It would now be at the bottom of the list instead of the top. I suppose it could still happen but every day that goes by where Judge Walther does not bow out, that begins to look less like an intelligent guess and more like wishful thinking. If Babs ever writes a memoir, maybe she'll mention considering it.
At this point I'm going to have to say that Judge Walther will rule against the motion to suppress. I base this on evidence that Barbara is a skillful small town political operator, not a great jurist. This is not a slap by the way, it's just an observation. While I still believe she will not win in the end, she has been skillful, powerful, unflinching and brutal when necessary, almost without hesitation.
So what does a politician do when they don't have a legal mind and they wish to write an opinion on inclusion as opposed to suppression of evidence when there is so clearly a good case to suppress the evidence? Mind you I did not say "overwhelming" or "winning" case, I said "good."
Texas has not supplied Judge Walther in their filing with boilerplate to sign. They've supplied her with a list of case law and a set of facts and said "Here Babs, cook up a ruling!" It's as if you walked into a kitchen with a picture of a pie and the ingredients all set out on the counter and you've never baked a cake before. You whip up mean omelets but baking is not your calling. You've got a picture of a pie, and they're asking for cake.
Texas has to be seen as wanting the evidence to stand, and not be overturned on appeal. They seem to have confidence that Walther will rule in her favor but I can't believe what they think Walther can bake a cake. In the movie "Calender Girls," Chris Harper's (Helen Mirren) problem is solved by going out and buying the item in question, and passing it off as hers. She wins the blue ribbon by the way.
I'm of the opinion that Walther is down to two choices which may seem obvious to you but since the third choice, "recuse" (punt) seems off the table, she can only rule against, or rule for the motion to suppress. In the second case she need only agree adding a few embellishments with the Gerry Goldstein/FLDS motion. It's well written. Case closed.
Ruling against the motion means she has to bake that cake into a winner, and she can't. To me, that means Texas has delivered the ingredients to her kitchen, but someone else is going to cook up the winner. Either that, or we're on a fast track to a reversal. Judge Walther has a worse record with the FLDS and higher courts than Judge Sotomayor has with the Supreme Court of the United States, and that's no small accomplishment.
At this point I'm going to have to say that Judge Walther will rule against the motion to suppress. I base this on evidence that Barbara is a skillful small town political operator, not a great jurist. This is not a slap by the way, it's just an observation. While I still believe she will not win in the end, she has been skillful, powerful, unflinching and brutal when necessary, almost without hesitation.
So what does a politician do when they don't have a legal mind and they wish to write an opinion on inclusion as opposed to suppression of evidence when there is so clearly a good case to suppress the evidence? Mind you I did not say "overwhelming" or "winning" case, I said "good."
Texas has not supplied Judge Walther in their filing with boilerplate to sign. They've supplied her with a list of case law and a set of facts and said "Here Babs, cook up a ruling!" It's as if you walked into a kitchen with a picture of a pie and the ingredients all set out on the counter and you've never baked a cake before. You whip up mean omelets but baking is not your calling. You've got a picture of a pie, and they're asking for cake.
Texas has to be seen as wanting the evidence to stand, and not be overturned on appeal. They seem to have confidence that Walther will rule in her favor but I can't believe what they think Walther can bake a cake. In the movie "Calender Girls," Chris Harper's (Helen Mirren) problem is solved by going out and buying the item in question, and passing it off as hers. She wins the blue ribbon by the way.
I'm of the opinion that Walther is down to two choices which may seem obvious to you but since the third choice, "recuse" (punt) seems off the table, she can only rule against, or rule for the motion to suppress. In the second case she need only agree adding a few embellishments with the Gerry Goldstein/FLDS motion. It's well written. Case closed.
Ruling against the motion means she has to bake that cake into a winner, and she can't. To me, that means Texas has delivered the ingredients to her kitchen, but someone else is going to cook up the winner. Either that, or we're on a fast track to a reversal. Judge Walther has a worse record with the FLDS and higher courts than Judge Sotomayor has with the Supreme Court of the United States, and that's no small accomplishment.
Sphere: Related Content
2 comments:
"Case closed"? Oh really Huge? I thought Attorney Goldstein, other than laying out alot of theories failed to present any evidence that Ranger Long sought his search warrants under the hidden belief that 'Sarah Barlow' was a hoax caller or he knew or should have known that Dale Evans Barlow was residing at the YFZ Ranch? Turns out the Hotline Operator came up with his name and not Ranger Long, two hotline Operator's gave sworn statements as to their belief that a bona-fide teen caller was being abused and Ranger Long did not draft the signed affidavits (like Goldstein had speculated to be the case). So no genuine proof or facts were brought forward and yet you comment that the case is closed, I am happy to observe that your judgment is as devoid of any evidence as Goldstein's is at his motion.
Huge?
Why thanks, I am.
It doesn't matter what we think any longer Jam, I've speculated and I think I have good reasons for my conclusions. This is now politics and process all the way.
Walther's problem is that she's already been reversed once in this case so she's not generally seen as a writer of sound legal opinion based on the facts of the case.
Texas has given her the list of facts and cases they think she should employ in denying the motion to suppress.
Left to her own resources, Walther, being a smart political operator has to see herself subject to a strong chance of another embarrassing reversal.
Faced with that reality, you would think Texas would write something more than a list of facts and case law but they did not.
As far as reasoning goes, Goldstein has made a sound case and one that forced Walther into a suppression hearing when she didn't want to have one.
Arizona is watching over her shoulder and if she doesn't suppress, the issue gets taken up there. You figure it out.
Post a Comment