Comments on: Idiot of the Day: CourtTV Anchor Catherine Crier

By: FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Cindy Sheehan: The Next Rosa Parks

FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Cindy Sheehan: The Next Rosa Parks — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:21:54 +0000

[...] Xrlq has Rikki Klieman Said What? CourtTV contributor Rikki Klieman has been filling in for Bill Handel for KFI lately. This morning, while discussing the Cindy Sheehan affair with Michelle Malkin, Klieman said Sheehan could be “the next Rosa Parks.” O-kay. Between Nancy “Win Ugly” and Catherine “Whutz a Bill of Attayndur?” Crier, Klieman’s silliness brings to three the number of CourtTV talking heads who have me convinced that the network has no quality control whatsoever. [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:00:10 +0000

You folks ain’t heard nothin’ yet.
Didn’t anybody catch Crier’s Court TV show where she proclaimed (on the day before Schiavo died) that Terri Schiavo’s soul “had already left her body” ?
How’s THAT for leftist, judicial arrogance? Crier did not specifically say WHEN Schiavo’s soul left her body, just that it was already gone from her body. Typically, Crier dropped her little bomb and then breezily moved on to another topic.
Crier is no longer a judge (Texas is well rid of her) but she obviously represents the attitude of many of these black-robed folks sitting on various benches across our country, whose maniacal egotism has now gotten to the point where they now second-guess God.

By: David

David — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 16:12:50 +0000

I always enjoy watching Catherine Crier on TV — particularly when the sound is off.

By: William Teach

William Teach — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:31:39 +0000

Couldn’t agree more, XRLQ. I caught her on Scarborough, and was more of the same.

By: Juliette

Juliette — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:40:51 +0000

I caught that screeching banshee on Scarborough also. I don’t know the legalities, but I do know that I won’t be looking at Court TV to learn about law.

By: actus

actus — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:34:12 +0000

“Hey look, aren’t we all forgetting that Crier is a judge, and if a judge says it’s unconstitutional it must be. ”

The other dude said so, at least. well, he said the opposite, if a court hasn’t said its unconstitutional, then it must be constitutional.

By: Joel B

Joel B — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:21:32 +0000

Hey look, aren’t we all forgetting that Crier is a judge, and if a judge says it’s unconstitutional it must be. I mean that’s what I always thought right, Judges are always right, and that if something is unconstitutional it is only because judges say so. That’s also why campaign finance reform is constitutional because judges say so. They’re like the constitutional dictionary.

See how easy this is, so how could Crier be wrong. Oh, and don’t you forget if a judge says that it’s a bill of attainder it must be, because a judge says it and if a judge says it, it must be true. We don’t need to know what a bill of attainder really is, I mean because after all what a bill of attainder really is, is whatever a judge says it is. What, is that law a law about cutting taxes? That’s an unconstitutional bill of attainder…trust me on that, our constitution just lived a little longer and evovled to include that defination in bill of attainder…sorry you missed it, you must just be non-enlightened (a judge).

By: actus

actus — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:19:50 +0000

” (or 13, if you count the district court judge)”

I thought he assumed the constitutionality. As far as I know everyone is assuming it, and this one liberal activist republican appointee on the 11th circuit pointed out his problems with it.

“Puh-leeze.”

That discussion is completely inapposite. De Novo is a standard of review, not a procedure. These aren’t word games. These words aren’t twisted.

Although I think there might be constitutional problems with us taking a reading of the statute that would force a court to reach an equitable result. But I have no idea what the strength of this argument is.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:57:08 +0000

It says "de novo", but it doesn’t say "trial."

Puh-leeze.

But I thikn the concurrence in the EnBanc denial yesterday didn’t say it was a bill of attainder. It said it was a separation of powers issue. Damn liberal activist judges!

Yes, I made that point before. IOW, for all the damned liberal activist judges out there - and they are legion - only 1 in 12 (or 13, if you count the district court judge) could find a way to strain the Constitution far enough to get this statute to violate it. Seeing as 1 judge in 12 does not speak for the court, and seeing as 0 judges in 12 ruled under any theories remotely related to Crier's, I think it's pretty clear who won last night's debate.

By: actus

actus — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:26:03 +0000

Speaking of embarassing, dude says this:
“Hold it. It … the statute said, if you read the statute, the statute says de novo trial. ”

It says “de novo”, but it doesn’t say “trial.”

Oh and also: “SEKULOW: No court has held it unconstitutional.”

At least the one district court opinion has said that for temporary restraining orders, statutes are presumed constitutional.

But I thikn the concurrence in the EnBanc denial yesterday didn’t say it was a bill of attainder. It said it was a separation of powers issue. Damn liberal activist judges!