home

Republicans Block Apppointment for DOJ Civil Rights

Seven Democrats joined Republicans today to defeat the nomination of Debo Adegbile to head DOJ's civil rights division. The objection was that when head of the Legal Defense Fund, the group had filed briefs in support of overturning the death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal based on improper jury instructions. Two appellate courts ruled the jury instructions were erroneous and Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned. He was resentenced to life in prison. Adegbile's involvement in the case came after the Legal Defense Fund had taken the case.

Obama's statement:

"The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice -- and those who voted against his nomination denied the American people an outstanding public servant."

The vote was 47-52. Veep Biden was present in case he needed to break a tie vote, but with the Democrats crossing over, it wasn't necessary.

Law enforcement groups lobbied heavily against the nomination.

My view: This is just another example of the country's misguided over-glorification of crime-fighters. Shame on those Democrats who voted against Adegbile, especially Bob Casey of PA. [More...]

Six of the seven Democrats who voted against Adegbile are up for re-election this year. Sen. Harry Reid's no-vote was procedural, to ensure the nomination could be re-raised in the future.
< Tuesday Open Thread | Nigerian Court Orders Public Horsewhipping for 4 Gay Youths >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Here's a fun fact (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    Mr. Adegbile played Debo on "Sesame Street" in the 1970.

    It's more of the right wing attack (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    on Big Bird

    Parent
    They have been after him for years ;o) (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    There goes what little remains of Sesame Street funding.

    Parent
    Very cute, jb (none / 0) (#107)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    And so was he as a young child.    ;-)

    Parent
    No question at all (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:13:25 PM EST
    There is no question the Bork nomination was the start of both parties borking the other parties nominations

    It says so right in Wikipedia.

    Heh.

    Bork (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:05:29 PM EST
    was part of the Saturday night Massacre back in the Watergate days. That alone should have disqualified him from being on the Supreme Court. Who even thought that it was a good idea to nominate someone like that?

    Ronald Reagan did (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:57:36 PM EST
    Enough said.    ;-)

    Parent
    RR a great (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:37:57 AM EST
    man with the ability to see beyond politics and look for the best person to do the job.

    Parent
    Gag me (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by sj on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    RR a great (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:37:57 AM MDT

    man with the ability to see beyond politics and look for the best person to do the job.


     

    Parent
    The best (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:44:12 PM EST
    person for the job was someone who participated in the Saturday Night Massacre? I would say that COMPLETELY disproves the point you are trying to make. The best person for a job would be someone who was outside of a political hatchet job I would think.

    Parent
    You're mistaken jb (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by sj on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:17:51 PM EST
    squeaks doesn't troll rate. He distorts the comments of others until they are unrecognizable in order to pick fights and spit out other pejoratives.  Which is something that's really common with that klatch.

    Btw, is "klatch" some kind of new pejorative? Anybody? Because that real-life klatch is sure spitting it out towards other imaginary "klatches" is if it were an insult of the highest order. When in reality you know what it means?

    a social gathering, esp. for coffee and conversation.
    It says especially for coffee, but I imagine tea and alcohol (and mayhap a bit of the sacrament) qualify.

    I think a klatch sounds rather nice actually, but since we are scattered all over the country such a thing is completely nonexistent.

    I suppose throwing out that "klatch" word is really just another way of perpetrating yet another falsehood.

    Anyway, my thoughts wandered. Just wanted to clarify: squeaks doesn't troll rate.

    But he has developed a fondness for (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:16:39 PM EST
    up-rating the comments of his own little cabal.

    I'm finding the lot of them insufferable.  

    Parent

    Re "cabal": Thank gawd. No cutsy (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:39:37 PM EST
    misspelling.

    Parent
    Very subtle: (none / 0) (#189)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    It says especially for coffee, but I imagine tea and alcohol (and mayhap a bit of the sacrament) qualify.


    Parent
    What about Perrier? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    I'm addicted Perrier pink grapefruit now.  With the furnace drying the house out all day I down an entire bottle a day, I just throw it back wildly, it's shameful.  And Publix has a sale right now too, 4 bottles for $5.  It's cheaper than Thunderbird :)

    Parent
    But were you swigging Perrier (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    in Manhattan?

    Parent
    If I could have found some! (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    I had to make do with regular bottled water that was only $4 a bottle :).  But I drank an entire bottle in the mornings before I finished my coffee. Pounding the pavement chasing you in Manhattan makes me parched.

