justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog 
Member since Jun 24, 2011


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “UPDATE: Rook acquitted on 8 of 16 counts, hung jury and mistrial on the remainder

God, since you are all knowing, you probably know that it is highly unlikely that 9 different women are making this shit up. Since you are also a just God, please send this guilty SOB to jail.

4 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog on 05/23/2018 at 12:36 PM

Re: “Judges split on judicial attack ads

SP, you are 100% correct. My erroneous comment was based on an inaccurate report I read earlier today. Judge Pierce made the correct decision and I am truly sorry for boneheadedly commenting otherwise.

Judge Piazza, not so much. I don't dispute irreparable harm, but I do dispute likelihood of success. Goodson is a public figure, so the threshold for proving defamation is quite high. Even then, injunctions in these cases are nearly nonexistent in light of 1A

As for me, a thinking man, I am not affected by "dark money." What I care about most is freedom, and that includes the freedom to say what I want without the government muzzleing me. We both disagree with the things said in the JCN ad, but speech everyone agrees with isn't what 1A is there to protect. If we aren't free to say things that piss people off, we are not free at all.

Goodson's willingness to curtail such a basic freedom as speech is why I could never vote for her. It is regrettable that the remaining choices are limited to a current member of the Court of Appeals and the head lawyer for DHS. I wonder if we can write someone in?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog on 05/18/2018 at 9:03 PM

Re: “Judges split on judicial attack ads

Here's what's going on: we have two Democrat Pulaski County judges who are not running for reelection, so they are not concerned that JCN will turn it's fangs on them. They both know their orders are preposterous, but they also know that there is no real avenue to appeal given that the election is on Tuesday. So they just don't care. If anything, this whole fiasco demonstrates that electing judges is nonsense. Hopefully, these two judges will be taught a lesson via damages awarded in federal court.

3 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog on 05/18/2018 at 5:19 PM

Re: “Judges split on judicial attack ads

I haven't read Pierce's opinion, but Miller v. California instructs that obscenity is speech related to sex. Mackie is a whacky.

1 like, 6 dislikes
Posted by justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog on 05/18/2018 at 4:56 PM

Re: “ACLU says judge's order stopping 'dark money' ads is unconstitutional

I'd also like to point out that CC's lawyers and parrot judge DD have completely bastardized comment 3 to Rule 2.11 of the CJC. The "rule of necessity" may apply when there is no other judge to hear a TRO motion, but those aren't the facts here -- DD has already transferred the case to Stacy Zimmerman and presumably he could have done so before issuing a TRO. Even if the rule of necessity did apply, the comment requires the judge to state the basis for disqualification on the record and I see no evidence of that.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog on 05/16/2018 at 8:06 PM

Re: “ACLU says judge's order stopping 'dark money' ads is unconstitutional

Jim, don't you think this recusal without a practical remedy makes it stink even worse? It will be spun (especially by people like me!) as just another layer of gamesmanship by rich NWA lawyer buddies trying to steal an election.

5 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog on 05/16/2018 at 7:51 PM

Re: “ACLU says judge's order stopping 'dark money' ads is unconstitutional

Now Crooked Courtney has asked Dumb Doug to recuse and he has obliged, but claims his illegal TRO is still in effect. So presumably the defendants would have to wait until another judge holds a hearing. If they lose there, there is no real chance for appeal as the Supreme will all recuse and replacements couldn't be appointed and decide the case before the election. So fair. They should ignore DD's plainly illegal order.

Fun fact: Taylor Law Partners, owned in part by CC's yachting buddy W.H. Taylor, is one of the firms that filed the motion asking DD to recuse.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by justsomeguywhoreadsthisblog on 05/16/2018 at 7:27 PM

All Comments »


 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation