How Not To Advocate For Pot Legalization

Booking photo for Spencer Alan Boston, who lit up a joint in
a Tennessee courtroom. The judge was not amused.

A lot of people are pushing for the legalization of pot, and those efforts are gaining some successes.

That's fine.  I'm so not into pot, but then again, I'm really into beer. Some people hate beer, but they don't want to outlaw it.

Similarly, I see no point in opposing pot. If you like it, and you're responsible with it, hey, light up a joint.

However, there are right ways to advocate for changes in the law, and there are wrong ways.

Meet the Goofus who did it the wrong way.

As Newschannel5 in Nashville, Tennessee reports:

"The inmate, Spencer Alan Boston, appeared in court on a marijuana possession charge. He appeared in court Monday, and the sheriff says Boston approached the bench to discuss his sentence and that's when Boston pulled the marijuana from his pocket in front of the general sessions judge."

From there, Boston started discussing his support for pot legalization. Maybe not the right format, but OK. But then, he lit his joint and started smoking in front of the judge.  Actually, I'm a little impressed the guy got the pot into the courthouse in the first place, but nevermind.

Next, said Newschannel5:

"The sheriff said Boston was led out of the courtoom through a small cloud of smoke. He was booked on a second charge of simple possession and received ten days for contempt of court."

No word yet if legislators in Tennessee take up any pot legalization bills.

If you don't believe all this, here's the video:

Texas Judge Is Latest Evangelical To Go Off The Rails

This weird Texas judge tried to overrule a jury by attempting
to get them to declare a defendent innocent because God
supposedly told this judge she was innocent. Riiiiight. 

I'm confused by some very conservative, so called Christian evangelicals who seem to think Donald Trump is some sort of hero.

It's a little hypocritical for them to embrace a guy who among so many other things, seems to have cheated on his wife with a porn star.

But, the more corrupt evangelicals (not most of them, but the ones in power, it seems) love Trump because it looks like he'll let them do anything they want. Or so they think.

The latest person who thinks he can get away with a lot is a Texas judge who recently try to get a jury to find woman accused of trafficking a teen girl for sex innocent. The reason? God told him to intervene, said the judge.

Judge Jack Robison told the jury, "When god tells me I gotta do something, I gotta do it,"

Or not. The jury ignored the judge, thank goodness and went with the evidence instead. The panel convicted Gloria Romero-Perez and she was later sentenced to 25 years in prison. The judge was also forced to recuse himself from the trial's penalty phase.

The jury foreman, Mark House said he and others on the jury either filed or intend to file a complaint with the Texas Judicial Conduct Commission.

Mark A. House, jury foreman in the weeklong trial of Gloria Romero Perez that concluded Jan. 12 has already filed a complaint. His filing states:   "Judge Robison came into the jury room during deliberations two times and informed the jurors that he did not believe the defedent was guilty or should spend 25 years in prison."

Talk about trying to tamper with a jury!

Let me put it as bluntly as possible. When somebody informs you that God told you to do something, that person knows deep inside they shouldn't do it. They try to throw you with the "authority" of God.

The only people who buy that argument are the people saying God made them do it. Right, Roy Moore?

Let's hope sane minds prevail in Texas and they get rid of Judge Robeson once and for all.

This Judge Says Three Year Olds Can Represent Themselves In Court Proceedings

A federal judge thinks kids like this group can be
trained to act as their own lawyers and understand
immigration law just fine.  

An immigration judge named Jack Weil certainly must have a high opinion of toddlers' intelligence.

According to the Washington Post and several other news outlets, Weil said that three and four year olds are perfectly capable of representing themselves in immigration court. No need for pesky lawyers or adults for these kids!

Weil said the following in sworn testimony in a federal court deposition:  

"I've taught immigration law literally to three-year-olds and four-year-olds.....It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it can be done."

Well, I guess the next time I need a lawyer, I'll just pick up some random kid at a preschool.

Weil's opinion came during a deposition in which the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrants rights group is tring to force the government to provide counsel for every indigent child that can't afford a lawyer.

The U.S. Government is contesting the lawsuit, which led Weil to ultimately say there's no need for those lawyers, because toddlers are smart enough to be lawyers.

The backpedaling on the government side, naturally, is furious. Weil, in a brief email to the Washington Post, said his statements don't "present an accurate assessment of my views on this topic and raises that old chestnut that his remarks were taken out of context." He then shut up, saying he needs Justice Department permission to speak further.

Yeah, I'm sure he asked and I'm sure the Justice Department gave its permission, what with all the stupidity in Weil's statement

A Justice Department spokeswoman told the Washington Post that her department does not say three and four year olds are capable of defending themselves, and that Weil made his remarks in a four hour deposition that discussed various ways immigration judges can make hearings fair, including for young children.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU obviously says they will use Weil's words to make their case.

Weil, and by extention the Obama Justice Department is Trump Lite - coming up with ridiculous notions on how to deal with illegal immigrants. They're just more subtle about it.

Of course we shouldn't just let anybody into the country. Of course we should deport those that cross the border illegally (I won't get into the 11 million or so that are already here. Trump's mass deportation of all of them clearly isn't feasible. You'd think we could come up with some path to citizenship, one that's been talked about for years but never implemented.)

If we are going to deport illegal aliens though, shouldn't we stick up for our ideals and give people at least a little due process? Sure, it costs money and takes time, but we take the high road for once.

But insisting that toddlers can act as their own lawyers? This from a judge who supposedly trains other immigration judges?

As quoted in the Washington Post:

"Elizabeth S. Scott, a Columbia Law Professor considered an expert on children and the law said, 'The law uniformly presumes in every other area that younger children lack the mental capacity to make consequential decisions.'"

