I would so be in Mexico by now.

Willie Horton moment for Butthead Barbour.

It’s only fair that Barbour ought to DO THEIR TIME while they’re out.

It’s very rare that I’m at a loss for words……but it’s sickening that they were ever pardoned.  

Is Barbour that pissed at his constituents that he did this? Or was he paid off to do this?> I understand at least one of the guys worked in the governor’s mansion. Where is BArbour going to live? I bet he ain’t staying in Mississippi.

A pardon is a pardon. Whose responsibility was it to see that the notifications were made? Certainly, not the former inmates. We have to have the same rules, for everybody, all the time.

We know this much, Barbour has given up on any presidential aspirations…

yea, they’ll blend right in! LOL!

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time…

…but on reflection. It will be extremely difficult and unlikely to get those men to give themselves up willingly.

A blight on Mr Barbour’s outgoing legacy…

Republicans are just so responsible….

They”ve already assigned Lindsay Graham, David Dreier, Marcus Bachmann and Andrew Breitbart to the manhunt.

They’ll smoke out those cons in no time.

Your Repug Party in action.  One of the more experienced members.  Ran for President.

Ha, ha, ha I was thinking the same thing when I read that all of them worked on the grounds of the governor’s mansion.

Did they trade sex for a pardon and if so with whom did they have sex? HMMMMMMMM!!!

This could very well be the final conflict with the winner being the branch of Government which is dominant:  The elected Executive/Legislative, or the appointed Judiciary? (also Federal Attorney General)  In fact, this battle has been in the making for some time.

Governor Barbour, an elected official, stands to be overruled by an elected State Attorney General, supported by an appointed State Judiciary?  No matter what your attitude is about the individuals and decisions made by the Former Mississippi Governor, the real issue is… do we as citizens, want our elected representatives making decisions for us, or, do we want to change the balance of power, thus giving Platonic philosopher guardians, “Judges,”  MORE power, than has already been usurped  over time?  (Note: How many modern conflicts already rest[ed] in the hands of “Guardians”/Judges, and NOT in our hands through our elected officials?)  Too many, not enough, or just right?

IF, we allow this to proceed to a conflict, such will undoubtedly spill over, into the Federal system.  Again I ask, do you really want Attorney General Holder and the Supreme Court negating your vote, hence neutering your elected representatives? 

This is the classic Constitutional conflict that will pit three elements: The right, who tend to look to the future and long term well being of the Nation.  The left, who tend to look to the present and acquisition of immediate power, and those who care only about their view of justice and/or vengeance, while disregarding the social contract we have all been living under, since 1787.

“Be careful what you ask for…”

Purveyor of Rhetoric

As a proggie one would think you would cheer this decision? Huh. If a ‘d’ had done this we wouldn’t even be hearing about this. Especially, here.

Wow, imagine the screaming and whining that would be going on at Fox, AM nut radio and here if a LIBERAL would have done this? Actually, I don’t have to imagine that-they save their screaming and whining for important things like White House Halloween parties…

Sorry.
The contract we have been living under since 1787 is actually at work in your scenario with the check and balances of power.  Would the AG not be ignoring his sworn duty by ignoring his states constitution (which he has stated Haley Barbour did)?  Aren’t the Judges in place to interpret the constitution.

ps
Your last paragraph – opinion at best – is stated through the prism of your views.
Someone from the left would actually be looking to the future and well being of the nation by making sure people are taken care of, ensuring an education, and providing for their future.
On the flip side, the right, who tend to look to the present and acquisition of immediate power, show this reularly by opposing things they are usuall for, just to oppose the President to regain power, rather than do what is good for the nation.

On the other hand, if you were just using the first 3 paragraphs ad a bloated way to scream activist judges…….

