stick with the Texas Supreme Court's judgement over yours to what is and what isn't the law.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No offense but I'll stick with the Texas Supreme Court's judgement over yours to what is and what isn't the law.

None taken. Just out of curiosity, what makes you more deferential to the Texas Supreme Court than to other courts? You do know they're politicians just like anyone else.

 

[Garmel]

None taken. Just out of curiosity, what makes you more deferential to the Texas Supreme Court than to other courts? You do know they're politicians just like anyone else.

Show me where they don't have the authority to order releases and where they're wrong according to the law.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Show me where they don't have the authority to order releases and where they're wrong according to the law.

I'm not saying they don't have it. They didn't issue an opinion, so I don't know what their rationale was. There are legal doctrines that a court can come up with to do pretty much whatever they want. And they're the Texas Supreme Court. Unless federal laws are being implicated, they can do whatever they want, and it really doesn't matter what the actual written law says. There's nobody to say "No."

I just wonder why you are deferential to them. They are politicians. They raise money and are beholden to donors just like other politicians. They react to public sentiment just like other politicians do. The point is that there's nothing magical about the Texas Supreme Court.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD?
Do you think the Texas Supreme Court was wrong in their decision?

 

[Austin_Bill]

There are legal doctrines that a court can come up with to do pretty much whatever they want. And they're the Texas Supreme Court. Unless federal laws are being implicated, they can do whatever they want, and it really doesn't matter what the actual written law says. There's nobody to say "No."

That is not true.

They still have to stay within the frame of the Texas constitution just like the US Supreme Court has to stay within the framework of the US Constitution.

The job of these courts is to interpret the laws and constitution of the land and weigh those decisions based on previous rulings.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

MrD?
Do you think the Texas Supreme Court was wrong in their decision?

Not directed at me, but they made the right call.

She brought a good bit of this on herself by tearing up a county decree into pieces on camera for the news last week. Purely for publicity but it made her look like a child. Then Moye one upped her in the child dept by sending her to jail after ordering her to apologize.

Esp concerning was Moye not paying one bit of attention to the woman's explanation to the court, a 30 second dialogue worthy of his attention. At best the judge has an ego too large for his position. At worst he's an outright racist and enjoyed every moment of the drama since he was in control.

 

[Garmel]

I'm not saying they don't have it. They didn't issue an opinion, so I don't know what their rationale was. There are legal doctrines that a court can come up with to do pretty much whatever they want. And they're the Texas Supreme Court. Unless federal laws are being implicated, they can do whatever they want, and it really doesn't matter what the actual written law says. There's nobody to say "No."

I just wonder why you are deferential to them. They are politicians. They raise money and are beholden to donors just like other politicians. They react to public sentiment just like other politicians do. The point is that there's nothing magical about the Texas Supreme Court.

9 people with most of them in their 50's and 60's. That's a lot of experience in law. Most of them also have impressive backgrounds.

 

[Mr. Deez]

MrD?
Do you think the Texas Supreme Court was wrong in their decision?

I can't say that, because I haven't seen a written opinion on the matter. In fact, I don't think they issued one. My point is that they shouldn't be kneejerk deferred to just because of who they are. They are politicians with every bit as much of an agenda as anyone else.