| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2003/11/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11059 Activity:high |
11/13 Does anyone have any information on these 4 judicial court nominees?
\_ sure. what do you want to know, unless you're being
a troll I have decided
Pickering is not completely totally evil. - danh
\_ Any urls on Pickering?
\_ here's one from the Village Voice where Pickering
does something that I would consider way out of character
for a member of the Federalist Society:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0345/hentoff.php - danh
\_ how about the 63 the little republican bitches blocked during
the Clinton years? 168 nominees have been passed. this is
absurd.
\_ Were they passed from committee to the floor? Were they voted up
or down?
\_ See, these are things you could verify for yourself, but
instead you swallow the GOP claims whole and try to pick
apart statements to the contrary. in '99-00 60% of the
Clinton nominees to appeals court did not receive the
"up or down vote" that the GOP is whining about now.
\_ What was the decision of the judicial committee? The
current committee can't send them to the floor for a vote
because of the filibuster threats, even if the committee
chose to.
\_ What a strange topsy-turvy Alice-In-Wonderland view
of reality.
\_ How so? You're simply ignorant of how our federal
government works. It is standard practice to
not bring up anything for a vote until it is known
that there is support for it to pass. Where "it"
is any bills, nomination, or anything else. It is
very rare for a bill to be voted on without everyone
knowing in advance that it will be passed.
\_ The Republicans who controlled the committee
refused to even hear the nominees:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200307/070903.html
\_ Which has nothing to do with the current issue
about whether the above person has an alice
in wonderland view or not.
\_ The NAACP on Carolyn Kuhl:
http://www.naacp.org/work/washington_bureau/Kuhl081303.shtml
People for the American Way on Caroline Kuhl:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9734
The NAACP on Priscilla Owen:
http://www.naacp.org/work/washington_bureau/PriscillaOwen.pdf
The Independent Judiciary on Priscilla Owen:
link:csua.org/u/4zp (PDF)
\_ The National Assocation For The Advancement of Left Wing
Colored People?
\_ For a strict constructionist, you take a lot of liberties
in adding a letter to that acronym.
\_ Just calling it like I see it. Why is an .org that says
it is for the advancement of black people opposed to a
black person advancing? Only because she's not left wing.
I take no liberties.
\_ Bzzt. Because she's against the advancement of
colored people when those colored people are not her.
You can't promote an Uncle Tom and then say you're
advancing the cause of black people.
\_ You don't know shit about her background, do you?
Come back after reading her bio. I'm not going to
spoon feed you the reader's digest version.
\_ My fiancee is an attorney, has appeared in front of Judge Kuhl,
and thinks she's pretty much horrible ... ideology aside (she's
very right wing), my fiancee felt she doesn't follow the law.
\_ Very few judges follow the law and there's little recourse
in most cases starting from small claims and family court all
the way up. A judge "not following the law" is hardly a
reason to not promote a judge in this country. If that was the
standard we'd have to start all over. Your fiancee is rather
naive for a lawyer. She must be quite young. Don't worry,
though, she'll be corrupt and bitter soon enough.
\_ There's following the letter of the law and following the
spirit of the law, and then there's not following the law
at all. The first two are highly debated, but the third is
universally recognised as being wrong. Kuhl has a tendency
to go with her personal belief even when they conflict with
the latter _and_ spirit of the law.
\_ There's no difference between a judge following what they
decide is the spirit of the law and doing whatever the
hell they please. They're either following the law or not
and as soon as it's ok to do something other than strictly
adhere to the law as written, the show is over, anything
goes. It is intellectually dishonest to claim you want
judges to follow the law, kind of, sort of, sometimes.
\_ Thank you, strict constructionist. According to your
view of the law, it is illegal to wink at an
unacquainted female in Ottumwa, Iowa, and anyone
caught doing so must be prosecuted to the full extent
of the law, despite the fact that modern morality
significantly differs from the morality prevalent at
the time the legislation was enacted. The purpose of
the judicial branch is to add the element of human
wisdom to the process of the law. Without loose
interpretation, the law is merely code, and the
executive branch has all the power.
\_ No, enforcement and the decision to prosecute lay
this other person we call "the prosecutor". In some
places we call this person "the district attorney".
Yes, this will be on your Basic Civics 1A quiz at
the end of the week.
\_ Following the law is secondary. Bush appointees must be
ideologically pure. The right-wing is terrified of another
Souter.
