Posted on 03/05/2014 11:11:45 AM PST by ColdOne
President Obama on Wednesday called it a “travesty” that the Senate had failed to confirm Debo Adegbile, his nominee to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
“The Senate’s failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant,” said Obama in a written statement.
“Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable,” he continued. “He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience,
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Trouble at home and trouble abroad for Obama. This is getting interesting.
FKU Obozo!
Example: "That was quite an obama that you told, and everybody believed it!"
Thank God the Republicans got a spine and voted down Mr. Dogpile, the proud attorney for a lowlife cop-killer who should have been executed 30 years ago.
Dear Nero,
Meet LAME DUCK!
Enjoy your time Together.
Signed,
TEA PARTY!
This is why a background check is so important. This individual had a tainted background and it was determined he could not be trusted to perform the job. That is why we have a Senate hearing committee on these things.
Darn that means Obama still owes that guy..
:)
The “travesty” was his nomination.
If travesty was the starting point, it could end no better.
No problem Obama will hire him for something.
LOLOLOL! right on!
LOLOLOL! right on!
Bitch slapped again!!! How many can he take in a week without crying? LOL
The Dictator didn’t get his way for once. Here’s hoping it’s a trend.
The real travesty is nominating the defender of a ruthless, cold blooded cop killer. He couldn’t find another qualified lawyer in the entire country? This is just another of his radical in-your-face moves.
first of all, not true... second of all--the Dems never do this, right?
Blocking him was so easy, even Mitch McConnell could do it ....
“In District of Columbia v. Heller, he argued in the Supreme Court that it would be ‘radical’ to recognize ‘an individual right to keep and bear arms.’ In fact, before the Supreme Court, he repeatedly described the principle of individual liberty protected by the Second Amendment as a ‘radical’ proposition. It was the position advocated by the nominee, however, that the Supreme Court ruled was woefully at odds with the Constitution and individual liberty.
“He also called the requirement to present identification before voting a ‘modern poll tax.’ Americans strongly support this basic safeguard for the integrity of our elections, and it has been endorsed by liberal Democrats such as President Carter. Not surprisingly, in Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court rejected the nominee’s views on this subject as well.
“And in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, he took the position in the Supreme Court that a church did not have the First Amendment right to hire or fire individuals who were responsible for conveying the church’s message and implementing its mission. The position the nominee advocated would greatly infringe on the Free Exercise rights of religious institutions. The Supreme Court rejected his views there, too—this time unanimously, 9-0.
“But it is his advocacy on behalf of the nation’s most-notorious cop-killer that most calls into question his fitness for the powerful government position he seeks.
Obama thinks he was elected as President of angry ethnic groups...
I wonder what Obama would say about nominating for the post the qualified lawyer who got George Zimmerman cleared despite the best efforts of a racially motivated prosecution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.