If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Today, on "When Vetting a Political Nominee Goes Wrong," Minnesota GOP endorses Supreme Court candidate who was recently charged with DUI   (startribune.com) divider line 42
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

846 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2014 at 6:41 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-13 03:35:11 PM
We are gonna need a bigger judge.
Better would be nice, too.
 
2014-06-13 03:47:51 PM
Too bad the election filing deadline was last week...

She sounds like a real piece of work too. Good luck with that guys. Not like she had a chance of winning. I can't even think of a time a Supreme Court justice lost an election in MN
 
2014-06-13 03:52:19 PM
Could be worse

/could have picked some brain-dead backwoods hick governor that quit half-way through their first term
 
2014-06-13 03:59:48 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Could be worse

/could have picked some brain-dead backwoods hick governor that quit half-way through their first term


Yeah... what was her name again... oh, this is going to bug me now... Was it Winky Hickmon?
 
2014-06-13 05:26:18 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Could be worse

/could have picked some brain-dead backwoods hick governor that quit half-way through their first term


To be fair, she didn't quit halfway through until AFTER causing her running mate to lose his election.
 
2014-06-13 06:48:14 PM
Can she be convicted of DWI in Minnesota when they couldn't get a blood sample or breath test from her because she refused?
 
2014-06-13 06:54:03 PM
She said she's taking this case to trial because she believes her arrest and prosecution are retaliatory.

Retaliation for what?
 
2014-06-13 06:55:24 PM
MacDonald, 52, who practices family law, maintains that she was not drinking the night she was pulled over by Rosemount police and is taking the case to trial.

Party of personal responsibility, etc.
 
2014-06-13 07:05:45 PM
FTA: MacDonald says she took her own blood test at a hospital the following morning that showed no alcohol in her system.

Clearly incontrovertible proof that she was not drinking the night before! Checkmate, libtards; it's proven by sciencey medicine science.
 
2014-06-13 07:07:29 PM
Let me get this straight--

Gets pulled over for speeding, and has alcohol on her breath. Refuses both field sobriety test and breathalyzer.

Goes 12 hours later to get a blood test to prove that she had not been drinking the night before.

Now also claims she wasn't even the driver, although she was the only one in the vehicle, and behind the wheel when she was pulled over.

Yeah, typical GOP asshat.
 
2014-06-13 07:12:09 PM

fusillade762: She said she's taking this case to trial because she believes her arrest and prosecution are retaliatory.

Retaliation for what?


Freedom and stuff.
 
2014-06-13 07:19:31 PM
Not to defend her, but Rosemount is  notorious for its police traps. Two busy roads runs through the town and on
Friday and Saturday nights they park police at the city limits and pull over everyone.
 
2014-06-13 07:26:01 PM

Catlenfell: Not to defend her, but Rosemount is  notorious for its police traps. Two busy roads runs through the town and on
Friday and Saturday nights they park police at the city limits and pull over everyone.


Then that makes it even worse. You know that you are driving through a notorious police trap and you still drive drunk. That is a sign of a degenerate drunk right there.
 
2014-06-13 07:49:01 PM
She's doing it wrong; instead of fighting this to keep her shot at the Minnesota Supreme Court, she should have pled guilty, gotten the conviction on her record, then gone on to two terms as President of the United States.
 
2014-06-13 08:03:24 PM
Maybe Minnesota, like Wisconsin is a big fan of drinking and the DUI doesn't bug them. In fact it probably increases his "I'm a Minnesotan" street cred.
 
2014-06-13 08:17:37 PM

ongbok: Can she be convicted of DWI in Minnesota when they couldn't get a blood sample or breath test from her because she refused?


In most states they convict you of refusing to take the test and suspend your license for a year automatically because it's harder to prove a DWI without a test, so the actual act of refusing the test is a crime in and of itself.  However, that's still less damaging on your record than a DWI conviction, which is why every lawyer and judge in America always refuses to take the test.  ALWAYS refuse to take the test.  Even if you get the automatic suspension you might still get a work exception.

If you take the test and blow over, then they automatically have enough to convict you.  Absent that, you can argue anything from cough medicine to diabetic shock to fatigue to ambien and you're still more likely to get off than if you take the breathalyzer or blood test.  IIRC, some states can force you to take a blood test, but that's not uniform across the country.

But yeah, based on police reports a person can still be convicted of a DWI if the police convince a judge there's enough proof.  But if it comes down to a cop's word against an attorney's and there's no video, then it's difficult.
 
2014-06-13 08:28:34 PM
You can be POTUS with a dui, I fail to see how it's a problem for a stinking judge.
 
2014-06-13 08:44:13 PM
I think a familiarity with both sides of the law should be considered a plus, and DUI is about as pedestrian common a crime as might be non-disqualifying.
 
2014-06-13 09:10:40 PM
A police report said she refused a field sobriety test and did not take other tests that could have determined her blood-alcohol level.

