Jackson Jambalaya

How many lawyers does it take......

Weren't the pardonees each issued a pair of black cowboy boots? That indeed implicates Bryant.

KF, I've a few questions about this.

I would think all of these people, "in their official capacity", would have some interest in weighing in on the pardon process as this case will set precedent. And, of course, the decision will affect constituents whom they represent.

Also, I don't know whether any of these people were involved by having been part of the process. Did they receive copies of the list prior to the pardons? Did any of them write in favor of one or more of the prisoners being pardoned?

If his inclusion is related to his current or past job responsibilities on behalf of the people of Mississippi and the powers of a Lt. Governor rather than any action he took or failed to take, Phil is beyond dumb to ask to be omitted and so are his advisors.

While your comments and concerns are well made, 8:17, there is actually no such thing as 'setting precedent' when it comes to a process which is entirely optional and without guidelines.

But, if you're talking the precedent set by Hood's idiocy, I agree.

I hope that this is not a characteristic of Bryant, excusing himself from state problems with the old "i had nothing to do with that" or "that's not my job" type sh*t. Seriously Bryant grabs some balls on your way in and take control of your first situation... Or you can prove to everybody that you have no business being where you are in the first place.

Meople, Bryant didn't have anything to do with the pardons, has no power under the constitution to reverse them, and it is not his job to defend or prosecute them. Would you have him try to illegally change the previous governor's decisions? he has discontinued the mansion trusty program and made it clear that he wouldn't be granting any pardons to murderers, both good decisions. Those of you who question Phil Bryant's brains or balls are in for four years of me reminding you how wrong you were. Bill Billingsley

bill- Did you play the part of the Incredible Hulk years ago?

Here we go - Bryant showing how he will be the "Big Idea Governor!" It's going to be a looong four years! But hey - I did't vote for him and yes, I am Republican!!

But hey - I did't vote for him and yes, I am Republican!!

And? So?

11:14, I also played on My Favorite Martian and The Courtship of Eddie's Father. I read for the part of Willard on Mr. Ed but they said I wasn't "believable."

No, that was Bill Bixby. The only videos you'll find me on are self produced. BB

Bill, let's hope YOU'RE never wrongly convicted of murder and railroaded into prison for life. I thought the purpose of clemency or pardon was to correct an injustice. Why should murder convictions suddenly be excluded from pardon consideration as a rule? Are there no injustices or wrongful convictions involving murder? Why should they now be excempt as a category not to be considered for pardon across the board? Ugh

This is the kind of governor we'll have for the next four years, everyone. Lick the finger, hold it up, decide which way the wind is blowing, then follow. During the transition, he and his people seriously considered calling up the C-L and asking David Hampton's opinion on several issues. The only bright spot in all this is that we've got a Republican House and Senate, so hopefully people won't ride too hard over him.

12:07
you might need to reveal a source or I call bullshit!

I remember now, you played Beaver's mom.

Bill- once again, I totally agree with you. Well said!!

12:01- How was the "man" who killed his wife while she was holding their baby wrongfully accused? Now he will be completely free to do it again...to someone else...
A murderer is a murderer and you shouldn't be pardoned OR granted a clemency. Same with a rapist. Actually, same with ANYONE else who commits a violent crime.
"Finding" God in prison (like almost every convict does)is not enough to erase your past or to allow a lesser sentence.
If someone is "wrongfully" accused and is completely innocent of the crime then that is a different story. But we aren't talking about innocent people here.
I have zero respect and patience for anyone who kills or rapes someone. They don't ever need to be released. And if you commit a violent crime then you don't deserve a clean record. No one HAS to commit a crime. It is a choice.

Bill, Bill, Bill i didnt say he ought to be proactive. I said he took the easy way out holding his hands up and saying it wasnt me... He is the governor now not the manager of a crispy creme... and he was leiutenant governor before that so it is own his watch. he can explain or try to help the situation by staying in it for future experience. My opinion is he handled it very poorly, hell he could have come out and said that was the dumbest thing i have evr heard of and i will be happy to be a witness or help in any way...

and before you slam me - Bill - Phil Bryant was the best option on the ballot.