    Parent
    Yesterday I stumbled upon a service cheaper (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:24:17 PM EST
    in Manhattan than in San Diego. Shoe repair and boot polishing. Plus walls filled with signed photos (a very young Al Pacino)(the Fisher brothers) and signed posters.

    Parent
    Ohhhhhh, that's where it's coming from (none / 0) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:19:18 PM EST
    When I said I was all beat up the other day...sigh

    Okay, please allow me to clarify.  Beat up is sore muscles.  oculus smiles and walks five miles having fun, and then when the fun is over you walk five miles back :)  This can happen during the day for the day fun, and then again at night for the night fun.

    Sore muscles, not sore head

    Parent

    Something is definitely wrong (4.80 / 5) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    here I'm agreeing with or defending Obama too often in the last couple of threads. ;o)

    "The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice -- and those who voted against his nomination denied the American people an outstanding public servant."

    I'm not familiar enough with the nominee to to agree that he is an "outstanding public servant" but I strongly agree that a nominee should not be voted down solely on legal representation of a defendant. It definitely IMO runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice which demands that defendants receive legal representation.  

    I agree, MOBlue (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:13:28 PM EST
    I have no real knowledge of the qualifications of Mr. Adegbile, but if he was rejected solely because of whom he had represented, that is both a shame and alarming.  And the fact that a number of Democrats joined with the Republicans is also alarming, and very disappointing.
    I realize that Abu-Jamal is a convicted "cop-killer," and that the police organizations were wildly opposed to the over-turning of his death sentence.  But, as you said, this whole thing does run contrary to "our system of justice."
    Does this mean that no former defense attorneys, who may have represented unpopular defendants, would be acceptable as nominees for our Department of Justice?  This is not the way our system of justice was designed.  Everyone is entitled to a defense, and even those defendants who have committed heinous crimes need to be defended, and the prosecutors need to be held to the highest Constitutional standards.

    Parent
    TPM has a better headline (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:59:28 PM EST
    Little bit of history (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:09:21 PM EST
    Per your link:

    The nomination has faced strong criticism because Adegbile, then a lawyer for the NAACP, defended Mumia Abu Jamal, who was convicted in 1981 of killing a police officer in Philadelphia.

    Reid and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) brought up the fact that Republicans supported Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts's nomination despite his representation of a murderer who killed eight people, including a teenager. link

    I guess as Pierce states, one of the differences it that teenagers do not have a lobby.


    Parent

    Here is a little bit more of the history (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:41:01 PM EST
    In 2008, a federal appeals court unanimously held -- with two Reagan appointees on the panel -- that procedures used during a convicted cop killer named Mumia Abu-Jamal's death penalty hearing violated the Constitution. Specifically, the panel of predominantly Republican judges concluded that the trial judge gave the jury a confusing form that could have been read to require a death sentence unless every single juror agreed to a life sentence. The NAACP LDF filed an amicus brief on Abu-Jamal's behalf. link

    In case you missed it, a panel of predominantly Republican judges, two of which were Reagan appointees, unanimously held that the death penalty hearing violated the Constitution. Sad case of affairs when candidates are denied appointments for upholding the Constitution.


    Parent

    Your "better" headline is funny (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:21:06 PM EST
    8 Democrats vote against cloture (47 vote in favor) while all 44 Republicans vote against it, and you try blame it on Democrats.

    Looks like the wingers are no better at math than they are at science.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#140)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:48:13 PM EST
    Dems changed the rules of the Senate just for guys like this and even had JB on hand to break a 50/50 tie.   Republicans were never going to support this guy in an election year.

    The simple fact is Obama is running out of political capital and Dem Senators just don't care what he wants anymore if it means having to jeopardize their own chances at getting re-elected.

    How about team Obama sending this guy up without knowing they have 50 votes.

    You wanna blame somebody?  Start with Obama and work your way down team Dem.

    Parent

    So we should blame the Dems ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:27:56 AM EST
    ... because it should be assumed that Republicans will not vote on the merits of a nominee but based on politics.

    You're probably right about that part.

    Parent

    Also I wonder how this happened that (4.67 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    Obama sent a name up that did not even get 51 votes...did someone not count votes before he made the nomination?

    Perhaps the nominee would not (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    "ask" the President to withdraw the nomination.

    Parent
    Cop killer (4.67 / 3) (#47)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:54:29 AM EST
    is a convenient headline to tag this guy with, but the vote went against him for a host of reasons, some poor, some not. Arguing his ideology and bias is just more work for a politician then a simpler and more effective "reason" that resonates with the public.

    What seems a travesty is the Democrats scheme to allow a simple majority to force cloture is so calmly accepted.

