Kentucky Judge Steven D. Combs in Pike County has been temporarily suspended after an array of charges of bizarre comments and actions, including calling officials such names as “Fishface,” “cokehead,” and “Dumbo.” Worst yet, he threatened to put a “bullet in the head” of the next police officer who pulled him over. A temporary suspension until resolution of the 10 charges seems quite modest punishment but his counsel, Stephen Ryan, still conveyed Combs’ “disappointment” with the action taken by the Judicial Conduct Commission.
The complaint detailed Combs use of various, less-than-flattering ways of referring to other people like “Fishface,” “cokehead,” “dumbo,” “retarded,” “coward” and “prick. ” — use of those words has led to the temporary suspension of a Pike County circuit judge.
Combs is accused of conflicts of interest in cases, inappropriate communications, inappropriate political activity, soliciting contributions from attorneys in cases before him, and other violations. One of the most interesting is that he allegedly made inappropriate statements on the gossip website Topix under usernames including “LOL,” “Better Call Wusty,” “Imma Tellinyou,” and “City Hall Patrol.”
That last allegation is problematic and goes again to the right of public employees to engage in social media, particularly when using an alias.
One of the worst charges concerns the alleged statement of Combs that the next officer who pulled him over would get a “bullet in the head.” When confronted by police over the statement, he allegedly replied “I’m elected by the people and not pieces of trash like you-all.”
Combs, who has been a judge since 2003, is paid $124,620 annually.
Paul
There isn’t much of Magna Carta that is applicable today but it was the foundation for English and also US Law I believe.
I don’t think there was much about guns but remember some regulation about priests habits
It’s been updated as you can imagine…… maybe it is time to update your Constitution and amendments as well to address the needs of a modern society?
Cases are only messy because of the legal issues.
ninianpeckitt- the Magna Carta has been updated? Please give me a link?
@Ninian
Hmmm. Sooo, is “gun abuse” like “self abuse”??? Let’s see, you are English or Australian or something, right, and a doctor???
and, you are also a doctor:
Because if that is what you mean by “gun abuse” then I take back everything I said, because I sure don’t want people blowing off their little weenies by accident, or if they are a woman. . . Oh My!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, my purpose in commenting here isn’t that you or any of your fellow bigots respond to me. My purpose is to express my opinion and if you don’t like it, all the better, and too damn bad.
To Paul: Yes I did read it it’s all very complicated isn’t it. No wonder the Constitution is in a mess.
That’s what happens when you can’t make your mind up.
It’s obviously a significant part of the problem you face in the United States.
Thank you for clarifying it for me.
ninianpeckitt – unlike the Magna Carta, the Constitution lays out the form of government and protections of its individual citizens. It is not messy. Sometimes the cases that come before the Supreme Court using parts of the Constitution are messy.
Gun Abuse
Here is a good workable definition. I have not altered it in any way. I have just copied and pasted.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=abuse&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4PRFF_en-GBAE615AE624&q=abuse+definition&gs_l=hp..0.0l5.0.0.1.125646………..0.T-sulz5JvM4
1. use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
So what you do is you substitute the word (something) by the word (gun).
If you don’t understand this I will try to explain it in more detail.
You might want to explain why I need to provide this information for you. It seems very basic.
ninianpeckitt – I know what abuse is. However, you have gone on at great length about ‘gun abuse’ and I want to know what constitutes gun abuse. You are weaseling on your terms so I don’t know if I agree with you or disagree with you.
@I.Annie
That last of comment of yours is why many people here just ignore you. I gave an intelligent and rational response to Ninian, and explained to him my OPINION of his argument. I spent a couple of minutes writing it, and thinking about how to say it. One is free to agree or disagree with my OPINION, yet all you chose to do was pop off with, “Oh, the people who disagree with you, Ninian, are just sooo stupid!”
Gee, did he frame his argument to address what is one sub-point of the issue??? Because that was not a stupid question.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
In Annie/Inga’s confused mind, she rants against how rogue government agents shoot black men in the back without any concern or repercussion….. then in the very next article rants against the second amendment, by which vulnerable citizens might protect themselves.
Curious indeed.
12th Amendment and Paul’s Link
This is a nice basic article but what is being referring to is related to the December 15, 1791.
The Article does confirm a 75% ratification requirement.
The Wikipedia entry I posted, relates to a Twelfth Amendment, proposed by the 8th Congress on December 9, 1803, some twelve years later, when it was approved by the House of Representatives by vote of 83–42, having been previously passed by the Senate, 22–10, on December 2. The amendment was officially submitted to the states on December 12, 1803, and was ratified by the legislatures that I previously posted. That is 13 States in 1803-1804.
