Federal Judge Runs Amok: Can Joe Bruno Get a Fair Trial?

Whether or not you think former New York Republican Senate Majority leader Joe Bruno, who reigned over Albany in a triumvirate of power for 27 years, is guilty or not, he has the right to a fair trial and an impartial Judge. It appears he is getting neither.

Bruno has been indicted under the controversial ” theft of honest services” law. The same law that Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia says is unconstitutionally vague. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has taken not one but two “honest services cases” for review. The government has no evidence of bribes or improper pressure on government–required by the law–that Bruno took for his clients. Under New York Law, legislators are part-time  and are allowed to have outside income. Bruno , an non-lawyer with a business background, is a business consultant.

When the Government dropped hundreds of thousands of pages of new documents on Bruno’s defense team only days before trial Bruno’s lawyer asked Judge Gary Sharpe of the Northern District of New York for a mere two week delay. The motion was denied.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Abbe Lowell, anton scalia, federal judge, Gary Sharpe, Joe Bruno
Posted Nov 16th 2009 at 7:31 am in Culture, Justice/Legal, Politics, State Politics | 3145422 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/rstone/2009/11/16/prosecutors-dad-is-presiding-federal-judge-can-joe-bruno-get-a-fair-trial/Federal+Judge+Runs+Amok%3A+Can+Joe+Bruno+Get+a+Fair+Trial%3F2009-11-16+14%3A31%3A12Roger+Stone

How Sweeping Are the ‘Global Warming’ Bills?

So, now that we’ve opened this can, just how sweeping is the “global warming” bills’ curiously identical Sec. 707?

At risk of getting into a peeing match which my time budget may not allow me to finish, I believe that the dispute between Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air and the folks at the WashingtonExaminer joining Sen. David Vitter (and, by implication, I suppose me) is not necessary but worth resolving. Caution: it is also for the legislatively inclined or otherwise the pointy-headed. But, since I arguably joined the fray here on Big Government on Tuesday, here goes.

At issue is a provision buried in both the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer “global warming” bills.

I had to leave for a few hours after starting my comment on this, in which time I decided not to wage the war over how strongly we need to argue that it prima facie nullifies the rest of the respective legislative language that too many lobbyists tout was carefully crafted to provide “certainty”. Lobbyists of course tend to say things reflecting well on their defense of client interests.

What is inescapable is that this language dispels such notions of certainty. But that shouldn’t be shocking. The bills statutorily establish “global warming” causation, for every existing or new increment of GHGs (read: employers, economic activity), as well as harm caused. And they fail to preempt states and elsewhere EPA as needed, or the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, or every other tool that’s already being tried out as a “global warming” law. Let alone the rest of the U.S. Code. All of which is relevant to context, as we shall see.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: anton scalia, cap-and-trade, carbon concentrations, carbon emissions, clean air act
Posted Nov 12th 2009 at 10:51 am in Environment, Justice/Legal, News | 2925418 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/chorner/2009/11/12/how-sweeping-are-the-global-warming-bills/How+Sweeping+Are+the+%27Global+Warming%27+Bills%3F2009-11-12+17%3A51%3A56Christopher+C.+Horner