Translation: BOMMMMMMMMBED.
 
2014-06-13 09:21:57 PM

NiteGuy: has alcohol on her breath


You know what three things any police officer can say without fear of retaliation that will get you arrested for DUI?
1) Odor of alcohol detected
2) Slurred speech
3) Relied on vehicle for support to exit vehicle

They do not need a shred of evidence to arrest you for DUI as long as they make those claims to the judge in court. Don't drink and drive, but also -
Don't roll down your window more than an inch
Don't talk; hand the officer a card with your attorney's phone number
Don't exit the vehicle unless the officer arrests you
 
2014-06-13 09:36:34 PM
Ah my homestate's GOP, continuing to fail. These are the same dumbasses who got kicked out of their headquarters for "forgetting" to pay rent. Time to search the thread and see if anyone else mentioned this first...
 
2014-06-13 09:59:12 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Ah my homestate's GOP, continuing to fail. These are the same dumbasses who got kicked out of their headquarters for "forgetting" to pay rent. Time to search the thread and see if anyone else mentioned this first...


Don't forget they bankrupted themselves for a dubious recount.
 
2014-06-13 10:20:42 PM

ongbok: Can she be convicted of DWI in Minnesota when they couldn't get a blood sample or breath test from her because she refused?


in MN they have implied consent. So by having a drivers license you automatically give consent to any sobriety checks that law enforcement may impose upon you at any time. You have the right to refuse, but the repercussions for refusal are equivalent or worse than a conviction for DWI. Anyone who refuses a test is basically admitting guilt. Which is why her behavior is so idiotic.
 
2014-06-13 11:26:54 PM

mainsail: Crotchrocket Slim: Ah my homestate's GOP, continuing to fail. These are the same dumbasses who got kicked out of their headquarters for "forgetting" to pay rent. Time to search the thread and see if anyone else mentioned this first...

Don't forget they bankrupted themselves for a dubious recount.


This right there.

There was no way Norm was going to be allowed to win the count after the first try.
 
2014-06-13 11:57:56 PM

ongbok: Can she be convicted of DWI in Minnesota when they couldn't get a blood sample or breath test from her because she refused?


That's basically an automatic conviction. You get your license revoked on the spot.
 
2014-06-14 12:00:37 AM

syrynxx: NiteGuy: has alcohol on her breath

You know what three things any police officer can say without fear of retaliation that will get you arrested for DUI?
1) Odor of alcohol detected
2) Slurred speech
3) Relied on vehicle for support to exit vehicle

They do not need a shred of evidence to arrest you for DUI as long as they make those claims to the judge in court. Don't drink and drive, but also -
Don't roll down your window more than an inch
Don't talk; hand the officer a card with your attorney's phone number
Don't exit the vehicle unless the officer arrests you


You drive drunk a lot, don't you.......


Anyway. here is the full MN law

fark this biatch
 
2014-06-14 12:03:37 AM

IgG4: ongbok: Can she be convicted of DWI in Minnesota when they couldn't get a blood sample or breath test from her because she refused?

in MN they have implied consent. So by having a drivers license you automatically give consent to any sobriety checks that law enforcement may impose upon you at any time. You have the right to refuse, but the repercussions for refusal are equivalent or worse than a conviction for DWI. Anyone who refuses a test is basically admitting guilt. Which is why her behavior is so idiotic.


ANd in many, if not most, states, when you sign you license you also agree to take a sobriety test if stopped., so you can't even say you didn't know.

If this coont hadn't been drinking, what's the problem?
 
2014-06-14 12:27:23 AM
I thought parties werent allowed to endorse judges. Last time I was voting, I couldn't find shiat about the judges or candidates party lean.
 
2014-06-14 01:12:20 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Maybe Minnesota, like Wisconsin is a big fan of drinking and the DUI doesn't bug them. In fact it probably increases his "I'm a Minnesotan" street cred.


Unlike Wisconsin, which is filled with open drunks, we are proud closet drunks here in MN. Now, I must be off after a night drinking in to set a bag of dog shiat on fire in front of a catholic church. Then follow it by drinking lukewarm watered down coffee.
 
2014-06-14 01:23:18 AM
Got pulled over 14 times in one year because I was driving home at 2:00AM on a Saturday morning (going from St. Paul to Rochester).  Because the law had been changed so they couldn't do random stops, they had to think of something.  Swerving, or using the high beams, or 1 mph above the speed limit, or they couldn't see my license plate...had to think of something.    8 warnings, no tickets.  Most of them took less than 10 minutes.  It was obvious that I wasn't drunk, and that's all they cared about.

Minnesota cares a lot about drunk drivers, whether it's a moral thing or it's that the police department gets to keep the car, I don't know.  But I don't think they'd make something like this up.
 