You are correct.  (although I find it typical of a Leftist to quote, then use the law when it is to their advantage, when, coincidentally, the leftist(s) plots the “contracts” demise)  

Regardless of your point, my assertion, as you well know, is of a legal-philosophical nature.  Moreover, as you well know, this could very well be the impetus for conflict that could re-distribute power in MY Nation.  As I mentioned above, this conflict has been gestating for decades.  (Let me reiterate:  My comment was of a philosophical nature)As for your feeble attempt to turn the Socialist-Left into the plurality of the future:  YOU are a representative of the “revolution,” and the revolution is NOW, for you and your compatriots.The Right, is philosophically associated with the Founding Fathers and the stability of our Nation.  Conversely, you and your wretched supplicants hope to facilitate its demise by demanding more than can be provided.As for the rest of your comment:  NO COMMENTPurveyor

You’re right; a pardon is a pardon.  While I agree that Barbour certainly made the wrong decisions here, they are his decisions to make.  After the pardon is issued, it is EXACTLY as if – from a criminal law perspective – that these crimes never happened.  As such, the pardoned cannot be subject to additional deprivation of rights without further due process.

This is a quixotic  quest by the Mississippi AG.

Sheet, the frosting on the cake for Boss Hogg.

Actually, dumbarse, it was a d that did blow the whistle-there has to be at least one adult in the room…Nice pic, is that your hero? Or your daddy?

Not sure which direction the racism is going on this, but Jesus, you never fail to impress with your bigotry.

Can we count on Fox News to cover this extensively as the pardon of Marc Rich, who I don’t think ever murdered anyone, however.

Wow..there just is no justice for the victims today…
Murders walk free..
Yet people that smoked a joint and busted have served and still serve time..

Don’t care for the pardons. But that is a power bestowed upon the executive branch. A lot of other questions need to be answered. One is why were these men trustees to begin  with. Surely Hood needs to answer for this question since the AG should have some say so on who is and who is not eligible to be a trustee. Is not the first time Hood had taken advantage of sensitive issues for political gain.

The right looks to the long term well being of the nation. You’re delusional if you really believe that.

It truly breaks my heart at how much you missed in my post, by focusing on that one fragment, (which I stand by) you missed the entire point of my comment as you are so entrenched in your own political dogma.

The issue is the now accelerated conflict between elected officials and appointed judiciary!  GET IT!

By more power, ‘de facto,’ going to the Judiciary, by way of a Judge’s support of an elected State Attorney General, is such healthy for our Republic?  Do we as society want to diminish the power of our ELECTED officials?

 Furthermore, remember my reference to Plato?  He wrote a thesis over 2000 years ago called………”The Republic”

When I write something, you should read it and pay attention!  

Purveyor

And a guy who starts a war on a lie remains free. Killed 1,000,000 Iraqis….250,000 of them were from burning the skins off women and children (Kerosene Napalm bombs on Fallujah) , Even allowing Waterboarding….It was a War Crime 70 years ago when the Japanese were sent to prison for 15 years+.

Agreed.. but a bit off topic.. Hey, war is for profit.. you either make entitlements people can profit on or wars they can profit on.. Talk to congress.. or if you want change.. vote out the old and set term limits..

Welcome to the  America as we now know it..

Sounds like someone who cries “rayciss” to answer any statement, no matter what is being said.  You are in the noise floor.

OSTL is a certified white power bigot, and he’s quite open about it.

“The Right, is philosophically associated with the Founding Fathers and the stability of our Nation”

This statement has no basis in fact.  All of them were politically left of center, save for John Adams, the most despised president in our history prior to George W. Bush, and Alexander Hamilton, the author of the Federalist Papers.  Both men were contentious and arrogant.  Adams was expelled from France for his near ruin of relations with the King in order to secure ships and guns for the revolution.  He single handedly nearly cost America it’s freedom from King George. 
Others, like John Jay, James Madison and George Washington were centrist moderates.  Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams were all as liberal and progressive as it gets.
Your assertion is false sir.

“Sir,”  Pistols at dawn, inform your Second!

