and being removed from office is a far cry from getting clubbed while buying produce.

How about getting clubbed WITH produce, a la Gallagher?

Oh brother. Who does McNamara think she is, setting up such a tenuous contrast between the world in which parasitical MSM journalists thrive on the lifeblood of those embroiled in scandals and the world which most of the rest of us would consider truly "ideal."

Off with her head!

Considering the recidivism rate among child molesters and the hideous, permanent damage they do to children (as in 'screwed for life'), as far as I'm concerned, it should be a capital offense without the right of appeal.

And the good judge should carefully consider a different career. The first responsibility of a judge is judgement, and she seems to have none at all.

She should be removed from the bench. Close doesn't count, the kid was still a kid.

That's ridculous. If it's a kid, it's a kid. If not, then not.

Question: If "child" had been guilty of murder, should they have been tried as an adult?

Is the "child" guilty of anything in this affair [sic]?

I say off with both their heads and the judge's too. You can't bee too careful when administering justice.

GG: Not so ridiculous at all. See Roe v. Wade, and each subsequent "partial birth" abortion ban that has since been overturned by federal and state court judges in the years since.

There is, however, a bright side to this sort of mindless arrogance on the part of judges (see also the recent idiocy of Judge Cashman's 60 day sentence for the repeated rape of a child in Vermont). With each such act of willful judicial lunacy, President Bush's next SCOTUS appointment... say, someone along the lines of Janice Rogers Brown... will become all that much easier to confirm.

From the news column:

''I understand the argument that he was a teacher, but I heard the evidence. A few weeks later and there would have been no crime," DelVecchio said in an interview on Friday, noting that 16 is the legal age of consent in Massachusetts. ''This was consensual sex, one incident of consensual oral sex. The student was six weeks short of the age of consent. Was he mature enough to consent to sex that day? Was he going to be mature enough six weeks later? It's an arbitrary line. I tried to do the right thing."

Yes, an arbitrary line that the judge vowed never to cross when she took the oath of her office.

Arbitrary is not supposed to apply here.

She most definitely did not do the right thing.

This is sickening. Come on lefties, defend this judge -- she's one of yours.

Hmmm.

I don't know. A produce isle. A goofball judge. A long firm length of daikon.

I'd seriously consider giving her a good thwacking.

Hmmm.

Or perhaps a long wooden pepper shaker.

Then it would be an assault with peppa.

:):)

You know, considering the number of Americans who would recognize two or more Supreme Court Justices in the grocery store, I don't think she has a ton to be worried about.

Hmmm.

"assault with peppa". Got it? Right? As in "sault" and "peppa".

Hello?

Anyone home?

I would like to ask what is the law in the same state (Massachusetts) concerning trying juveniles as adults for crimes they may have committed? Some states do not allow even the possibility of trying a juvenile defendant as an adult if the individual is below 16 years of age. Others, however, can go as low as 14:

"Many states allow minors over the age of sixteen to be prosecuted as adults if they commit serious felonies like robbery or murder. Some states set the age at seventeen, and some go as low as fourteen when a homicide is committed. Because of rising crime rates, many other states are trying to lower the age at which a child can be tried as an adult (usually from eighteen to sixteen)."

Source:

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legalcafe/family/child_law/childlaw_background.html

Thus, if Massachusetts lets some younger than 16 be tried as adults upon consideration, I think the judge might have some basis for her decision. OTOH, if Massachusetts NEVER goes below 16, then her decision seems indefensible.

Anyone know where Massachusetts is on this?

Well, maybe the judge suspended the sentence because the act was done with eager consent by the kid.

'Well, maybe the judge suspended the sentence because the act was done with eager consent by the kid.'

well maybe, but the little eager beaver kid was underage and the adult was a teacher in the school. Maybe she suspended the sentence and is scheduled to preside over the same sex wedding between the teacher and his eager student?

Well, maybe the judge suspended the sentence because the act was done with eager consent by the kid.

Make it a male teacher and a 15-year-old eager female student.

Would you have the same reaction?

The issue at stake here (besides the fact that we now live in a country where teachers feel it is OK to have sex with their minor students) is "moral relativism". You see, the "far left" is doing all they can to eliminate the notion of "right" and "wrong". They want a world where you can be arrested and jailed for daring to say that you feel homosexuality is a sin (which it is labled that way in the Bible), but for you to say that it is "wrong" for an adult teacher to have sex with a minor student is to deny their right to privacy.

Therefore, the issue (beyond the issue of equal justice under the law) is moral relativism. They want judges who rule based on their feelings rather than the law. Therefore if the age of consent is 16, and the child was 15y6m1d old, they were "almost to the age of consent" and therefore the judge can do what they want. How long do you feel it will be before they say well, at 15y3m1d old, they are really 16y old because "life begins at conception", but they in the next breath they defend abortion as simply "removing the fetus" which they will then say is NOT a human being?