Judge Rules In Favor Of Wilson In Civil Rights Commission Case

CNSNews.com ^ | 2/04/02 | Melanie Hunter

[Torie]

That is a totally ludicrous decision. I would be amazed if it stands on appeal. If it is, the structure of turnover at the commission will be rendered chaotic.

[the bottle let me down]

But my real question is, at this level, do Federal judges have to give an explanation of their decisions, or can they just rule without citing a basis for their edicts?

From Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a):

"In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58 ; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. Requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. It will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the court. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in subdivision (c) of this rule."

In short, The judge will have to issue some sort of written opinion explaining her reasoning.

[blackdog]

"Partisan idiot" is what most judges are today. For that matter, anyone who makes their living off other peoples taxes are partisan idiots by financial circumstance.

[VRWC_minion]

Told you so !!!

For all the Freepers that said Berry didn't have a good case and told me I was nuts please accept my offer of peanut butter to go with your crow.

[gridlock]

If this ruling stands, Bush should pack this commission with every politically reliable hack he can find, and have them all resign the day before he leaves office. He can then re-pack the commission with every politically reliable hack he can find, and lock up the commission through the remainder of his successor's term.

If he needs politically reliable hacks, he can FReep-mail me. I would be happy to serve.

[Demidog]

The commission has no enforcement power, but publicizes civil rights problems it perceives in government policy and government agencies.

Then it is a useless waste of taxpayer money and should be disbanded.

[JusticeLives]

"Great! So how long will THIS take?"

Until another Democrit president is elected so he/she/it can flush it down the toilet, of course.

[oioiman]

Impeach her arse......

[VRWC_minion]

For everyone who says she ruled as a liberal judge and made up law....she did just the opposite. She took literal meaning of statute.

[Lancey Howard]

The White House appointment of Kirsanow would shift the commission's makeup from a 5-3 split that generally favors Berry to a 4-4 split.

The commission has no enforcement power, but publicizes civil rights problems it perceives in government policy and government agencies.

I maintain that if there is no way to soon unload this disgraceful "commission", then it is best left in the hands of a silly laughingstock like Berry. I prefer to see its "credibility" remain right at the level it is now. If somebody who commands even a little respect takes over, this "commission" might undertake more serious mischief.

[Random Access]

The headline should read: "Racist white female judge keeps African-American man, Peter Kirsanow, off the civil rights panel in favor of another white female.

[sweetliberty]

I'm beginning to understand what, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson meant by saying that the two races while fundamentally equal could not coexist as equals because one would always strive to dominate the other.

[Lancey Howard]

This is one bizarre decision. It was an open-and-shut case.

Of course. And the irrational ruling, surprise, surprise, comes from a Clinton appointed judge. Clinton corruption is like the energizer bunny - - it just keeps going and going and going.....

[ejo]

I so agree to abolish this comm. altogether....I see no reason for their existence.....It will be a cost saving factor as well....Their moneys can be used by others that do not have a political agenda.

[BlackElk]

If you are right, and that is a verrrry big if, then defund the commission altogether as the partisan hackdom that it has become. When, inevitably Commissar Berry returns to this red witch Kessler for some sort of contempt order, make war upon this twisted commission until their terms expire.

[Lancey Howard]

For everyone who says she ruled as a liberal judge and made up law....she did just the opposite. She took literal meaning of statute.

Gimme a break. Like every other scumbag liberal judge, she did what liberal scumbag judges do, and if "literal meaning of statute" came into play, it was an accident of convenience.

[Orangedog]

For the love of God, people, please, please stop posting pictures of that haggard old scarecrow!

[nocommies]

OT: this is way off topic, but can someone tell me why so many threads are getting deleted, particularly those about the ills of our perverted homosexuals? is there some form of censorship or ban on material from perverts and such? what am i missing here? i just saw 2 threads i thought were very controversial get deleted. comments? thanks for indulging me here, off topic...

[VRWC_minion]

That is why it will be difficult to overturn, IMHO. The conservative judge will stick with wording while liberal judge will go with results.

[Fury]

That is why it will be difficult to overturn, IMHO. The conservative judge will stick with wording while liberal judge will go with results.

Sorry to get in here late, but what is your reasoning that the judge ruled correctly? Not that I do not agree/disagree, but trying to understand your position better.