We have some great commenters here on Hair Balls, and it's time we paid some damn attention to them.
So we'll be highlighting a Comment of the Day each morning or afternoon from the previous day's work. Maybe two comments, even.
This will all be determined by a highly rigorous scientific formula involving wit, clarity and whatever else we feel like at the moment.
We wrote about how the State Commission on Judicial Conduct gave a public reprimand to appellate justice Jim Sharp, who went on a colorful, expletive-strewn rant at Brazoria County officials as he tried to get a friend's daughter released from jail over a shoplifting charge.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Sharp is a Democrat, and fellow party members weighed in. Some with support, others not so much so.
JPSartre (who may or not be a Democrat, to be sure) wrote:
According to the findings, from the moment Mr. Sharp began making calls, he identified himself as an appellate justice and clearly indicated that he was calling on behalf of his friend's daughter. Put differently, before he had reason or opportunity to get angry, he announced his title in an attempt to assert authority he didn't have and was using his position to benefit a friend. Instead of simply accepting the clear, policy-driven answer he was given by the people in authority (at which point this episode would have ended and probably never come to light), Mr. Sharp got into a "my title is bigger than yours" pissing contest that came to the same end and ended up embarrassing him. A "good judge" understands and respects the limits of his authority and doesn't attempt to bulldoze over those limits. Even if you're a judge, sometimes you need to be told "No."