\_ No we just want judges to follow the law. So you attack us
for being strict constructionists and then you attack us for
not wanting to follow the law at all. You can't get it both
ways without looking like an idiot.
\_ Like Roy Moore, right: that conservative who was just
removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for acting like
an Anarchist?
\_ try upholding Alabama Constitution, which mentions
God. They take on oath.
\_ He also has to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the
U.S. Constitution takes precedence over state ones.
\_ Where in the USC does it say he can't have the
10 commandments in a public space? I'm a
strict atheist (none of that agnostic weenie
stuff for me) and I've got no problem with it.
The USC says no such thing. In God We Trust.
\_ He was ordered by a higher court to remove
it and refused to. That is not called
enforcing the law, that is called breaking it.
\_ Uh oh, looks like a debate bait n switch!
So you agree the USC doesn't say any such
thing. Now let's address your new point.
He has the right to refuse. He has the
right to appeal. He has the right to
protest and engage in an act of civil
disobedience. This is still a free
country. The word of a higher court, even
the highest court is not always the
correct decision. He has the right to say
no and suffer the legal, political, and
career consequences of his protest and
has bravely chosen to do so. I'm stunned
that you'd come on here and say that just
because a court said something that it is
automatically 'good' and he should blindly
obey. I'd scream "fascist!" but I don't
think you really understood or believed
what you were saying above.
\_ You claim that you want judges that
follow the law, then in the next
statement, claim that judges have
the "right" to engage in civil
disobedience??? The USC clearly
states that the Federal Governemnt
is sovereign over the states. Look
at the statement "the US Constitution
takes precedent over state ones" and
you will see that it is you that keeps
trying to change the subject away from
judicial responsibilty to obey and
enforce the law. I'd scream "hypocrite"
but I don't think you'd really
understand what the word means.
\_ thanks -nivra
\_ We don't need to vote! We already know they're all eevvviiill
BushCo Republicans! We only vote on people we like!
\_ How many Bush nominees have already been voted on?
\_ right. Bush is the only one who likes to talk about EVIL.
Evil. A big issue in the world today. Domestic violence, war,
it's all just evil. Why doesn't Bush declare war on Satan?
\_ BushCo won't declare war on Satan because BushCo is Eevvvill!
We all know BushCo reports directly to Satan!! Like all the
eeeeevvvvviiill!! Republicans! Eeevvviiill! |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.villagevoice.com/issues/0345/hentoff.php VOICE Giveaways Performance Tickets to see Cirque du Soleils Alegria Film Screenings The Saddest Music in the World Breakin All the Rules Nightlife Win a Night on the Town prize package Dance Win Tickets to a dance performance of your choice at the 92nd Street Y Harkness Dance Project click links to win! Authorities could not find him because he was living in New York, holding a steady job and supporting his family. Upon learning about Moodys apparent turnaround, District Judge Pickering delayed his sentencing a year, allowing his continued good behavior to be used as a basis for punishment with no prison time. Bill Rankin, staff writer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution , March 9, 2003. In contrast with all the fierce rejections of Pickering for a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, there is a statement from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Damon Keith. A very model of the kind of Bill of Rights judge that should be on the United States Supreme Court, Damon Keithruling against John Ashcrofts closing of deportation hearings around the countrysaid famously: Democracy dies behind closed doors. Judge Keith, who is black, writing to Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told of how Pickering had been instrumental in Judge Anne C. Williamss appointment as the first African-American judge on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Keith added that, knowing Pickerings temperament, fairness, and sense of compassion . The Atlanta Journal-Constitution , realizing that Pickerings judicial reputation hangs almost entirely on one explosive casethe cross-burning casedecided to extensively review that case and the rest of Pickerings judicial record. The March 9 article by Rankin also noted that before being nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by the president: Pickering, in a 1999 essay on race relations in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger , addressed racial bias in the courts, empathizing with black, not white, concerns. He counseled whites who were angry about the recent acquittal of a black murder suspect to look at the justice system from a black perspective. While Mississippians may not realize that African-Americans are treated differently by the system, Pickering wrote, it is the truth and a most disturbing one if you are black. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution added that as a judge, Pickering has thrown out only two jury verdicts, both times because he felt the verdicts were biased against minority plaintiffs. Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, and the rest of the Democratic posse on the Senate Judiciary Committee didnt mention those parts of Pickerings record during the two Senate hearings on his nomination. The national NAACP, which has largely become an adjunct of the Democratic Party, has treated Pickering as if he were in the tradition of DW Griffiths Birth of a Nation . But strong black support of Pickering throughout Mississippi includes such voices as Reverend Kenneth Fairley, Senior Pastor of Mount Carmel Ministries: I served as president of the Forrest County branch of the NAACP. I wholeheartedly support Judge Pickering in his judgeship and request the United States Senate to ratify his appointment. Then there is Mississippi state representative Phillip West, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, who first opposed Pickerings nomination to the Fifth Circuit, but after fully examining Pickerings record has now reversed his position. He writes: While I do not condemn and judge all white men and women to be staunch racists, I do believe many have racist tendencies and beliefs as evidenced by the racism instilled in our many institutions. At least Judge Pickering has shown a willingness to work for racial reconciliation prior to his consideration for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals position. West also says Pickerings actions for racial reconciliation have gone beyond . |
| leahy.senate.gov/press/200307/070903.html SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242 VERMONT Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy Senate Judiciary Committee Judicial Nominations Hearing July 9, 2003 Todays hearing is the thirteenth nominations hearing the Republican majority has held this year. As of today, during the past six months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered 43 of President Bushs judicial nominees. This stands in sharp contrast to the way President Clintons nominees were treated by the Republican majority. Thirteen is the same number of hearings for judicial nominees as Chairman Hatch allowed in all of 1998, the year he held the most hearings in any of his six full years as chairman during the Clinton Administration. In most of those years, there were far fewer hearings and far fewer nominees. I recall that, during the entire year of 1996, when vacancies were higher and growing, this Committee held only six hearings all year and those hearings included only five circuit court nominees. That 1996 session, not a single judge was confirmed to the circuit courts -- not one. In all of 1997, the Committee only had nine hearings all year and included only nine circuit court nominees. In 1999, this committee did not meet to consider a judicial nominee until June 16^th, and during the rest of 1999, it only held seven hearings to consider judicial nominees. Like 1999, 2003 is the third year of this presidents term, but, by contrast, we have already held 11 hearings this year by the time Senator Hatch held his first hearing in 1999. During the entire year of 2000, only eight judicial nominations hearings were held. This year, with a Republican in the White House, the Senate Republican majority has gone from second gear -- the restrained pace it had said was required for Clinton nominees -- to overdrive for the most controversial of President Bushs nominees. A good way to see how much faster Republicans are processing judicial nominations for a Republican president is to compare where we are in July of this year to July of any year during the last Democratic administration when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Over the last six and one-half years of Republican control under President Clinton, the Republicans held four judicial nominations hearings, on average, by July 9. On this day, in 1995, only six hearings had been held for judicial nominations; Republicans have moved two to four times more quickly for President Bushs judicial nominees than for President Clintons, yet vacancies in the courts stand at half of what they were during many of those years. This year, the number of judicial vacancies has gone down from the 110 we inherited when Democrats assumed the Senate majority in the summer of 2001 to the lowest level it has been in 13 years. While I was Chairman I was able to cut it from 110 to 60, after 100 were confirmed, despite dozens of new vacancies that occurred during that time. I recall that Senator Hatch said in September of 1997 that 103 vacancies (during the Clinton Administration) did not constitute a vacancy crisis. He also repeatedly stated that 67 vacancies meant full employment on the federal courts. We now stand at 47 vacancies for the entire federal judicial system. District Courts, who come to us with bipartisan support or are consensus nominees. Three of these nominees are filling new seats that will not even become vacant until July 15, 2003, a sign of how expeditiously the Senate is considering this Presidents nominees. District Court for the Western District of Texas: Judge Cardone, Judge Montalvo, and Judge Rodriguez. These nominees make the fourth, fifth and sixth of President Bushs nominees considered for the Western District alone. They also make the tenth, eleventh and twelfth of President Bushs district court judges given hearings from the State of Texas. Seven of those judges were given hearings and confirmed during the 17 months I served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That was nearly one judge for Texas every other month, in addition to the four United States Attorneys and three United States Marshals who were reviewed and confirmed in that period of time. This is in great contrast to the fate of many of President Clintons nominees from Texas, who were blocked and delayed by the Republican majority, including Enrique Moreno, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who never got a hearing, never got a vote; Jorge Rangel, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who never got a hearing, never got a vote, and; Hilda Tagle to the District Court, whose confirmation was delayed nearly two years for no good reason. Today, we will hear from Xavier Rodriguez, who is nominated to fill the vacancy created by Judge Prados