Better Ballot Bunch for Bob Bastress

http://mywvhome.blogspot.com/2007/08/bastress-running-for-supreme-court.html

This guy is well qualified and is not part of any good ol boy gang.

I bet he would not be hob nobbing all over the world with Ron Blankenship to find out his marching orders or how he should vote.

We would do well to have his kind of thinking on the SC, imo.

Nor with Don Blankenship, either.

Well zig wouldnt you like to see people on the SC who believe in better ballot access and a more open process?

Please try to overlook my shortcomings and look for the kernel of truth in what I say.

Whether the guy's name is Ron or Don I would rather not have him cavorting with or dictating to my SC Justices.

I would just like to point out that Elliot 'Spike' Maynard is a democrat.

Well dont get mad at me Aaron but I do not agree he is a democrat.

Democrat maybe, but democrat I dont think so.

Please dont be coy and act like you dont understand because I have you figured out and you are smarter than you pretend to be.

No, I looked it up sherm...he's a WV registered democrat.

Now you can put a big D or a little d on it, whatever you like, but make no mistake about it, this man is a tried and true West Virginia democrat, the kind that has ran this state for the past 70+ years, right into the ground.

Shermmy loves all "registered" democrats ......... until they are outed for a nefarious deed that he can't concoct a "believable excuse" for, ....... then he will claim he never liked them from the git-go.

YUP, Sherm loves and supports any and all Democrats as long as the media doesn't report said nefarious deeds to the public.

Then he temporarily distances himself from them real quick like.

Shermmy knows their participation is necessary to preserve and maintain the "Greater Cause" ........ and is therefore more important than anything the individual may or may not do.

And that "Greater Cause" is, ................. "control of the Legislature".

And if they lose control of the Legislature .......... the many "Mini-Robber Barons" will actually have to "work for a living".

Shermmy knows how excruciating and devastating it would be if they ever lost their “rights to vote” …….. themselves pay raises and entitlements funded by the State Treasury.



.

I consider you my friend, shermangeneral. I think I can provide some evidence of that if called upon to do so. On the other hand, if you say any candidate is not part of the "good 'ol boy network", it leads me to believe that they are.

Well I need no evidence OC.

To define friendship is just like Plato trying to define "justice".

It is kinda like the judge said about pornography.

Hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

But, so far as I know, Bastress is not part of any good 'ol boy network.

You can say anybody is, but that does not make it so.

Hail, Sam says I am part of the good 'ol boy network.

So dont be coy, if you think he is then throw out what you got and we can disect it.

Have you got any pic's of him cavorting at the French Riviera with the hometown hi-rollers?

cricket....

Wow! You gave me a whole minute on that cricket.

http://www.wvbar.org/barinfo/announce/judevalmain.htm

The state bar association didn't score him very high. He only came in at 45%.

In all fairness, look at how they pander to sitting circuit court judges. Lawyers are such weasels.

I saw in the paper where this guy came out demanding investigations into Blankenship-Maynard and Blankenship-Benjamin. Seems like more of the same to me. Could I be wrong?

Aaron wrote:I saw in the paper where this guy came out demanding investigations into Blankenship-Maynard and Blankenship-Benjamin. Seems like more of the same to me. Could I be wrong?

Could a squirrel climb a tree?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I saw in the paper where this guy came out demanding investigations into Blankenship-Maynard and Blankenship-Benjamin. Seems like more of the same to me. Could I be wrong?

Could a squirrel climb a tree?

I guess time will tell, won't it.

Well Aaron it is hard to keep a discussion going when somebody just drops in like I do and pops off and then gone for a week so I apologize if you answered this ok.

But do you raise an eyebrow when a judge hearing cases like this is apparently cavorting with the people involved in the cases before him?

I for one think it's a good thing to ask questions about this kind of issue.

So do you consider it a negative against Bastress' candidacy that he would suggest better ethics?

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron it is hard to keep a discussion going when somebody just drops in like I do and pops off and then gone for a week so I apologize if you answered this ok.

But do you raise an eyebrow when a judge hearing cases like this is apparently cavorting with the people involved in the cases before him?

I for one think it's a good thing to ask questions about this kind of issue.

So do you consider it a negative against Bastress' candidacy that he would suggest better ethics?

I posted the first story on it. Maynard the democrat should have stepped aside, without a doubt.

Starcher said he could differentiate between his obvious negative personal feelings for Don Blankenship, which he has publicly displayed, and the law but that Benjamin couldn't.

Starcher must be one of them little d's that's protecting the working man, huh Sherm!

But our banter is about Bastress, right?

What does Starcher have to do with it?

shermangeneral wrote:But our banter is about Bastress, right?

What does Starcher have to do with it?

My comments were about Bastress calling for investigations into Blankenship-Maynard and Blankenship-Benjamin.

You commented about Maynard-Blankenship.

Yes, Maynard should have recuse himself from hearing any case involving Blankenship or Massey, which is what you were implying.

As Starcher has been openly critical of Blankenship and Massey, he should recuse himself as well.

Bastress can't recuse himself unless he wins a seat on the court.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron it is hard to keep a discussion going when somebody just drops in like I do and pops off and then gone for a week so I apologize if you answered this ok.

But do you raise an eyebrow when a judge hearing cases like this is apparently cavorting with the people involved in the cases before him?

GEEEEZE Shermmy, must be you are gone those weeks and never read the newspapers when there are stories in them about all those "political/election fundraising" meetings, ...... dinners ....... and home receptions/parties ....... and which lists the names of all those who attended said.

Of course, to a partisan Democrat, ...... I guess partying, ..... drinking ...... and handing out Ca$h ......... would not be considered "cavorting".

"Strictly business", ..................................... except when specific Republicans involved.

,

"As Starcher has been openly critical of Blankenship and Massey, he should recuse himself as well."

Well Aaron as I understand you are saying the same thing as Bastress.

They should recuse themselves in either case.

If you have made public statements pro or con that communicate a clear prejudice or otherwise raise the eyebrows of objective observors then you should disqualify yourself.

Which is why both Starcher and Maynard both should recuse themselves from every case involving Massey.

Aaron wrote:Which is why both Starcher and Maynard both should recuse themselves from every case involving Massey.

Well then what is your beef with Bastress?

http://mywvhome.blogspot.com/2008/01/bastress-throws-down-in-supreme-court.html

shermangeneral wrote:

Aaron wrote:Which is why both Starcher and Maynard both should recuse themselves from every case involving Massey.

Well then what is your beef with Bastress?

http://mywvhome.blogspot.com/2008/01/bastress-throws-down-in-supreme-court.html

I know very little about him. I'll do some reading as the election progresses.

OK.

If you find anything bad about him be sure and let us know ok...

All I know is he's a law professor at WVU Sherm. I don't know what his politics or which way he leans or how far and then I'll have to make a decision as to whether he can separate that bias from his decisions. Remember, justice is supposed to be blind. All I've read about this Massey-Caperton thing is that Massey supposedly stripped a lucrative coal contract. If that is indeed the facts of this case, then the verdict should have been upheld. The thing is, the newspaper, while expanding on the Maynard-Blankenship relalationship, has been very light on the facts of the case.

I don't beleive either Maynard is partial and I have serious questions about Starcher. Will Bastress be different or is he just another WV democrat? That is what I will have to decide when I vote.