Discussion for article #223912
Don’t you just love the system?..it’s a beaut!!
1 Like
What they should have done was not endorse for a judicial election. Minnesota’s parties normally don’t. The Republicans endorse some years but not others, and I’m guessing they did this year because the two justices up for election were appointed by the current Democratic governor. The Democrats still don’t endorse, and few judicial candidates seek party endorsement. The ones who do seek endorsement have always been hard right. So the Republicans could have stuck to long standing practice and stayed out of a judicial election. That makes this a self-inflicted wound.
5 Likes
Maybe the Minnesota Republican Party should have called a cab for her instead of allowing her to drive her own car after their annual Strangle the Puppy bacchanalia back in 2013.
On the other hand perhaps they were all too tipsy to have noticed her exit.
1 Like
The phrase, “None of us, including the convention delegates, were aware…" pretty much covers every subject for Minnesota GOPosaurs. Then again, being clueless and unaware is a prerequisite to be a member of the GOP, rather than a disqualification…
6 Likes
Why am I even having to bother with a case where I’ve had zero alcohol, and why am I being asked to go to a trial where they cannot prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Minnesota law reads in part:
Additionally, Minnesota’s implied consent law says that you consent to taking a preliminary breath test. This works like a field sobriety test. The officer will use the results to establish probable cause that you were driving under the influence. You do not have to take this preliminary test, and the officer should say so. Refusing it, however, probably won’t work in your favor if the officer has some other reason to think you had been drinking. Based on that other reason, the officer could still arrest you and then you will be required to take a test under the law described in the paragraph above.
5 Likes
Well, I’m an important lawyer…the system doesn’t apply to me!
2 Likes
She, of course, is innocent until proven guilty…
No. In our legal system, she’s entitled to a presumption of innocence. Whether she’s innocent or not is a question of objective fact, and doesn’t change regardless of the verdict at her trial.
5 Likes
“And I should know, because I’m a reserve cop too!”
1 Like
I suppose it’s OK as long as she is not caught on the bench Deliberating While Intoxicated. But then could you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
1 Like
Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law
That alone covers it. The fact that she was operating a motor vehicle means that she was obligated to take a field sobriety and then, possibly, the breath test. Being a lawyer and “reserve cop” I would’ve thought she knew that.
3 Likes
In most states, nominees for judicial positions must first fill out a form disclosing any past criminal convictions or pending criminal matters. If the State’s nominating committee did not know of Ms. MacDonald’s pending drunk driving charge, then the committee either did not read Ms. MacDonald’s disclosure statement or she deliberately misled the committee by not disclosing the pending charge.
Carl Kirsch
Atlanta, GA
1 Like
They’ve been pretty good at the self-inflicted wound thing these last few years. I’m not complaining of course.
1 Like
I’m not looking forward to whenever Amateur Hour at the MNGOP ends. It’s got to happen some point, and then we’ll have to worry about them. Until then, I’m very happy with a DFL-controlled capitol.
Judges should not be elected.
3 Likes
The MN GOP is sounding more like the CA GOP all the time~irrelevant.
1 Like
Vetting is not normally a Republicant thing. If you have, or can get, money then you’re in.
1 Like
Judges in MN are appointed and then face re-election every four years. There is a strong sentiment in the state not to turn the judiciary into a political contest except for members of the GOP, and their candidates have failed so far. We’ve witnessed the mess political judges have created in nearby Wisconsin in recent years. We kicked out a district judge in Dakota County a couple years ago, but that was due to misbehavior.
I rather doubt this candidate will have much success. She refused to take any kind of test so she’s facing a gross misdemeanor charge for that as well as resisting arrest.
1 Like
Hilarious! I hope she pushes this thing- presumably there would be some juicy dashboard cam footage of her non-drunkeness that might possibly leak out if she made a big enough stink about this.
Reminiscent of when the local GOP wackos picked right-wing-nutjob Jon Grunseth to run for gov in 1990, not knowing he had certain pool-party/skinny-dipping-with-underage-teens skeletons in his closet. When that came out, they leaned on him, and he called a press conference…to say he’d decided he was going to push forward no matter what anyone said about him!
The following day, a woman came forward with a story about the affair she and the married gov-in-waiting had long carried on. Grunseth decided to move to Australia. (really!)
Pow! The sweet sound of the Minnesota GOP shooting itself in its foot again…
For the GOP it is the RIGHT THING to pick a person with pending DWI case. It matches their NATIONAL POLITICS.