Big Government “Conservatives”?

Over at his site, Jason Pye has a bit to say about the state’s Republican legislators who started the session by promising that only ideas which would “reduce the size of government,” would “strengthen our traditional family structure,” would “reduce the tax burden for our citizens,” and/or would “increase personal responsibility” would “be considered for possible use during the legislative session.”

As he sees it, “thus far this legislative session, Republicans are taking a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude towards government and they are unapologetic about it” — an observation which he backs up with a littany of legislative examples.

I highly recommend checking it out. It’s definitely eye-opening enough to be worth a look.

24 comments

  1. griftdrift says:

    Senator Johnson, I sent you an email. Still waiting on a reply. I know your busy with the whole Gernarlow Wilson crusade and everything but aren’t you guys on break now?

  2. bowersville says:

    What’s the matter with big Government nanny-ism? Both the Republicans and Democrats are for it.

  3. Warrior says:

    Nothing has passed both houses or been signed by Governor. The Senate has passed charter school systems, vouchers, zero-based budgeting and we are trying hard to get 2/3 votes on Taxpayer Dividend Act (SR 20).

    GriftDrift, unfortunately, we cannot answer every e-mail that we receive. We try to focus on those from my district only. What was it you wanted?

  4. griftdrift says:

    I’m not sure Senator Johnson. As far as I know the CNN reporter viewed it in the prosecutors office.

    On b I was unclear. I meant how did you obtain a copy.

  5. Jason Pye says:

    Senator,

    As you know our Constitution prevents double jeopardy. So because you can’t retry him in the courts on the rape charge, which he was acquitted of, you are now trying this case in the court of public opinion.

    The jurors reviewed the same tape several times and still acquitted him of the charge. There was no compromise. The followed the letter of a poorly written law that has been fixed by the General Assembly.

    What you are doing is playing politics, trying to appear tough on crime by “sexing up” what happened.

  6. Sorry, Jason, I disagree. I am trying to prevent the legislature from placing themselves inside the judicial process after the fact. Democrats created the problem and Republicans fixed it. But, it is inconceivable that we would ignore the due diligence of police, prosecutors, judges and juries and second-guess their actions. Nobody can point two a person in jail for being a horny teenager in the back seat of Daddy’s Chevy. They aren’t there!

    “Sexing up” is the subject of the law and the bill. I didn’t create it.

    What is the next “politically correct” action that you want the legislature to REQUIRE judges, juries (and victims) to review after the fact? Slavery? Not letting women vote? Child labor abuses? Democrats passed “Jim Crow” laws and the Republicans repealed them two years ago. Should we require judges to go back and reopen every case that involved the application of those laws?

    We are a “government of laws, not of men.” And a libertarian should agree.

  7. Jason Pye says:

    We are a “government of laws, not of men.” And a libertarian should agree.

    Senator, I do agree…but you’ve changed the law and Wilson’s case is one of the reasons why the legislature took that action and even the sponsor of the original bill, Matt Towery, has said it wasn’t supposed to apply to individuals like Genarlow Wilson.

    I also believe in justice and the presentation of the facts in an accurate manner and that is not what has happened.

    It is a matter of justice, Senator. We aren’t talking about slavery and we are being punished for Jim Crow laws, slavery and segregation with the Voting Rights Act.

  8. Matt Towery didn’t make this a mandatory 10 year sentence – Zell Miller did.

    What presentation of facts is inaccurate?

    And you didn’t answer about going back and changing trials and sentences for every other law that has changed. Can you name a time ever that this has been done?

    Nor has anybody found a horny teenager in jail. Every one of them has extenuating circumstances or pled down from worse crimes. How about the pal with GW that is serving 3 years for “false imprisonment”? Do we retry him? Or how about the other pal who got a 12 year old pregnant while awaiting trial? They ain’t choir boys!

  9. Jason Pye says:

    How about the pal with GW that is serving 3 years for “false imprisonment”? Do we retry him? Or how about the other pal who got a 12 year old pregnant while awaiting trial?

    If their names aren’t Genarlow Wilson, then we don’t need to be discussing them. Please keep on subject, Senator.

    What presentation of facts is inaccurate?

    You have stated the the conviction conducting oral sex with a minor was some sort of compromise by the jury. The jury foreman has stated that this is not the case, and yes, she said in the AJC which I know takes away all of the credibility for you.

    The jury said there was not enough evidence on the rape charge and he was acquitted. He was convicted because of his part in oral sex with a girl two years younger than him (which no one denies was consensual). Wilson goes to prison for ten years.

    He goes to the courts to plea his case. He hits a dead end. Meanwhile the legislature changes the law that he was convicted on and he still sits behind bars.

    The Supreme Court refuses the case, but Carol Hunstein writes that she is, “very sympathetic to Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior.”

    Those are the facts, Senator.

    And you didn’t answer about going back and changing trials and sentences for every other law that has changed. Can you name a time ever that this has been done?

    Senator, I am not a lawyer so I cannot cite specific examples off the top of my head, but I know that there have been plenty of times where retroactive dates have been placed in legislation for a wide variety of purposes.

  10. Warrior says:

    The Jury Forewoman has spoken out. She is A-A and under pressure from local NAACP. She is enjoying her 15 minutes of fame. I have personally talked to another juror who doesn’t want to be subjected to community pressure. She states emphatically that they DID compromise. So, it’s 1-1.

    You can’t make sentences retroactive.

  11. Warrior says:

    Finally, my friend…..

    Have you talked to the prosecutor? Ihave.
    Have you talked to a juror? I have.
    Have you seen the video? I have.
    Have you talked to people in the courtroom? I have.
    Have you read the transcripts? I have.

    All you know is what the simplistic members of the pandering press say to generate a story for the masses. Do some digging and then debate this issue. It is NOT 10 years for a blow job!

  12. griftdrift says:

    If it’s not about that, then why the hell did the legislature change the law? Why didn’t you leave it as it was if justice was served? Why the change in mind Senator? Because you have now seen the tape and your alone know better than the jury?

    Which brings me back to the original question. Exactly why is the prosecutor showing this to anyone? The press I can understand on some level but politicians? And giving them copies?

    And if your side of the he said / she said is accurate and jury acted as such then there was misconduct involved. Yet strangely the prosecutor is taking no action on that front.

    Twist this way anyway you want Senator but you have zero evidence for your claims other than “I say so”.

    There needs to be some hard questions asked here and it seems few are asking them.

    Also, is Warriowr also Senator Johnson? I would like to know who I am addressing.

  13. bowersville says:

    Give it a break, Generlow plead not guilty, was presumed innocent, tried, found guilty by peers, sentenced, and that’s the way it is.

    Damn, if you are logical, ask for a pardon.

  14. bowersville says:

    Hunstein, Ha! Hunstein knows the law. But she offers this!

    Hunstein is sympathetic to what? She follows the law but offers her sympathy, get real!

    Hunstein panders!

  15. Calybos1 says:

    Gee, why on earth would career government types be interested in increasing the power and reach of government?

    I just can’t figure it out! Surely if we let them regulate their own pay, legal status, influence-buying policies, and political pull they’ll be responsible and act in the people’s best interests, won’t they?

Comments are closed.