Skip to comments.
Judge Rules In Favor Of Wilson In Civil Rights Commission Case
CNSNews.com ^
| 2/04/02
| Melanie Hunter
Posted on 02/04/2002 11:41:47 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 201 next last
To: anton
She's a busy little witch, isn't she?
101
posted on
02/04/2002 1:57:58 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: AmishDude
We have a responsibility to "make a difference" in the legal system and the administration of justice. My hope is that when historians assess the impact of this early wave of successful women entering all corners of the legal profession, they will not find us wanting. -- Gladys Kessler, U.S. appellate court judge. As quoted in Fordham Magazine, p. 11 (Spring/Summer 1994).Bump to you. Worth repeating.
To: kattracks
Did the title say Judge Jules? No? Ok, nevermind....
To: Madame Dufarge
Fine, Wilson can have the seat.
Oh yeah, we are disbanding the "Human rights" Commission.
George W. Bush
President
104
posted on
02/04/2002 2:15:12 PM PST
by
eisch
To: kattracks
The federak courts are my playground. This decision will be reversed. I am sick to death of judges who think their black robes give them a mandate to "do good" as they see it, rather than obey the law as written. There are, unfortunately, many such misguided creatures on the federal bench at all levels.
The next step is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Appeals are assigned to panels of three judges, chosen at random. Until the judges assigned to this case are known, a prediction of the outcome is problematical. That court has more judges who tend to obey the law, but it depends on what names are drawn out of the hat.
An injunction pending appeal can be requested, but those are seldom granted. An en banc appeal is possible (meaning to the whole court rather than just the panel) if the appeals panel also rules against the Administration.
If worst comes to worst, the case will have to be taken to the Supreme Court. There, the approaches to jurisprudence of the "panel" of nine are well known. The Supreme Court will, if it gets that far, not allow this decision to stand.
I talked with a number of FReepers at CPAC about the posibility of FReeping the "Civil Rights" Commission at its next meeting. The problem is that most of our folks work for a living, and Commission meetings are held on weekdays. The solution would be a 7:00 - 8:30 a.m. FReep, with the intention of getting the sane side of this dispute included on the evening news, which will certainly cover the meeting itself, since it is now a semi-hot subject, especially right after this ruling.
And, the trial court's decision is yet another example, if any be needed, why the likes of Clinton (him or her) or any of their cronies, should never again be in the possition to appoint judges to the federal bench.
BTW, this is a fairly accurate article on the decision. In its text it shows the weaknesses of the trial court's decision and therefore the grounds for overturning it. I hope that someone will put up a link to the entire decision so I can read it from this distance, and comment further.
Congressman Billybob
Phil & Billybob in the mornings.
To: anniegetyourgun
Me thinks that Justice knew they had to get past this judge on appeal. That's where I suspect they expect to win. The change in the statutory language in 1994 is not helpful, but if the appellate court goes with the legislative intent argument, the DOJ will prevail on appeal. It might be a good idea for Congress to amend the legislation to reinsert the language.
To: Rivendell
this dipsh!t judge feels she has the authority do what ever the hell she wants?!?!?!? And there are a lot more just like her with the same attitude towards the rule of law.
To: DoctorMichael
3-4 months, max.
To: kattracks
This was expected. Kessler is an activist Democrat, appointed by Clinton. She'll be reversed on appeal. Meantime, however, most of the media will make it appear that the case is finished and that the federal courts have rebuked the President. What's new about that?
109
posted on
02/04/2002 2:33:47 PM PST
by
Whilom
To: Frohickey
Where do they get these judges that don't know how to read? Harvard.
110
posted on
02/04/2002 2:34:38 PM PST
by
Ditto
To: VA Advogado
You must be one of those new world order types that think Executive Orders superceed duly enacted laws. Sorry to pin hole your balloon. They didn't work that way for Clinton and they don't work that way for Bush. Read the constitution. Go back and re-read. Miss the satire again? Gee, too bad. Sorry for you.
To: eisch
Unfortunately, the Civil Right Commission is a creature of Congress. I believe the President can remove the head of the commission for "malfeasance in office". Real gray area.
I think Bush is playing this exactly right. He knew this was coming.
Give 'em enough rope to hang themselves. I think (hoping) this will be won on appeal.
To: kattracks
This could end up before the SCOTUS.
To: connectthedots
You're right - the little matter of interpreting a "term" in this way resulting in to perpetual appointments (by discharging and then reappointing for another "term") is what will ultimately cause this to go in favor of the administration. But Congress does need to clarify after all this has concluded. I won't hold my breath, but I'd like to see 'em eliminate the commission altogether.
To: kattracks
it is not a surprise.....we need a guy judge...
To: kattracks
Marry the racist neesds to go
To: Magnum44
I think this decision was anticipated by GWB. All the better to take it to the USSC and get it overtured as well as making Kessler look like an partisan idiot. Do judges suffer any consequences from being overturned?
117
posted on
02/04/2002 2:49:19 PM PST
by
ez
To: anniegetyourgun
Unfortunately, in this case; under the rules of statutory construction, when words are eliminated from a statute, the court must conclude that the legislative body intended for the new statute to have a different interpretation unless the legislative intent was clearly to keep it the same. If the change was not the subject of much debate, and especially if is was simply a part of a much larger bill, the DOJ will prevail.
To: ez
Do judges suffer any consequences from being overturned? Need to ask an attorney, but I think that repeated 'bad bench calls' can have impacts.
To: Politico2
This judge was both a Carter and a Clinton appointee. Carter appointed her to the D.C. Courts (the equivalent of a state court position, but in D.C. these, too, are presidential appointments). Later, Clinton appointed her to the federal bench as a US District Court judge. Does that clarify the question you asked in response to the Novak column?
Congressman Billybob
Phil & Billybob in the mornings.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 201 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson