Shouldn't voters have the right to clean their own houses?
Cindy Gamrat’s life was forever changed by her own personal decisions.
As a freshman legislator, her votes were outstanding, and logical. She was owned by no one, and solid conservative arguments could be made for any lever she pulled. She performed as we expected, had hoped, yet had a failing that so many who are reading this are familiar.
She is human, has human characteristics, and is vulnerable to sin. As are we all.
The ‘dumb’ things she did caused a level of pain from which many of us would not be able to recover. Her career as a politician aside, the depth of hurt on the family level can have no objective measure from this side of the pen, but must certainly be spectacular.
I have often opined that “Stupidity must be painful.” Bad decisions must have adverse consequence, or no lessons are learned and we repeat those bad decisions. Generally the context is, of course, that the pain should be born on those who make the bad decisions. There is one situation that provides for a different result theologically and spiritually, but we are for the time being bound to the physics of our earthly existence.
In Cindy Gamrat’s case, there can be no doubt she has endured much pain. There can be no doubt that much (if not all) of it was deserved. And there can be no doubt that all of it can be forgiven in the ways that matter.
READ MORE ►
You Betcha! (16)Nuh Uh.(2)
i·ro·ny (ī′rə-nē, ī′ər-) Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.
Michigan House Speaker Cotter just lost a round in the Courser/Gamrat felony criminal case preliminaries. Ingham County District Court 54-A Judge Hugh B. Clarke Jr. ruled Friday it would be “patently unfair” for Gamrat’s and Courser’s attorneys to not have an opportunity to question Cotter in their defense:
“Without answers to these questions, the Court cannot adequately balance the rights of the Defendants against the right of the Speaker to be free from being compelled to testify,” the order states.
“To make this decision, the Court believes an in camera hearing with counsel for the Defendants, Speaker Cotter and his attorney is warranted. This procedure would allow the court to properly balance the interests of the Defendants against the privilege sought to be accorded Speaker Cotter.”
Speaker Cotter has been claiming immunity under Public Act 27 of 1984 in Judge Clarke’s courtroom:
“AN ACT to provide immunity from civil action to members of the legislature of this state for acts done pursuant to duty as legislators; to prohibit members of the legislature of this state from being made parties to contested cases or other administrative proceedings for acts done pursuant to duty as legislators; and to provide for certain exemptions from subpoenas.”
Specifically Speaker Cotter is claiming immunity from a subpoena ad testificandum under the third section of PA 27 of 1984
Subpoena as to statements made by legislator
A member of the legislature shall not be subject to a subpoena for any matter involving statements made by the legislator pursuant to his or her duty as a legislator.
The issue here will be that the legal action against Courser and Gamrat in Ingham County District Court 54-A is a criminal action, specifically a felony action, not a civil action. Speaker Cotter is claiming immunity under a statute which pertains to civil actions, not criminal actions. Michigan’s legislators have no constitutional or statutory relief from subpoenae in felony matters.
READ MORE ►
You Betcha! (10)Nuh Uh.(0)