Posted on 12/07/2001 9:29:58 PM PST by The Wizard
As I watch Pearl Harbor tonight, I think about the great shame these people do to those who fought and died for our freedoms:
Freedoms that these people abuse for self interest.
But then there's James and his FreeRepublic.com on the other side of the scale, and that's a mighty heavy weight indeed
HA! you've got to be kidding? I also find it amazing that Berry is listed on the commission as an "Independent" as opposed to being a dem or rep. What a joke.
Did you see that Mark Geragos has been hired to defend the Walker traitor?
You've got to be kidding me! I just read today that he's also Condit's new lawyer. LOL The Condit hole only gets deeper. Can you imagine the look on Gary's face when he hears this. I suspect very soon Condit will be looking for lawyer #4.
That is not how law is intrepreted. Unless congress left behind some writings about its intent on this the Supreme Court will rule according the plain meaning of the text. Nowhere else in the statutes is it ASSUMED that an appointment ends when the original term is up. It is ALWAYS explicitly stated.
The main point is that Berry actually does have a case and FReepers and Gop'ers are rallying to a cause believing her posistion to be totally groundless when its not. You and others are clouding your judgement because of your emotions and not because you are taking a clear view of the facts.
Are you sure you're not mixing up Walker and Condidit? I thought I had read that that Brosnahan guy had been hired to represent the boy Taliban.
Clinton had no authority to appoint her to anything less than a 6 year term.
This is obviously going to court and I think a fair judge will rule for W (there's always a gamble with political issues though).
I just hope it's all settled soon and not dragged out. I assume the Bush admin wants it settled before the next monthly meeting.
I will admit the strong likelihood that a Clintonista appointee in the D.C. District Court would use the reasoning you suggest to come out on Berry's side. But I would be willing to bet that the D.C. Circuit would reverse.
That is not what it said. The old law (1957) specified what would happen whenever there was a vacancy. It provided (as other enabling statutes do for vacancies) that the appointed person would only serve out the remaining term. This wording is relevant all the time not just in transistion. The fact that it was there before and that it was excluded from the new statute enforces the argument it was deliberately changed.
In addition, other statutes creating committees under the same Civil Rights section are specific that appointments for vacancy's expire when the original term is up. The fact that this one does not have the same specific language enforces the posistion that one cannot rely that it was intended by congress because it was practiced elsewhere.
She has a strong case. She is not totally in left field.
She does have facts on her side. She has the plain meaning of the statute. It doesn't ussually get better than that.
And, her silence over the years on the length of the appointment in question leads me to conclude that she tacitly agreed with the Clinton Administration's interpretation. She picked poor ground on which to empty her magazine
Her silence would not affect the law.
How does this lead to absurd results ?
The court would weigh all the evidence to try and see what the intent of congress was. I have no idea what the arguments were at the time of drafting this law but I bet someone is researching it.
To her credit she has the fact that when congress intended to limit appointments during vacancies in other situations they do it explicity. She also has the fact that the prior law had explicit limitations on vacancy appointments and that these did not survive the redrafting of the law. It would make it even more difficult to argue it was on oversight on congressional intent.
Well, using those facts then (I wasn't aware of the 1957 language) would certainly give her more amunition.
It wont though. However if its finished up in time for the 2004 elections, we may be treated to commericials of Ms Berry being chained behind a US Marshall's armored personnel carrier and dragged out of a meeting. :)
Easy, it could allow them all to resign before the day before a president's term is up and be reappointed for another full 6 year term.
Apparently Clinton did just that. If that was beyond his authority, then the original appointment was made illegally, and that would leave us back where we started - with the position vacant, and available to be filled by an appointee of GW's choosing.
As stated above, we don't want any PHOTO-OP of this DemoRat being forcefully escorted from her office. We all know that the liberal networkslime are - right now - on the edge of their chairs - awaiting this opportunity. And of course, if this happens - and federal marshalls are photographed manhandling this woman out of her office,
...we will all see these photos - over and over again -this coming Aug, Sept, Oct and early Nov. - just before the mid-term elections for Senators and Congressfolk. This must not happen.
GOBILLYBOBGO!!
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.