elevation. The Senate Democrats cleared the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit without delay. We still do not know who on the Republican side delayed consideration of the consensus nomination of Judge Prado for a month. All Democratic Senators serving on the Judiciary Committee voted to report his nomination favorably. All Democratic Senators indicated that they were prepared to proceed with the nomination. When Republicans finally turned to it, Judge Prado was confirmed unanimously. Judge Cohn comes to us with the support of both of his home-state Senators. He was recommended by the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, a bipartisan commission that Senators Nelson and Graham worked hard to establish. I urge the White House to work with more Senators in forming selection commissions to ensure that we have nominees who are supported in their communities and arrive here with bipartisan support including from both of their home state senators. Under this Administration, we have seen the recommendations of such bipartisan panels rejected or stalled. As I have noted throughout the last three years, the Senate is able to move expeditiously when we have consensus nominees. Unfortunately, far too many of this Presidents nominees have records that raise serious concerns about whether they will be fair judges to all parties on all issues. |
| www.naacp.org/work/washington_bureau/Kuhl081303.shtml Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau RE: The Nomination of Carolyn Kuhl to serve on the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals The Issue President George W. Bush has nominated Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl to a lifetime appointment on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The NAACP is opposed to this nomination as we have grave concerns about Judge Kuhls judicial activism and extreme views on important civil and womens rights issues, as well as her apparent unwillingness to protect individuals basic rights. When the issue was taken to the United States Supreme Court in 1981 by Bob Jones University, the Justice Department was prepared to defend the rules. However, in January 1982, President Reagan announced that the government was changing its position-at Kuhls urging-and would grant tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University. The United States Supreme Court disagreed with the position, and later denied 8-1 Bob Jones University and other racially segregated schools tax exempt status. In another case, an African American employee of the United States Department of Agriculture USDA claimed he was denied a promotion because of race. Carolyn Kuhl defended USDAs promotion practice as non-discriminatory, claiming that the employee would not have been given the promotion in any circumstance and therefore USDA did not discriminate against the employee on the basis of race. In doing so, Kuhl sought to narrow the definition of race discrimination. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employee, claiming that race discrimination does not strictly mean the employee is denied a promotion. The Action: We Need You To Take Contact both your Senators and URGE THEM TO OPPOSE THE NOMINATION OF CAROLYN KUHL TO SERVE ON THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS . To contact your Senators you may: Make a Phone Call: Call your Senators and your Representative in Washington by dialing the Capitol Switchboard and asking to be transferred to your Senators/Congressmans offices. The switchboard phone number is 202 224-3121 see message section, below. |
| www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9734 The Right Wings top goal is the ideological domination of our federal courts, which would threaten the rights of all Americans. Nominations like that of California state Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the influential Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are a means to that end. Nominees to such important life-time positions must demonstrate that they have a commitment to open-minded decision-making and to fundamental constitutional and civil rights. Judge Kuhls commitment to these principles has been seriously questioned based on a number of radical positions she has taken on civil rights, reproductive rights, privacy and more. Kuhl has sought to restrict individual rights, defend government tax exemptions for institutions that discriminate based on race, and help corporations avoid their responsibility to clean up environmental pollution caused by their companies. Kuhls record shows: As a Justice Department lawyer, Kuhl helped convince the Reagan administration to change its position and argue that Bob Jones University should be given a tax exemption despite the universitys racially discriminatory practices, which included a ban on interracial dating. The United States Supreme Court later ruled 8-1 against the administrations position and upheld the denial of tax-exempt status to the university. Kuhl has supported government attempts to restrict access to abortion and contraception and has repeatedly criticized Roe v. Wade, even stating in a brief she co-authored that the textual, doctrinal and historical basis for Roe v. Wade is so far flawedthatthe Supreme Court should reconsider that decision and on reconsideration abandon it. As a judge, Kuhl dismissed an invasion of privacy claim brought by a breast cancer patient whose doctor had allowed a pharmaceutical company salesman to observe her examination without her consent. Arguing against the polluter pays principle of the Superfund act, Kuhl asserted that Shell Oil Company did not have to pay for the decontamination of a toxic site at which it and other oil companies dumped acid sludge. The court rejected this argument and held Shell Oil liable for its pollution. |