2014-06-14 01:50:55 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Got pulled over 14 times in one year because I was driving home at 2:00AM on a Saturday morning (going from St. Paul to Rochester).  Because the law had been changed so they couldn't do random stops, they had to think of something.  Swerving, or using the high beams, or 1 mph above the speed limit, or they couldn't see my license plate...had to think of something.    8 warnings, no tickets.  Most of them took less than 10 minutes.  It was obvious that I wasn't drunk, and that's all they cared about.

Minnesota cares a lot about drunk drivers, whether it's a moral thing or it's that the police department gets to keep the car, I don't know.  But I don't think they'd make something like this up.


I remember watching this special on DUI years ago. They particularly focused on Minnesota because in the 80's it had one of the highest deaths caused by alcohol related car accident rate in the country. To combat this they introduced some of the harshest DUI laws and enforcement in the country and in a few years their rate dropped to one of the lowest in the country.
 
2014-06-14 02:21:27 AM
Makes sense. You pretty much have to drink to believe in the conservative ideology.
 
2014-06-14 02:33:34 AM

syrynxx: NiteGuy: has alcohol on her breath

You know what three things any police officer can say without fear of retaliation that will get you arrested for DUI?
1) Odor of alcohol detected
2) Slurred speech
3) Relied on vehicle for support to exit vehicle

They do not need a shred of evidence to arrest you for DUI as long as they make those claims to the judge in court. Don't drink and drive, but also -
Don't roll down your window more than an inch
Don't talk; hand the officer a card with your attorney's phone number
Don't exit the vehicle unless the officer arrests you


I'd laugh my ass off at any cop that tried to do something like that to me, and then I'd see them in court - along with about 50 character witnesses who will testify under oath that I've never taken a sip of alcohol in my life.  I had one come -this- close to doing it.  Dropped a buddy off from a midnight showing and was greeted with 3 cop cars wondering why my passenger fled the vehicle into an apartment complex.

/small town
//slow night
///asshats followed me across town before pulling that shenanigan
////was going the limit, not swerving, etc
//they never go after the drunk golfers leaving the country clubs
 
2014-06-14 03:04:50 AM
Liberal thought police preventing her from having liberty feelings!
 
2014-06-14 08:27:21 AM
There is an old saying that a conservative is someone once a victim and a liberal is someone once falsely accused.  Guilty or not having experience our legal system where the presumption of innocence is only when the jury is in the room and the courts differ too much to the police is a good thing for a judge to have.
 
2014-06-14 08:42:34 AM

Herb Utsmelz: MacDonald, 52, who practices family law, maintains that she was not drinking the night she was pulled over by Rosemount police and is taking the case to trial.

Party of personal responsibility, etc.


In the wrong *and* claiming victimhood? I can see why the GOP endorsed her.
 
2014-06-14 10:13:05 AM
img.fark.net

Should have claimed to be diabetic.
 
2014-06-14 10:51:13 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Maybe Minnesota, like Wisconsin is a big fan of drinking and the DUI doesn't bug them. In fact it probably increases his "I'm a Minnesotan" street cred.


Nah we support getting plastered yet still being able to drive such that the coos don't bother pulling you over. Anyone can get tipsy, a skilled drinker can do that and not wrap his car around a telephone pole.
 
2014-06-14 11:45:47 AM
With crazy when sober critters like Bachmann in Minnesota, a drunken drinkin' judge is small worry.
 
2014-06-14 11:55:21 AM

Herb Utsmelz: MacDonald, 52, who practices family law, maintains that she was not drinking the night she was pulled over by Rosemount police and is taking the case to trial.

Party of personal responsibility, etc.


Granted that it may be complete and utter claptrap, but that's not avoiding personal responsibility so much as it is denying the crime in the first place.  Avoiding personal responsibility would be something like, "yeah, well I didn't want to drink all those highballs, but Obama came down on a unicorn and said he'd force me to gay marry Michelle if I didn't while the minarets were calling out full blast so I really didn't have a choice in the matter."
 
2014-06-14 12:03:19 PM

IgG4: ongbok: Can she be convicted of DWI in Minnesota when they couldn't get a blood sample or breath test from her because she refused?

in MN they have implied consent. So by having a drivers license you automatically give consent to any sobriety checks that law enforcement may impose upon you at any time. You have the right to refuse, but the repercussions for refusal are equivalent or worse than a conviction for DWI. Anyone who refuses a test is basically admitting guilt. Which is why her behavior is so idiotic.


Implied consent to the chemical tests (blood and breath; i don't think urine is used that much anymore)?  I know in Colorado the field tets are voluntary and pretty much a set up for probable cause anyway.
 
2014-06-14 12:06:07 PM

cretinbob: If this coont hadn't been drinking, what's the problem?


Improperly calibrated breathalyzer, improperly trained police and lab techs, etc etc.  Plus do you think you could honestly sway a cop who has enough suspicion about you before the field tests to let you go with a warning?
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report