"Reporting for duty!"
Posted on 10/05/2007 5:38:39 AM PDT by Bob Leibowitz
It shouldn't surprise, given the state of the law, our courts and our politicians, and, in fact, it actually makes sense, but still, it's a bit… disconcerting.
The Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled today in a 5-4 decision that candidates for political office have a constitutionally protected right to be free from prosecution for lying in their pursuit of office.
It is sobering to consider the responsibilities that courts have taken from the shoulders of common men and women and to contrast them with those that remain, including the duty on the part of each individual to provide protection against politicians who lie, given that government cannot be charged with that duty.
I assume this political protection (PP) extends through the act of taking the oath required to serve in office. Needless to say, this is more than stupid.
Politicians are above the law. We knew it was pretty much unwritten. But now Even a court rules in their favor. A lie is one of the most demeaning individual acts known to man when the lie is discovered.
If we decide we can’t trust a politician can we take back our vote??
Isn’t this just beyond belief? It is almost laughable.
If you live in Washington State, there is no surprise to this ruling.
We also count votes and keep finding ballots, 2 or 3 times...until the “correct” person as determined by the Democratic Establishment of King County (Seattle)...is finally declared the “winner”.
King County often overpowers (out numbers)the votes from the other counties of the state and so there is a very liberal (aka Leftist) state agenda. Lying is a state political art - Look at our Senators Patty (Osama-Builds-Day-Care-Centers)Murray and Maria Cant(Vote)well...
I feel so embarrassed. I thought the headline read: “Politicians Have the Right to Die.”
I’m surprised the democrats didn’t get punished for that debacle. But then again, they’re democrats.
There are different rules for the servant than for the master.
I believe that the court is simply affirming what everyone knows goes on. If the court stated otherwise, why we would have to put so many people in jail that county sheriffs would have to release violent felons.
Come to think of it, sounds like a good trade.
And they do... They do.... In fact, they’ve perfected it in a big way.
Like you’d prosecute Poker people for talking smack at the table.
Different Game, Same Rules.
If politicians could be prosecuted for lying they’d have to quit campaigning entirely ... Hey wait, stupid court!!!!
Twilight zone..... does this protect them “wrt: criminal acts”, or are they just able to say what they want to get elected?
I am sorry but I agree.
We cannot have ‘thought crimes’
You can say whatever you want, withouth it being a crime (don’t nit pcik, I don’t mean perjury or injurious criminal acts)
What I mean is, we can only point them out as LIARS and hope they are shamed out of office.
I they lie and it is a crime, then the CRIME should be prosecuted..
If not then we open up to you and me being called liars for anything (true or not) and being prosecuted... do you want that? Especially when osmoene else (oh, like a Clinton appointed judge) decides what is a lie or not?
Kinda makes you wish that, although murder is illegal, one shouldn’t be prosecuted for shooting politicians. Sort of like it’s a Constitutionally protected right, under a different article.
Fraud is a crime. Telling someone something, with the INTENTION of deceiving them so as to take advantage of their response, is criminal. There is no First Amendment protection of fraud - unless you’re a politician, apparently. Say, are judges elected? Conflict of interest, if so.
Maybe the court is tacitly recognizing that all politicians are legally insane and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for their acts.
When are they protected from the courts, meaning...what are their lie 'boundaries'? :)
I would assume it's NOT fraud to lie, mislead or confuse constituents during campaigns... because we'd probably never get congress critters elected. {{GRIN}}
And yes...what about the judges who are "in conflict of interest".. We need a constitutional atty's unofficial opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.