Posted on 05/01/2002 9:58:54 AM PDT by winin2000
There's a chance Peter Kirsanow will take his rightful seat at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights before its next meeting on May 17 — but only if three federal-appeals-court judges hearing arguments this morning in the case against civil-rights commissioner Victoria Wilson issue a speedy ruling.
There's no reason they shouldn't. Wilson's term as a Clinton appointee to the commission ended last November. She didn't serve a full six-year term on the panel because she was chosen to complete the tenure of the late Leon Higginbotham. All of Wilson's official paperwork indicated that her term would expire; when it did, President Bush named Cleveland labor lawyer Peter Kirsanow to the post.
But Wilson refused to budge. Her liberal allies on the commission, including chairwoman Mary Frances Berry, backed her up. They claimed the Wilson is entitled to a full six-year term, not merely the remainder of Higginbotham's. This is a bizarre interpretation of the law, but in February a federal judge actually bought it and said that Wilson could serve until 2006.
That decision stands a very good chance of being overturned by the three judges considering the appeal today. Yet Wilson, who is the defendant in the case, has excellent legal representation — secured for her by taxpayer funds. The commission has intervened on her behalf and bought the services of Ted Wells, a high-priced criminal lawyer perhaps best known for defending former agriculture secretary Mike Espy. Because the federal government is suing Wilson to quit her post, it means tax dollars are paying for both the prosecution and the defense.
There's no reason why the commission had to get directly involved in the case. In February, the General Accounting Office even ruled that the commission "does not have the statutory authority to use its appropriated funds to hire outside counsel" in the matter. The commission simply should let Wilson to defend herself and accept the final judgment of the court.
Yet here is another example of the commission's extreme politicization under the leadership of Berry. Last month, at oversight hearings sponsored by Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), commissioner Abigail Thernstrom blasted the panel on which she serves: "It sullies the drive for civil rights — taints the cause to which every American should be committed.... It has become a national embarrassment."
Those are harsh words, but they are also true. Even if Kirsanow wins this latest round, there's every reason to believe the commission's liberal members, who comprise a voting majority, would still refuse to seat Kirsanow.
If Congress had the courage, it would abolish the civil-rights commission, which no longer serves a useful national purpose. If necessary, it could take the panel's annual $9 million appropriation and give it to the civil-rights division at the Department of Justice, the civil-rights office at the Department of Education, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Whatever problems exist in these places pale in comparison to the systematic malfeasance of the civil-rights commission.
Think about it: affirmative action has been overturned how many times by federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court?! And time after time, all I read about is how this or that college is subverting the rulings by either open defiance or devising systems to get the essentially the same quota-filling result. Or about other identical preference programs that are making their way through the legal system awaiting rulings as if all of these prior cases ruling them illegal never happened!
Why is it when the Supreme Court definitively struck down "statistical sampling" for the Census, the Clinton administration proceed right ahead with it anyway? Had Gore won instead of Bush, he would have been entirely free to use those cooked numbers for reapportioning congressional districts in favor of the RATS.
Why are there never any consequences to this open flouting of the law?! Why wasn't Mary Frances Berry and illegitimate lackey of hers in Kirsanow's seat arrested
If there are any lawyers on the site right now, please offer me an explanation on this!
Enough is enough!
He can't due to the fact he is having such a hard time finding his "testiculos".
Liberals always excuse their lapses in following the law and/or ethical behavior by claiming that conservatives are to be held to a higher standard because they claim to take the moral high ground. Since liberals don't make those claims, it's okay if they skirt the law. If conservatives take the low road, the Left pounces on their actions as examples of hypocrisy. The Left don't feel they are hypocritical since they don't make the moralistic claims in the first place.
-PJ
I do not agree with this and think the court should rule that her term ended. If they do not rule such, then NOTHING is stopping the above scenario from becoming regular practice to maintian virtual lifetime appointments.
STATEMENT ON RULING OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT REGARDING TERMS ON U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Dr. Mary Frances Berry, Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, issued the following statement regarding the Court of Appeals ruling today:
There is a difference in interpretation between the Commission and the District of Columbia Circuit Court regarding the statute governing terms of Commissioners. We are studying the possibility of appealing the Court's ruling.
Despite the ruling against us, the Commission has won on two important points. First, the Commission preserved its independence and successfully exercised its right to have a voice and to be represented in Court. Secondly, we have always maintained that the dispute on the statute would be settled by the Courts, not by this administration or any administration.
05/09/02
The foregoing left wing radical spin continued to be paid for by our tax dollars.
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.