Your historical objectivity is um, er, flexible.  Ouch!  First, you are inappropriately applying the terms “politically left” and right, from a contemporary context, to a polity that existed over 200 years ago.  Such is fallacious reasoning and would lead an observer, onlooker or jury astray.  (Such is the tactic of the revolutionary)”Philosophically,” ALL of the Founders would be appalled at what subsequent generations have done to the American Governmental treatises, created during that long, hot summer in 1787.  (Particularly so towards the modern Left)  Go on, make the argument that any of the signatories of the Constitution, would be Socialist-Democrats today?  I’ll give you a cookie!”Sir,” all your above comment does and tell me is that you are a Leftist, despise your homeland and that homeland’s history.One more thing, indulge me with a question:  Why is it that the Leftist blogger tends to focus on a fragment of someone’s assertion and dismiss the very substantive and real issue proffered?  My original comment was very germane to today’s political conflicts.Certainly, you could follow my comments back to the original assertion.  Furthermore, the core assertion is a mostly objective question pertaining to the balance of power in our tri-partite Governmental/political system?  Alas, you are but a nascent revolutionary, for you it’s the “the ballot or the bullet?”  (I think Lenin said that, or, perhaps Mao)Lastly, I am surprised you didn’t use the hackneyed argument that the Founders were all slave holders… Ouch!The Purveyor of Rhetoric

“Sir,”  Pistols at dawn, inform your Second!

Your historical objectivity is um, er, flexible.  Ouch!  First, you are inappropriately applying the terms “politically left” and right, from a contemporary context, to a polity that existed over 200 years ago.  Such is fallacious reasoning and would lead an observer, onlooker or jury astray.  (Such is the tactic of the revolutionary)”Philosophically,” ALL of the Founders would be appalled at what subsequent generations have done to the American Governmental treatises, created during that long, hot summer in 1787.  (Particularly so towards the modern Left)  Go on, make the argument that any of the signatories of the Constitution, would be Socialist-Democrats today?  I’ll give you a cookie!”Sir,” all your above comment does and tell me is that you are a Leftist, despise your homeland and that homeland’s history.One more thing, indulge me with a question:  Why is it that the Leftist blogger tends to focus on a fragment of someone’s assertion and dismiss the very substantive and real issue proffered?  My original comment was very germane to today’s political conflicts.Certainly, you could follow my comments back to the original assertion.  Furthermore, the core assertion is a mostly objective question pertaining to the balance of power in our tri-partite Governmental/political system?  Alas, you are but a nascent revolutionary, for you it’s the “the ballot or the bullet?”  (I think Lenin said that, or, perhaps Mao)Lastly, I am surprised you didn’t use the hackneyed argument that the Founders were all slave holders… Ouch!The Purveyor of Rhetoric

“Sir”

Your historical objectivity is um, er, flexible.  Ouch!  
First, you are inappropriately applying the terms “politically left” and right, from a contemporary context, to a polity that existed over 200 years ago.  Such is fallacious reasoning and would lead an observer, onlooker or jury astray.  (Such is the tactic of the revolutionary)”Philosophically,” ALL of the Founders would be appalled at what subsequent generations have done to the American Governmental treatises, created during that long, hot summer in 1787.  (Particularly so towards the modern Left)  Go on, make the argument that any of the signatories of the Constitution, would be Socialist-Democrats today?  I’ll give you a cookie!”Sir,” all your above comment does and tell me is that you are a Leftist, despise your homeland and that homeland’s history.One more thing, indulge me with a question:  Why is it that the Leftist blogger tends to focus on a fragment of someone’s assertion and dismiss the very substantive and real issue proffered?  My original comment was very germane to today’s political conflicts.Certainly, you could follow my comments back to the original assertion.  Furthermore, the core assertion is a mostly objective question pertaining to the balance of power in our tri-partite Governmental/political system?  Alas, you are but a nascent revolutionary, for you it’s the “the ballot or the bullet?”  (I think Lenin said that, or, perhaps Mao)Lastly, I am surprised you didn’t use the hackneyed argument that the Founders were all slave holders… Ouch!The Purveyor of Rhetoric