2 ms·
Agreed. This doesn’t seem very relevant to the case, and there’s plenty of other jaw-dropping details to report on (like the current top comment’s mention of ba
by SilasX 3y ago
Agreed. This doesn’t seem very relevant to the case, and there’s plenty of other jaw-dropping details to report on (like the current top comment’s mention of back dating the warrant application).
Now, I wouldn’t say this DUI history is entirely non-newsworthy. If someone wants to do a story about powerful people getting unusually light punishments for crimes, and this is one example of that, that would be a great data point to report on. But it’s not relevant to the warrant corruption story.
- metabagel 3y agoIt's relevant. She's a judge who approved an illegal search warrant. It's her own history of being on the wrong side of the law, and it could shed light on her motive in breaking the law in this particular case. I'm all for second chances, but two DUIs in two months is poor judgement ... and she's a judge.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoI think it less establishes a motive but aggravates any charges brought against her that might include lapses of judgement. Leniency only goes so far, and once you’ve burned chances, things get more severe progressively. Now that it’s in the national spot light, she better hope her nose is totally clean and nothing comes back on her, or her past leniency will play a favor in how severe she is judged.