    Yes, "shame on Bob Casey," (4.50 / 2) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    But, it shouldn't have come as a surprise.

    This is not business as usual, this is not "just politics." It's War; and the prize is the principle for which we fought a Revolutionary War two and a half centuries ago.

    Of all the items a Democrat could be critical of regarding Obama's Presidency, for me, it would just be his bungling of the Powers given to him with the Office.

    For example, most of us here at TL have been shaking our heads and rolling our eyes at his incredible naiveté in thinking he could enroll Republicans as "Partners" at fixing the problems facing America. Wasting a full four year term was a too high price to pay in educating an arrogant, overly ambitious Candidate into the ways of Washington, the immorality of Republicans, and/or the inherent power of the bully pulpit.

    Every time he promoted Right Wing goals, like the
    Grand Bargain, his poll numbers went down. And, later, when he started talking up populist ideas, his numbers went up. And, even that didn't dissuade him from coming back to those Conservative wet dreams time, and again.

    Yes, the Crazies hold The House hostage. How they got there is another whole story in the education of Barack Obama. And, in my opinion, too many of his supporters have become enablers to his management style. Sometimes too much education is not so much of an asset. Remember, "The Best & the Brightest." And, just when we needed a fighter, and, after we gave him everything a President could want with the Mandate of 2008, he thought honing his skills as a pacifist was the way to go with these Republicans.

    And, that's the problem with these Harvard geniuses; they think they're clairvoyant. They look at a political goal the people want and need; they analyze the possibilities of victory in Congress; they determine it would be "really hard," they, then engineer a pre-emptive surrender, while all his followers nod in agreement, "Yeah, we couldn't have won anyway." And, while this unilateral capitulation by the Democrats is taking place, just look at what the "minority" Republicans have been able to accomplish. They're so dumb they don't know they can't win anything, so, they just go out and kick Democratic Butt, from pillar to post, day in, and day out.

    Regretfully, I believe Obama's Presidency will be remembered with a sorrowful, "what could have been."


    Did you honestly believe (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    Bob Casey would vote any other way?  (And, shame on Harry Reid and Dick Durbin if they thought that).

    This horrendous crime was committed in Philadelphia.  Did you really think a Senator from Pennsylvania was going to vote yes for this nominee???

    Parent

    How was this crime more horrendous (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    than the crime committed by John Ferguson, a mass murderer, who was convicted in 1978 of killing eight people in Florida, one of the state's worst mass murderers? Defending a mass murderer did not prevent John Roberts from becoming the Chief Justice.

    I am still trying to figure out why this is being described as a horrendous crime. He shot and killed one police officer. While I don't condone his actions, I am extremely puzzled why the word "horrendous" is being used in this case for any other reason than to add shock value. Did he torture the police officer before he shot him? I can find no evidence that he did so.

    So once again, precisely what made this a horrendous crime.  

    Parent

    An aside: a person convicted of (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    Murder of a law enforcement officer generally is statutorily subject to a greater punishment than a person convicted of murder of a victim who is not a law enforcement officer. Of course this is because of legislation. This is not to say murder of anyone is "horrendous" based solely on the employment status of the victim.

    Parent
    I agree that that is the law, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    Agree this is the case.

    Of course this is because of legislation. This is not to say murder of anyone is "horrendous" based solely on the employment status of the victim.

    Not 100% sure I agree with the law but then again I don't have to agree - it is the law.

    Parent

    Why do you assume (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    that one is horrendous while the other is not?  I never compared this crime to any others. I certainly am not defending John Roberts, so I am unsure on why you are trying to

    This absolutely was a horrendous crime - murder always is. "One poice officer"?  It's not horrendous because "one police officer" (who was just doing his job and made a traffic stop) was murdered?  What is your level of what defines "horrendous"?  Sorry - this WAS horrendous - especially when the perpetrator says, hours after the crime, things like, ""I shot the motherf*cker, and I hope the motherf*cker dies."

    That is one cold SOB.

    Parent

    Murder is always a serious crime (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:18:04 PM EST
    Yet this murder does not meet my definition of a horrendous crime. Multiple murders, torturing a person before killing them etc. would be more in line with my definition of horrendous. The overuse of the word IMO lessens its value when some act is truly horrendous.  

    Also, seems that you are judging the crime more by who was shot and the words he allegedly said and not by the action itself. IMO shooting a police officer is not somehow more horrendous than shooting a citizen walking down the street.    

    Parent

    Murdering someone (none / 0) (#172)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    in cold blood is not "horrendous" in your book?

