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
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.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 201 next last
To: kattracks
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.
61
posted on
02/04/2002 12:28:55 PM PST
by
Torie
To: Stirner
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.
To: Magnum44
"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.
63
posted on
02/04/2002 12:31:21 PM PST
by
blackdog
To: kattracks
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.
To: FreeTally
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.
65
posted on
02/04/2002 12:32:04 PM PST
by
gridlock
To: Dog Gone
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.
66
posted on
02/04/2002 12:38:22 PM PST
by
Demidog
To: DoctorMichael
"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.
To: kattracks
Impeach her arse......
68
posted on
02/04/2002 12:42:43 PM PST
by
oioiman
To: kattracks
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.
To: Dog Gone
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.
To: oldvike
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.
To: kattracks
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.
To: Numbers Guy
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.....
To: BerniesFriend
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.
74
posted on
02/04/2002 12:50:51 PM PST
by
ejo
To: VRWC_minion
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.
75
posted on
02/04/2002 12:53:57 PM PST
by
BlackElk
To: 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.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.
To: kattracks
For the love of God, people, please, please stop posting pictures of that haggard old scarecrow!
To: Orangedog
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...
To: Lancey Howard
That is why it will be difficult to overturn, IMHO. The conservative judge will stick with wording while liberal judge will go with results.
To: 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. 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.
80
posted on
02/04/2002 1:11:31 PM PST
by
Fury
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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