Posted on 02/04/2002 11:41:47 AM PST by kattracks
CNSNews.com) - Federal Judge Gladys Kessler ruled Monday in favor of Victoria Wilson and against President Bush's most recent appointment to replace Wilson on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Peter Kirsanow.
The Justice Department said it will appeal the judge's ruling.
At issue is whether federal law allows Wilson to serve a full six-year stint on the panel, or only the unexpired portion of Higginbotham's term to which she was appointed.
The 1983 law reauthorizing the USCCR specifically limited commissioners appointed to fill unexpired terms to the remaining length of the original term. A 1994 reauthorization law did not include that language. However, it also included no contradictory provisions.
Bump to you. Worth repeating.
Oh yeah, we are disbanding the "Human rights" Commission.
George W. Bush
President
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
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.
And there are a lot more just like her with the same attitude towards the rule of law.
Harvard.
Go back and re-read. Miss the satire again? Gee, too bad. Sorry for you.
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.
Do judges suffer any consequences from being overturned?
Need to ask an attorney, but I think that repeated 'bad bench calls' can have impacts.
Does that clarify the question you asked in response to the Novak column?
Congressman Billybob
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.