Aaron Broussard seeks trial delay: Justice postponed is not justice denied

Paul Rioux has all the skinny on the latest developments folks but it was one of the story commenters that hit the homer IMHO:

Yes, Broussard will seek to delay his trail many ways. To be expected. The good think about all this is that we are not him. The U.S. Attorney, by agreeing to a delay, is reacting in a way the Ameican People would react and that is we are basically a compassionate and empathetic country. We, unlike Broussard, want to do the right things and accommodate him as best we can. And yes, this is much more consideration than he gave the people of JEfferson Parish according to the many counts contained in his indictment; but he is the bad guy here. He is ill with prostate cancer and should be allowed to seek the necessary treatment. There are many options available to treat this illness, but the odds are that Broussard will die with prostate cancer and not from prostate cancer as it is slow moving if diagnosed early. He will eventually go to trial and answer for his wrongdoings. He violated the People’s trust and must answer to the law and if convicted, will probably spend many, many years in prison. Letten will see to that. Broussard will have access to excellent health care within the walls of Federal prison.

In the next installment of as the Broussard turns we’ll learn if Tom Wilkinson’s lawyer has mastered the spelling of his client’s last name.


Jim Brown

March 29th, 2010
New Orleans, Louisiana


For three days this week, the national news focus was on the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing concerning the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. To most Republicans, the new law is a massive stretch of interpreting the Constitution’s commerce clause of allowing the federal government to require every individual to purchase health insurance. But to moderates and most Democrats, such a requirement is little more than another of a long line of government dictates on both the state and federal levels. So for folks like you and me, what do we know and what should we know about all the verbiage surrounding this technical and complicated law?

The simple question this week before the Supreme Court is whether, under the Commerce clause, Congress has the power to require Americans to obtain health insurance. If a majority of the Court’s member don’t like the law, that’s not a valid reason to hold the law unconstitutional. Supposedly, there has to be precedent. There has to be a clear extension of the law that goes beyond a federal issue, and one that does not violate a clearly defined state right. OK, OK. We will just forget about Bush v Gore for now.

Some will say the law has not even been put fully into effect yet. The mandate provisions do not kick in until 2014. And any mandatory penalty or tax for not complying is not collected until 2015. So how can there even be a court challenge? Good question. There is a law on the books called the Anti-Injunction Act that prohibits any court challenge by an individual unless a tax or penalty at issue at been both levied and paid. The court, under this law, has the right, even the obligation, to “punt” if you will on any decision until 2015. But will they? Or will they choose to just get the controversy out of the way? Continue reading “Jim Brown”