Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freeper Must-See -- Mary Frances Berry on C-SPAN
self | 12-08-01 | WL-law

Posted on 12/08/2001 7:01:41 AM PST by WL-law

Heads up to Freepers -- late last night I watched C-Span re-run Friday's meeting of Mary Frances Berry's Commission on Civil Rights. YOU MUST SEE THIS!! NO WORDS CAN ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE IT!!

The confrontation between the Commission/Berry and the Bush administration has been weLl described in other articles, so I won't rehash it here (but I recommend visiting other threads on the subject "Berry").

And here's the (outrageous) essence of the meeting: Miss Berry in effect (and explicitly, at times) argues that her commission's role as a 'watchdog' agency or 'overseer' inherently grants her independence and insulation from political interference, therefore creating a kind of quasi-independent branch, akin to the Federal-judiciary. In other words, Bush can't touch her or there'll be hell to pay.

Really -- that's her position -- essentially that the founders THOUGHT there were three branches of government, but there are really FOUR -- and she's the fourth!!

also note that as part of the politically-correct gender role-playing, all the MEN (except the republican) talk in silly, girly voices, deferential and weak, while the women -- and foremost Miss(ter) Berry, talk like men --- well, at least like hopelessly-illogical-but-nonetheless-authoritarian men.

It's really too much for words -- I was watching at 3 a.m. last night and I was SPEECHLESS!


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 12/08/2001 7:01:41 AM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WL-law
BTTT
2 posted on 12/08/2001 7:06:05 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
Another fine Clinton appointment.
3 posted on 12/08/2001 7:24:06 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law; Fiddlstix; Brilliant
She reminds me of Winnie Mandela with the same hateful, glee-filled eyes ready to torch another 'necklace' ....
4 posted on 12/08/2001 7:44:29 AM PST by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
I watched as much of this as I could stand, switching to something else from time to time.

Everyone should watch this and learn from it. These people are positively frightening, and they are NOT kidding around.

They are arrogant and abusive all in the name of being unbiased and open. They are not!

WE fund this Commission and yet there is no accountability whatsoever, at least according to Ms. Berry who seems to have assumed the position of the highest officeholder in the land.

5 posted on 12/08/2001 7:47:34 AM PST by IVote2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
Yet again liberals should thank the God they don't believe in that I am not the Commander in Chief.

Ms. Berry might have insulation from political interference but she wouldn't have any insulation from the nightsticks of the Federal Marshalls that would clear that meeting room if I were....

6 posted on 12/08/2001 8:09:59 AM PST by Feckless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
Kangaroo court does not do that commission justice. Purely disgusting. Speaking of "disgusting", Mrs. Berry could possibly be the ugliest human being (next to Helen Thomas) alive.
7 posted on 12/08/2001 8:13:50 AM PST by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

Tenure of Office Act

Tenure of Office Act, in U.S. history, measure passed on Mar. 2, 1867, by Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson ;

it forbade the President to remove any federal officeholder appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without the further approval of the Senate.

It also provided that members of the President's cabinet should hold office for the full term of the President who appointed them and one month thereafter, subject to removal by the Senate.

With this measure the radical Republicans in Congress hoped to assure the continuance in office of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and thus prevent any interference with the military occupation of the South in their Reconstruction plan. In order to bring about a court test of the constitutionality of the act, Johnson dismissed Stanton, but the Supreme Court, intimidated by the radicals, refused to pass on the case. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant , whom Johnson appointed Secretary ad interim, turned the office back to Stanton when the Senate refused to approve his dismissal. Johnson then appointed Gen. Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War, but Stanton, barricading himself in the department, refused to yield.

Johnson's alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the principal charge in the impeachment proceedings against him. When this move failed (May, 1868), Stanton finally gave up. The act, considerably modified in Grant's administration, was in large part repealed in 1887, and in 1926 the Supreme Court declared its principles unconstitutional.

The point is that all appointees serve at the pleasure of the President.

8 posted on 12/08/2001 8:17:40 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
all the MEN (except the republican) talk in silly, girly voices, deferential and weak

Ha. You got that right. And I'll bet the only reason Berry lets the Republican man say anything is because he's blind. That, in her view, makes him just p.c. enough to be permitted to speak.

9 posted on 12/08/2001 8:18:08 AM PST by gumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

Tenure of Office Act

Tenure of Office Act, in U.S. history, measure passed on Mar. 2, 1867, by Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson ;

it forbade the President to remove any federal officeholder appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without the further approval of the Senate.

It also provided that members of the President's cabinet should hold office for the full term of the President who appointed them and one month thereafter, subject to removal by the Senate.

With this measure the radical Republicans in Congress hoped to assure the continuance in office of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and thus prevent any interference with the military occupation of the South in their Reconstruction plan. In order to bring about a court test of the constitutionality of the act, Johnson dismissed Stanton, but the Supreme Court, intimidated by the radicals, refused to pass on the case. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant , whom Johnson appointed Secretary ad interim, turned the office back to Stanton when the Senate refused to approve his dismissal. Johnson then appointed Gen. Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War, but Stanton, barricading himself in the department, refused to yield.

Johnson's alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the principal charge in the impeachment proceedings against him. When this move failed (May, 1868), Stanton finally gave up. The act, considerably modified in Grant's administration, was in large part repealed in 1887, and in 1926 the Supreme Court declared its principles unconstitutional.

The point is that all appointees serve at the pleasure of the President.

10 posted on 12/08/2001 8:23:56 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reg45
Time to dissolve this commission altogether. Its functions can be handled fine through other agencies.
11 posted on 12/08/2001 8:44:01 AM PST by ChemistCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
Can it be simply defunded?
12 posted on 12/08/2001 8:49:31 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: JoeEveryman
President Bush should remove Berry from office for misconduct, but he probably won't. The Civil Rights Commission has no power to do anything, and this one woman's actions are serving to discredit the whole leftist dominated civil rights movement (read "special entitlements for blacks movement") more than anything an opponent could do. The more radicalism and extremism displayed by democrat black officials, the more the political center will shift to Bush and to the republicans.
14 posted on 12/08/2001 9:16:40 AM PST by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Whatever happened to the "line item" veto? Didn't that pass Congress? Did Clinton not sign it? If he did, has it been used? This looks like the perfect opportunity to use it.
15 posted on 12/08/2001 9:19:36 AM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
The Supreme court knocked down the line item veto, that Reagan wanted but no one got use except CLinton. He abused it and now it it no more.
16 posted on 12/08/2001 9:56:33 AM PST by peekaboo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
She looks a lot like Moms Mabley. Am I giving my age away?
17 posted on 12/08/2001 10:36:05 AM PST by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
Yeah, Bubba even used it a couple of times, IIRC.
18 posted on 12/08/2001 11:09:06 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Piquaboy
She looks a lot like Moms Mabley. Am I giving my age away?

Yes and you're also being insulting to the memory of Moms Mabley, who at least had legitimate comic talent.

20 posted on 12/08/2001 3:25:33 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson