A Sour Berry (re: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights)

CNSNews.com ^ | December 11, 2001 | Linda Chavez

[borisbob69]

When people of conscience start pointing out that the biggest racists and obstructionists are minority libs with a cause or axe to grind, then and only then will people like Berry not be tolerated!

[cweese]

...a dingleBERRY?...

[biblewonk]

Pretty uppity isn't she. Maybe we will see her beaten soon.

[newgeezer]

This article answers many of the questions I've had about appointments and terms of these commissioners. However, I'm still left with one:

Did Reagan and/or Geo. H.W. Bush (re-)appoint Berry, or did Congress? We're told Clinton appointed her chairman even though he had "reservations" about her. If so, why chairman?! Sure, I can imagine Clinton playing politics and the race card even though he might have "reservations" about someone (if HE has reservations, that someone must be a real gem!). But, chairman?! I'm still left wondering who, besides Clinton, was responsible for her nearly 20-year reign on the commission.

[VRWC_minion]

Beware-Berry has a good case. This bashing of her can backfire big time. The Bush advisors may have set Bush up on this one.

[TADSLOS]

Sounds like this woman has a history of behavior similar to Hillary's. She needs to be knocked off her perch.

[TroutStalker]

Ignoring such Constitutional niceties, the Democrats in Congress proceeded to appoint four commissioners, including Berry, for six-year terms. And she's been reappointed every time her commission expired since then.

[capt. norm]

"Beware-Berry has a good case. ".

NOT if they go by the Constitution, sir. It spells out this appointment business pretty well. They may have to wade through some meaningless B.S. that the liberals have strewn in the path to justice, but they win at the end of the day.

[newgeezer]

Thanks very much for graciously pointing out the need for my second cup of coffee!

So, the obvious next step in this mystery: Republicans had total control of Congress for six years (1995-2001). By definition, she was reappointed during that time. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?! Did Clinton's appointing her Chairman do something to change her term, or did the Republican Congress cave in to special interests?

[VRWC_minion]

NOT if they go by the Constitution, sir. It spells out this appointment business pretty well. They may have to wade through some meaningless B.S. that the liberals have strewn in the path to justice, but they win at the end of theday.

The consitution allows congress to create laws. The law in this case is on Berry's side. You and others can grab your pitch forks but I am warning you that she has the law on her side and you (and Bush) are going to look like racist bigots when this is over.

My only question is who is setting up Bush on this or does Bush have a bigger plan.

[deport]

An Independent, she was reappointed to the Commission by the President in January 1999.

[CA Conservative]

The consitution allows congress to create laws.

Yes, but those laws have to be in accordance with the Constitution. The constitutionality of the provision preventing the President from firing the members of an executive branch commission has not been tested in court. Just because a law is passed and signed does not mean it is constitutional...

If Bush is willing to fight that, I think he could win on constitutional grounds. It is a separation of powers issue, and the courts tend to rule pretty strictly on those issues.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Disenfranchised (Republican) Blacks in Florida
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: Decmeber 7, 2001
Author: Chris Jolma

[ChaseR]

"My only question is who is setting up Bush on this or does Bush have a bigger plan."

Ditto!
What day next week is all of this coming to a close? (some kind of meeting/final discussion/final decision is pending, right?)

[XJarhead]

The problem is that so-called independent commissions themselves would appear unconstitutional except that battle already was lost in the Supreme Court. Given that decision, you're probably not going to win a constitutional argument on Bush's right to remove a member from an independent commission.

I tracked down a pre-1994 version of the relevant statute, and it did indeed contain a provision regarding completion of partial terms that is absent from the current version. Normally, the removal of that provision would suggest strongly that Berry is right.

But, there were a lot of other changes to the old version as well because it was horribly confusing and badly written. The new version is much, much simpler. So it might be argued that simplification was the real goal, and that there wasn't a specific intent to remove the staggering element or the replacement element.

I think the key issue may be the composition of other independent commissions, and whether the authorizing statutes have specific provisions regarding filling vacancies. If, for example, "replacement" commissioners serve only for the original term even thought that is not stated in the governing statute, Bush has a strong argument. Anything else, and Bush will probably lose.

[vinylsidingman]

The Bush advisors may have set Bush up on this one.

Really ?? How so ?

[VRWC_minion]

I think you are combining issues. Bush's ability to remove Berry or anyone else is separate from his ability to appoint.

In any case setting a precedent that the pres. can remove without cause woukld swing both ways.

I would rather they raise this as an issue of having independent investigatory committees apart from the DOJ. We seem to be of a common mind that the independent council laws were more trouble than they are worth we should easily be able to paint this with the same brush Ken Star was. To me that would be a far better strategic attack than the one they are currently on.

The irony in this will soon be seen by the liberals when they discover that this argument is over the meaning of SHALL. In Florida us GOPers took the posistion that it meant MUST, while the libs took a more exspansive view point (ie all people have thier votes counted). Now we are taking the exact opposite (hypocritical if you ask me) that SHALL doesn't exactly mean MUST, it actually needs to be taken in full context.

[newgeezer]

How does Congress appoint Commissioners? House, Senate, or both? Because, as long as the DemoncRATS have any control, it appears this ultra-racist b*tch will have a lifetime appointment going for her. (If the Republican President won't reappoint her, the Dem Congress will.)

[gridlock]

I don't see her case. The law, past practice, and the particulars are all against her.

1) The original enabling legislation specifically called for replacement appointments to fulfill the unexpired term. The intent of this is clear that the Commission is to be contiguous, and not turned over with a change of administration. The amending legislation did nothing to change this, and is silent on how unexpired terms are filled.

2) All previous unexpired terms have been filled by temporary appointments to the end of the term.

3) This particular appointment was specifically made to the end of the unexpired term and had a specific termination date.

It seems that Ms. Berry's case is that President Clinton had no authority to appoint a commissioner to anything less than a six year term. But this assertion flies in the face of the original legislation and all precedence since then. Furthermore, this position invites the political stacking of the Commission by having mass resignation of all sympathetic members at the end of an Administration, so they can be re-appointed to six-year terms, which would deny the subsequent administration any right to appoint these seats.

Anyway you stack it up, this case seems like a loser for Ms. Berry in any court except for the court of public opinion. IMHO, it's a loser there, too.

But I'm not a lawyer. Can anybody explain how this woman has a case?