But I guess immigration courts are somehow above the law?

And I'm sure (snark) that immigration judges spend hours and hours teaching each kid that comes into immigration court the fine points of immigration law, right?

Out Of Control Nut Job Judge Forces Couple To Marry

A weird Texas judge ordere Josten Bundy to marry his girlfriend,
Elizabeth Jaynes, as punishment for an assault
conviction. Bundy had punched Jaynes' ex. 

A couple in Texas got married recently, which is very nice.

What's not nice is the couple married only because a wacko judge said the groom must get married or go to jail.

This all started whern Josten Bundy got into a physical fight with his girlfriend's ex who was saying disparaging things about her.

So Bundy punched him, and the ex-boyfriend pressed charges.

Even Bundy says he shouldn't have punched the ex-boyfriend, but told Judge Randall Rogers that, "I was raised with four sisters and if any man was talking to a woman like that......I'd probably do the same thing.

Of course by hitting the ex, Bundy committed a crime, and there's consequences for that. The judtge sentenced him to probation, which make sense. Maybe a fine, a ban on alcohol consumption, how about some mandatory anger management counseling?

That would work, but NOPE. Here's where the judge went off the rails.

According to television station KLTV, Judge Rogers said that as part of his probation, Bundy had to marry his girlfriend or spend 15 days in jail.

Bundy figured it he was in jail, he'd lose his job, so he had no choice but to marry Jaynes, says KLTV.

They were probably going to get married anyway at some point, but they didn't want a rushed courthouse wedding where many of their loved ones couldn't witness it. Jaynes said she wanted one of those "Say Yes To The Dress" weddings with all the trappings of a traditional big ceremony, reception and party.

By the way, the judge was also punishing Jaynes by forcing to get abruptly married. Remember, she was not accused of any crime whatsoever in this whole thing.

The father of the bride was certainly angry, which is understandable. The dad, Kenneth Jaynes told KLTV the judge "can't do this by court ordering somebody to be married...I contacted a couple of lawyers but they tole me someone was trying to pull my leg, that judges don't court order somebody to get married."

Well, this one did.

Of course, dad is right. Forcing Bundy and Jaynes to marry  is almost certainly unconstitutional, but Bundy and Jaynes aren't lawyers, and didn't know what to do about the abrupt marriage sentence, while in the moment with the judge.

The judge also said Bundy must write Bible verses as part of his punishment. So much for separation of Church and State.

What else is this wacko judge Rogers going to do for future sentencings? Force a non-Christian to convert to Christianity?  Order a gay defendent to somehow turn straight, or else go to jail?

KTLV said Judge Rogers wouldn't comment on this case, or his sentencing habits in general.

I hope Texas can recall or fire judges. This one is too much.

French Blogger Found Guilty By Judge Of Being Too Popular

A French judge who really doesn't understand how Google searches work at all, has fined a French blogger, essentially for the crime of being too popular.

A French judge ruled against a blogger, essentially
because she was ranked too high in Google searches for his taste. 

The problem, according to the BBC, is blogger Caroline Doudet wrote a scathing, negative review of a restaurant in her blog. The restauranteur said the review was hurting his business.

The judge said that since a Google search brings up Doudet's blog fourth from the top, and that her blog has 3,000 or so followers, she is popular and has influence.

Therefore, she should be fined for the negative review, said the judge.

I doubt Doudet had much influence on how Google ranked the blog for searches, but that apparently is beside the point, if I'm reading the judge's "reasoning" right.

Doudet was fined about $2,000.

Doudet said that basically, the judge made it a crime to be ranked too high on a search engine. "What is perverse, is that we look for bloggers who are influential, but only if they are nice about people," she said.

The restaurant review has since been deleted, since Doudet said the whole thing has been too much of  hassle.

It sounds like in the judge's mind, you can be nasty to someone on line if nobody reads your stuff, but you can't if people actually do read what you write.

The restauranteur never denied the service at his restaurant fell short when Doudet visited, the problem was too many people were finding the negative review.

Yes, people write a whole lot of unfair things on line. Or they write things that are fair but negative.  And it's a problem for business owners.

But getting "help" for the problem by complaining somebody is too popular on line seems like it would backfire.

I kind of hope in this case it does.

Alabama Justice Ray Moore Says America For Christians Only

If you're not a Christian, you don't belong in Alabama Chief Justice Ray Moore's America.

Alabama judge Ray Moore has some interesting
theories on government and theology.  

If you think you have rights, think again, says this, um, deep Constitutional thinker.

According to Raw Story:

"He declared that the First Amendment only applies to Christians because 'Buddha didn't create us, Mohammed didn't create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures' who created us."

I'm confused here. I thought the founding fathers of the United States created the Constitution and the First Amendment, not God. Yeah, they might have believed in God, but I didn't think any kind of deity spent time micromanaging the formation of nations.

And what does a document establishing the ground rules of a new nation have to do with which God might or might not have created us?

Moore goes on and clarifies. "They didn't bring the Koran over on the pilgrim ship.....Let's get real, let's go back and learn our history. Let's stop playing games."

Um, so if there was not a Koran on the Mayflower, that automatically means non-Christians can't have First Amendment rights?  Even though the Constitution came much more than a century after the Mayflower? Wow, you are confusing, Judge Moore!

Finally, Moore tells us the "pursuit of happiness" can only be obtained by following God's law, because "you can't be happy unless you follow God's law, and if you follow God's law, you can't help but be happy."

I don't know exactly what "God's law" is, but if it means being as stupid and full of non-sequiturs as Moore seems to be, I can't imagine being happy.

If Moore wants to be truly happy, it sounds like he needs to establish a theocracy type of government somewhere for stupid people.

On Neptune, perhaps?