Thomas is in deep poop. Poop deposited with his own shovel, it should be pointed out. He's going on the offensive against seven bar complaints filed against him stemming from his office's miserable handling of the New Times affair and his unprecedented and irresponsible attempt to have the chief of the Maricopa bench disqualified from hearing any criminal cases.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
But the reason I felt a need to comment on Andy's on-going humiliation and long-past-due comeuppance is the way the media has framed the bar complaints, and the response it has drawn from some of our esteemed legislators.
The Media Framing:
Repeatedly I'm seeing the media note that there were 10 complaints pending against Andy and that 3 have already been dismissed. That's true, but it creates an impression that the complaints share a factual under-pinning, and thus it's inevitable that the remaining 7 will also be dismissed in short order.
That is manifestly not the case. The dismissed charges are completely unrelated to the shameful selective and retaliatory prosecution of the New Times and Andy's irresponsible ideologically-motivated attack on the Maricopa bench. The merits of the remaining 7 complaints are not in any way related to the dismissed 3. The only commonality among the 10 charges is that Thomas has run his office in a manner that draws Bar complaints like flies to... well, you know.
The Merry Band:
In an interesting turn of special pleading for their ideological brethren, the ideo-savants of our state legislature have endorsed the idea of turning over professional discipline to "an idependent agency" or the courts. I'll guarantee the courts don't want primary responsibility for bar discipline, and they already oversee it in an appellate capacity. The alternative is... you guessed it... bureaucrats. Probably politically-appointed, pointy-headed ones.
Funny how free-marketers seem always to turn to government in a pinch. They yowl about how industry should police itself at every turn, but when an industry does (with a great deal of effectiveness, and with a long track-record of success, I might add), they want to abolish it because they don't like the outcome for their fair-haired boy, Andy.
I think this about as good an idea of turning over professional oversight of doctors to insurance companies or some politically-motivated and unaccountable government agency. Real professionals involved in the delivery of professional services should preside over issues of professional responsibility and discipline. Only other practitioners, disciplined by election and oversight by their colleagues should be entrusted with the livlihoods and reputations of their fellow professionals.
The suggestion by the dolts in the legislature that it should be otherwise is an inexplicable rejection of time-tested good sense and the wisdom of tradition and experience that clearly indicates that these jokers are not any sort of conservatives, but societal vandals intent on only getting their own way and protecting their political allies at any cost. Real conservatives should be outraged and utterly disgusted by the venality and recklessness of this group of revolutionaries.
In case you are curious who these fools are, here's a list:
Sen. Robert Blendu
Sen. Bob Burns
Sen. Ron Gould
Sen. Chuck Gray (former police officer)
Sen. Linda Gray
Sen. Jack Harper
Sen. Karen Johnson (worked for a Sheriff)
Rep. Andy Biggs (attorney)
Rep. Judy Burges
Rep. Doug Clark
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (attorney?)
Rep. John Kavanagh (doctorate, criminal justice)
Rep. Warde Nichols
Rep. Russell Pearce (former police officer)
Rep. Steve Yarbrough (attorney)
These folks just lost the right to call themselves conservatives with a straight face.
My particular contempt and derision is reserved for those who, due to their background and training, should understand the importance and deep tradition of the self-regulation of the Bar. Those who are attorneys, yet blithely advocate that hundreds of years of tradition should be thrown over for the convenience of a little schmuck like Andy are deserving of particular scorn.
Those without legal or law enforcement training could possibly plead ignorance of the role which the self-regulation of the legal profession has played in preserving our freedoms and vindicating our rights as free citizens: they are merely ignorant fools, easily led into folly. Those who have been police officers, or are attorneys have no such excuse for their perfidy. They are simply contemptible, and wear the name "conservative" as a mask for their true natures as politicians without any discernible principles.