Having been ratified by the requisite three–fourths of the several states, there being 17 states in the Union at the time, the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment was completed. It was subsequently ratified by:
1. Tennessee — July 27, 1804
2. Massachusetts — 1961 (After rejection — February 3, 1804)
The amendment was rejected by:
1. Delaware — January 18, 1804
2. Connecticut — May 10, 1804.
On September 25, 1804, in a circular letter to the governors of the states, Secretary of State Madison declared the amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states.
This is information is not covered by the author in your link. But it does confirm that the 12th Amendment was ratified by 1804. So I think Paul is being somewhat mischevious in implying that it wasn’t ratified. It was in the end.
So it would appear that your posting is correct but only for 1791 and this information has been superseded by the information I posted in relation to the 12th Amendment appears to be more up-to-date i.e. 1804.
So I must to apologise for not making this more clear and I have absolutely no idea what Paul is demanding I retract.
What you, Dr. Peckitt have proven is that there is a segment of America is so deeply entrenched in their destructive mindset that they don’t recognize REASON. That doesn’t bode well for the U.S. Dr. Peckitt, you say you’re disappointed, can you imagine what rational Americans must feel like listening to this rot from these people on a daily basis? To hear even their political leaders spewing this garbage? This is a type of social insanity.
Inga – you are a liberal. You work on emotion, not reason. Reason is not in your wheelhouse.
Blah blah blabbitty blah…. most often wrong Paul. That is all that I hear coming from you too.
ninianpeckitt – you never read my link did you? If you had, you would have realized that 12 amendments were originally sent to be ratified by the states. Only 10 were, numbers 3-12. Number 2 was added many years later, in 1992 when it became the 27th Amendment. Number 1 should be added but never will be.
@Ninian
What exactly have you proven??? Let’s see, first you set up an argument,
“Guns kill more of their owners than they do criminals.” and you support that with some evidence. Now, in a technical, legal sense, “evidence” is not by itself dispositive of anything. For example, in a bar, Bob hits John with a pool cue and kills him. Twenty people who personally know Bob, and were at the bar at the relevant time, testify that they saw him do it. Meanwhile, Bob’s mother and girlfriend swear under oath that Bob was with them at the time of the murder.
One could truly say that there is evidence of Bob’s innocence. Yet, a sensible person realizes that it is the weight of the evidence that matters. One can not simply bandy the mother and girl friend’s testimony all about while proclaiming, “Bob is innocent! Bob is innocent! I just proved it! I win! I win!”
This is analogous to your statements. In addition, you commit this error. You illogically extend your argument on just one part of the whole “gun issue”- – -to the whole issue, as if the matter has now been put to bed and all other sub-issues resolved. All while ignoring the other facets of the argument. You are claiming in effect, “Oh lookee, I have just proven that guns kill more of their owners than they do criminals, sooo now let’s repeal the 2nd Amendment and all give up our guns!”
Which is bad enough as a supposedly logical supposition, but I notice that you seem to avoid any other, and what I personally regard as more relevant, parts of the issue. Such as protection against nazi-style governments, and the deterrent effect, just to name two.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
To: Paul
I have provided evidence and you haven’t provided ANY “facts” that have been verified.
Posting on this blog has certainly been an experience….. if this is a high standard of debate you need re-training.
I was looking forward to a real good debate of a high standard. I wanted to be challenged on evidence to understand why you behave the way you do; to understand why a country with the highest number of shot citizens is prepared to accept this situation; why your judge said the things he said; what you all think about it; why you don’t want change; why others do want change; and if change is to happen how is this to be conducted. I also wanted to see someone put me in my place and I have to say that the experience is like being savaged by a dead sheep.
I am very disappointed.
Most of the “pro gun” postings are related to the tactics of posting anecdotal nonsense and presentation of anecdotal fictitious facts that can be simply disproved by an infant copying and pasting the verified evidence.
Reform will eventually happen and it will be a pushover. There will be nothing you can do to prevent this. Responsible Gun Enthusiasts who engage in this process will be able to make a contribution to improved safety in bearing of arms.
Your Government will find ways around tactics of disruption to the democratic process.
Einstein said: “we cannot solve our problems by the same thinking when we created them”.
But in order to do this you have to be able to think in the first place.
ninianpeckitt – I have posted facts that can be verified. You are, as I once said about another teacher, “other worldly.” You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not have the background to talk it if you did.
Go to a bookstore. Buy a book on American Government (high school version). After you have absorbed that, come back and talk. BTW, still waiting for a definition of ‘gun abuse.”
To Paul: I don’t pretend to understand anything…… and I have offered to apologise if I have things wrong.
