Vile. Just completely vile. It does make one wonder what would happen if a Republican made the same statement. Put any other kind of vicitim of a crime in that statement and it's still vile. The only way this would get press would be if that statement was about ripping apart some member of the liberally protected species.

Fagan is also chairman of the House Ethics committee?

This is a portrayal of his ethics? 

His comments make me want to throw up.  

This is infuriating, and I find it unfathonable that anyone, whether a D or an R, would not only be screaming for an apology, but also be demanding a resignation. 

File him under scum of the earth. 

As with all Democrats, Mr. Fagan "did it for the children."

Think about the children!  What about the children?!

<insert witty signature here>

BHO favors KILLING unitended births!

If a child is "accidentally" born during an abortion.  The leading Democrat favors KILLING it!

Of course he can't even admit that it is a human being, so it's OK to KILL it!

BHO and his fellow Marxist MUST be stopped NOW!

At least Fagan has provided his next election opponent with some damn good footage for an attack ad!

Think positive.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

www.conservativeboot...

I guess the media only really cares about the "children" we send off to battle in Iraq. But the 6 and 12 year olds getting raped are adult enough to handle this.

I sent the Representative a nice letter expressing my distaste for his words and his apparent lack of Ethis.  He has yet to reply to me nor do I expect him to since he is used to hiding.

Someone recommended having Mr Fagan drop into a pub in South Boston to discuss his viewpoints with the locals. Does anyone know what this suggestion means???

on Mr. Fagan's comments.  The post states he opposes the mandatory sentencing law.  Perhaps - based on his defense attorney experience - he is attempting to tell his fellow legislators what the victims can expect to experience if this law is passed and enforced and they must take the stand.

In other words, are they so anxious to create a system that will victimize the victims again?

The "what if?" scenario is NB's stock in trade.  It's included in both the posts and comments on this very topic. 

The way to find out, of course, would be to call Mr. Fagan up and ask him.  Based on the two NB posts, however, no one has bothered to do that yet.

But it would explain why this story hasn't been covered elsewhere.  Maybe...it isn't...a story...

I propose that legislation be passed that when a defense lawyer wins a case for a defendant, and if this defendant  commits another crime (especially if it is a repeat offense), then the defense lawyer should be charged with accessory to the crime.  But that won't happen so at the very least, hit them where it really hurts---a very hefty fine!  In addition, lawyers who use this type of tactic of attacking witnesses and victims should also be penalized and open to lawsuits as well.

Since morals and ethics are being thrown out the window, then accountability needs to be placed by law.

I know, I'm dreaming.....

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

... he'd rip the victims a new one, then thought better of it.

Even assuming that Fagan was trying to be shocking just to make a point (and isn't just evil - which is more likely), his logic is faulty.  It assumes that scumbag lawyers wouldn't go after the kids anyway, even if the molester was only facing 3-5 years instead of 20-30 (or the death penalty).  They would, and do.

Or would Fagan prefer that child rape be legal - just to keep all nasty lawyers away from children seeking justice for the serious harm done to them?

Once again, Newsbusters is right on.     On your average day, CNN and MSNBC devote hours of coverage to the Massachusetts state house with their endless resources, but they chose to ignore this story.   Liberal commies!  

What is amusing is the bias used in claiming bias about this story.   Everyone leads with "Rip apart" rape victims.   It creates a visual that people like newsbusters want, but doesn't really echo the comment in context.  

I can see what Mr. Fagin is driving at, essentially that a manditory law means that he's going to more vigorously defend his clients since his options for pleas will be less.  And this will potentially be at the kid's expense.   They were stupid comments to make, and not politically correct, but does anyone here doubt that what he said is TRUE?    

The fact that Mr. Fagin's Democrat has nothing to do with this.  Quite simply, the SCLM doesn't have the money or resources to cover everything said in state legislatures.   

 Comparing this to the Mark Foley story is also ridiculous.  Mark Foley served in the UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and  was hitting on young people!    But I can understand how it helps you slant your story to portray a media bias that really never existed in the first place.