Just my 2 cents, but I wish Bryant and his handlers would have thought about this one. His issue in this isn't whether he did it, whether he agrees/disagrees with it, or anything else. As the current Governor of the State, his position should simply be that he will uphold the Constitution. Period. I could give a rats rear what his personal position is.

He and his handlers need to stop playing to the cameras and playing to whatever side yells the loudest. This just looks like---oooo, its in the media and I don't want to be part of it, run away, run away. Guv aint to easy job so suck it up, campaigning is over, and yea, some decisions just aren't going to be liked by 100% of the people. This aint high school. As Governor, you should have stood up and simply said that you would uphold the constitution. If asked--well, does that mean you're on Hood or Barbour side. Answer should be-this isn't about sides, as governor of this state, my duty is to uphold the constitution.

that is one way to say it too - 3.18

12:58, ask Bullock

I thought Jim Hood had to wait at least 3 years before he opened up his campaign for Governor. Guess he thought this was a good opportunity to get some preliminary free advertising.

Bryant hasn't been in the governor's office 30 days and he is already in way over his head!

Well said - 3:18. The Gov does have a position in this, BECAUSE he is the Gov. He doesn't have to take sides; in fact, he shouldn't take sides. But he is now the Gov and he can't continue 'leading' with his finger in the air. He needs to be ready to take stands on issues - some of which might not be popular with a majority of the people. And all of which will not be popular with some of the people.

You asked for the job, now do it. And participating in this circus that Jim Hood is creating is part of the job as Chief Executive of the State.

12:01, I may not have been clear. I said that I didn't think murderers should be pardoned, and I think Phil said he wouldn't be pardoning any murderers. Neither statement suggests that the governor shouldn't have the right to pardon whoever he wants to. The next one might pardon a hundred murderers. I'll still wish he hadn't, but it's his right to do so until the constitution is changed.

Meople, I don't slam anyone. It's okay to disagree. It may not have been the easy way out but in my opinion it was the right way to handle it. Phil could have made political hay out of it like Hood is trying to do, but I think he acted appropriately by standing by the constitution and not getting involved in the previous governors pardons. BB

Thanks, Rebekah. Have I ever told you that you look a little like Catherine Zeta-Jones?

12:01; You were not serious when you posted this statement, were you? "I thought the purpose of clemency or pardon was to correct an injustice."

Bill, I agree with those who think a Governor has a leadership role to play on current issues.

The law is about the " is" vs " the ought to be". Law is not static.

We are discussing the " is" which obviously has been inadequate in this instance. The question then becomes " Can we improve the current process?" And, IMHO, the Governor should be the first to do his " homework" and either make suggestions for improvement or else defend the status quo.

I think this was Bryant's first challenge and it simply reinforces my personal impressions in my contacts with him that he lacks substance and a well thought out moral code...to put it kindly.

Can I be the first to call bullshit on 8:18? He sez: "..in my contacts with him that he lacks substance and a well thought out moral code...to put it kindly".

If you're going to anonymously make a comment like that, you should be prepared to at least offer minimal backup for it. What example can you cite for lack of substance? Have you an example of a moral failure? Otherwise, I suggest you're full of shit. I cite as evidence your entire post.

I'm ok with people wanting to let these convicts rot in jail forever, unredeemed and unforgiven, just don't start beating me over the head with "Christian values" next time someone suggests educating future generations in basic scientific principles and biological facts.

Shadow, perhaps " ethical" would have been a better word than " moral".
I don't find it ethical for politicians to tell individual constituents they hold a certain position on an issue and then vote/act differently. If a politician is opposed to a bill , they should be able to tell a constituent why they can't support it.
While I have many personal examples that would be based only on my word against his and there is no reason for you to accept my word as you don't know me, I think his complete agreement with EVERY demand of MS Tea Party( including the outrageous ones that were really one lunatic's " ideas") and his Personhood position should be your hint.
My alternative to thinking Bryant lacking in ethics is to think him stupid. It's either/or.