I’ve just copied and pasted verified information about the 12th Amendment from an authoritative blog (Wikipedia) which appears to contradict pretty much all of your anecdotal statements. Anecdotal statements are not evidence and as such they are unacceptable.
If this upsets you it’s not my fault. Just take it up with Wikipedia, if what they have published is wrong.
But it does look like a 75% ratification is required to pass an amendment. If this is wrong please explain and provide a reference to confirm that what you are saying is correct.
Otherwise your comments are unproven.
@Ninian
I think it was maybe your first thought- – – that you reached the limits of your understanding. . .
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl reporter
Now we ARE reaching my limit of understanding.
First it was cars, then it was the 12th Amendment, and how I don’t understand things, and now it’s euthenising cats, dogs and destruction of villages to save a village.
I am either missing something really deep or I must be winning the argument if this is the best you can do…… !
You know, maybe Ninian is on to something??? We have a lot of problems caused by stray dogs and stray cats. Maybe we should just grab people’s pets and euthanize them so we can solve the problems with those pesky strays! Because sometimes you have to destroy a village to save a village. Right???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
12th Amendment Wikipedia
I’ve checked again and here is verified information and suggest you check your facts unless there is something I am missing or not understanding. A 75% ratification rate seems to be the rule.
The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the 8th Congress on December 9, 1803, when it was approved by the House of Representatives by vote of 83–42,[4] having been previously passed by the Senate, 22–10, on December 2.[5] The amendment was officially submitted to the states on December 12, 1803, and was ratified by the legislatures of the following states:[6]
1. North Carolina — December 21, 1803
2. Maryland — December 24, 1803
3. Kentucky — December 27, 1803
4. Ohio — December 30, 1803
5. Pennsylvania — January 5, 1804
6. Vermont — January 30, 1804
7. Virginia — February 3, 1804
8. New York — February 10, 1804
9. New Jersey — February 22, 1804
10. Rhode Island — March 12, 1804
11. South Carolina — May 15, 1804
12. Georgia — May 19, 1804
13. New Hampshire — June 15, 1804[Note 2]
Having been ratified by the requisite three–fourths of the several states, there being 17 states in the Union at the time, the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment was completed. It was subsequently ratified by:
1. Tennessee — July 27, 1804
2. Massachusetts — 1961 (After rejection — February 3, 1804)
The amendment was rejected by:
1. Delaware — January 18, 1804
2. Connecticut — May 10, 1804.
On September 25, 1804, in a circular letter to the governors of the states, Secretary of State Madison declared the amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states.
So if this is wrong the correct information should be presented to Wikipedia.
If you have made a mistake you need to admit it.
ninianpeckitt – here you go. Will look for your apology.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/The-Original-Bill-Of-Rights-Had-12-Amendments.htm
12th Amendment
You should let Wikipedia know this if there is evidence that they are posting incorrect information
ninianpeckitt – wikipedia has so many errors that I normally refuse to use, never allowed my students to use it and refuse to recognize it as a legitimate source. You have as much chance of a Wikipedia article being correct as picking a coin toss.
That’s not quite correct.
The Twelfth Amendment refined the process whereby a President and a Vice President are elected by the Electoral College. The amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite three– fourths of state legislatures on June 15, 1804.
Reference Wikipedia
If I understand this correctly any alteration/addition to the Amendments of the Constitution would require a 75% support of State Legislatures. So the winning post on either side for new legislation would seem to be set at 75% support.
Thank you for clearing this up and I apologise for my ignorance if I don’t get everything right about the American system. I am a novice but hopefully a fast learner, and I thank you for your patience or in this case patients.
ninianpeckitt – the current 12th Amendment is the 14th that was sent to the states to be ratified. Now this is Constitutional trivia, so I won’t be too hard on you about it.
And this isn’t about Paul’s personal circumstances and his responsible behaviour with guns. It isn’t about other responsible people with guns. Its about regulation of guns in response to your judge’s unfortunate comments and the current carnage in a country that resembles Dodge City rather than the Leader of the Free World.
To personalise this issue will lose you your cause. It may take time a long time but society will act to curb the regular gun atrocities that are occurring.
ninianpeckitt – I am going to say this in the nicest way possible. You are ignorant of the American political system. There is no shame in that. We are all ignorant in a lot of things. I am ignorant of the gasoline engine, for example.
I have taught Civics or the American Political system. If we were having coffee I would be stopping you every sentence to correct you. You have to learn the system before you try to tell us how we are supposed to change things.
There isn’t anything polite about a schoolful of dead kids.
I don’t think any perpetrator would say “stand against the wall please and have a nice day”.