Brandon Smith Is A State Senator So He Is Allowed To Drive Drunk

Brandon Smith, a Republican … dontcha know … state senator from Kentucky is trying to have his DUI charge dismissed because a one-hundred-twenty-three year old addition to the state constitution bans lawmakers from being arrested while the legislature is in session.

Yes, he’s doing just that.

See, Smith was arrested and charged with DUI on January 6, the very first day of Kentucky’s 2015 legislative session and, after a Breathalyzer test, was found to have a blood alcohol level of .088; even in Kentucky a person is presumed drunk when the alcohol to blood ratio is .08 and above.

But Smith’s attorney Bill Johnson has filed a motion to dismiss the charges citing section 43 of the Kentucky Constitution which states that "members of the General Assembly shall, in all cases except treason, felony, breach of surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance on the sessions of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same."

That language was added to the constitution in 1891.

And even Bill Johnson admits that the purpose of that addition was to "keep legislators from being bothered by people who would arrest them during sessions." It was not created to allow asshats like Brandon Smith to get out of a drunk driving charge when he was clearly drunk.

I wonder if Brandon Smith and Johnson would have filed suit to dismiss the charges if Brandon Smith, while driving drunk, killed someone.

Is this what passes for a legislator in Kentucky? A man who clearly breaks the law, endangering the citizens of hisstate, and then tries to weasel out of the crime because of an ancient statuette that doesn’t really apply to him.

No one was trying to arrest Smith during the legislative session to disrupt the session or to “bother” him; he was arrested for breaking the law, for driving drunk.

You’d think a legislator would try to uphold the law, not find some way to circumvent taking responsibility for his actions.

If you’d like, go HERE to send Smith an email telling him to take responsibly for his actions and not try to hide behind some antiquated law.

via Middlesboro Daily News

I Didn't Say It ...

Rachel Maddow, on the Hobby Lobbied Supreme Court:

"These groups want their religious beliefs to excuse them from having to follow the law on, not just contraception, not just health law rules, but on non-discrimination. They now, because of this ruling, want a religious exemption from laws that say you can't fire someone for being gay. They want to be able to fire people for being gay because they think God wants that."

I think the next big fight will be religion versus the law, and we will endure countless debates from illiterate, ill-informed, Bible-thumping Republicans about how God made America for Christians.

Sigh.

Richard George Kopf, US District Court Jude, also on the Hobby Lobbied Supreme Court:

"To most people, the decision looks stupid ’cause corporations are not persons, all the legal mumbo jumbo notwithstanding. The decision looks misogynist because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic Church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception. While “looks” don’t matter to the logic of the law (and I am not saying the Justices are actually motivated by such things), all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public’s acceptance of the law. …  Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms has proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids say, it is time for the Court to STFU."

Wonder if we can get Kopf on the Court?

Julian Bond, on the LGBT rights movement, and the Hobby Lobbied Supreme Court:

"As LGBT people have gained greater equality under the law, we are hearing similar objections to the ones I heard in response to the civil rights gains of African-Americans in the 1960s. We hear people asking for exemptions from laws - laws that prohibit discrimination - on the ground that complying would violate their religious beliefs. ... There are some who feel that ENDA must allow religiously affiliated organizations - far beyond churches, synagogues and mosques - to engage in employment discrimination against LGBT people. We haven't accepted this in the past, and we must not today."

Discrimination is wrong; especially when based on something the discriminated person has no control over, like gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation.

It seems pretty queer to me.

Brandon Smith, a Republican state Senator from Kentucky, on climate change:

“As you (Energy and Environment Cabinet official) sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of."

Mars is just like Earth, y’all; except there’s no people or cars or factories or man-made pollutants up there.

Oh, but, yeah, the average temperature on Mars is about -80 Fahrenheit.

So it’s colder, I guess.