    Parent
    Now you're just being ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by sj on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:21:33 PM EST
    Murdering someone (none / 0) (#172)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:53:57 PM MDT

    in cold blood is not "horrendous" in your book?

    Look who is engaging in "have you stopped beating your wife" questions this time?

    Parent
    There are common usage of words (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:25:42 PM EST
    and words have weight.

    I live in an area where murder is unfortunately not uncommon. Here, the word horrendous is not assigned to one person shooting another or even when a police officer and a citizen exchange gunfire and one of the people die.  Conceivably  in D.C. where the murder rate is also extremely high, every time someone kills another person it is described as a horrendous crime but somehow I doubt it.

    Parent

    Whats your source for that (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    "I hope the mother*cker.." quote,jb?

    Parent
    Wiki cites the trial transcript. (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    Its in the trial testimony (none / 0) (#154)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    The prosecution also presented two witnesses who were at the hospital after the altercation. Hospital security guard Priscilla Durham and police officer Garry Bell testified that Abu-Jamal confessed in the hospital by saying,

    Parent
    What does the guilt or innocence of (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    Abu-Jamal have to do with Adegbile's representation of him?

    We need people in the civil rights division who are committed to upholding the Constitution, who will not tolerate discrimination that disenfranchises the citizenry or abrogates their rights.

    I fail to see how Adegbile joining Abu Jamal's  defense team should in any way be held against him for a position as head of the Civil Rights division.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    You would be ok with a lawyer that spent years working with the NRA with the same qualifications?

    Parent
    Do You Know Him? (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    That is one cold SOB.

    Of course you do not know him, and you also would never take the opinion of those who knew him....  because??

    and as usual you present statements as fact in your attempt to ally with prosecution and law enforcement POV.

    Both statements were allegedly made on December 9, 1981 yet not reported until some time in February..  

    And Philadelphia Police Officer Gary Wakshul. who brought Abu-Jamal to the hospital and was guarding him there, stated that Abu-Jamal did not say a word. This was in a report written right after the the alleged statement you proffer as fact, was made, December 9th or 10th.  

    This report never made it to the trial, the officer recanted his written statement months later saying that he did not think that the confession of Abu-Jamal was important at the time or relevant.

    Wakshul, who is now a court crier, was on a scheduled vacation when the defense tried to put him on the stand on the day scheduled for final legal arguments. Judge Albert F. Sabo, now presiding over the hearing, refused to halt the trial.

    link

    and then this came up, which sounds credible to me.

    .... Then Priscilla started talking about Mumia Abu-Jamal. She said that when the police brought him in that night she was working at the hospital. Mumia was all bloody and the police were interfering with his treatment, saying "let him die."

    1. Priscilla said that the police told her that she was part of the "brotherhood" of police since she was a security guard and that she had to stick with them and say that she heard Mumia say that he killed the police officer, when they brought Mumia in on a stretcher.

    2. I asked Priscilla: "Did you hear him say that?" Priscilla said: "All I heard him say was: `Get off me, get off me, they're trying to kill me.'"

    3. Priscilla also said there was a lot of chaos and confusion going on when the police brought Mumia in and when they were talking to her.

    link

    As far as Faulkner's partner Gary Bell's statement goes, well I find that typical blue line behavior. It took two months for him to come up with the statement, odd that he did not report it on December 9, no?


    Parent

    If you want to argue a jury verdict (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    Then you should be willing to devote the same amount of time to the same evidence they heard.

    Myself, I'm not going there. I will let the verdict and results of the appeals stand, but feel free to believe what one side tells you. As was said, guilt or innocence should not be a factor for Debo.

    Parent

    Give up Cat (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    If it ever involves a police officer, in squeaky's mind, it's ALWAYS wrong, even when evidence to the contrary exists.

    It's really just a shameful prejudice.

    Parent

    I think you're right (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by sj on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    Give up Cat (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:55:28 PM MDT

    If it ever involves a police officer, in squeaky's mind, it's ALWAYS wrong, even when evidence to the contrary exists.

    It's really just a shameful prejudice.

    You, on the other hand, have a shameful prejudice in the other direction.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:06:09 PM EST
    I think police, prosecutors, judges (AND criminal defense attorneys) should be held to a HIGHER standard than regular people.  Sometimes there are very, very bad in those professions.  But many people around here - even you, sj, are very quick to almost always condemn those same people because of course they are always out to get poor, innocent people. It's not true, of course, but you and many others certainly are quick to jump to that conclusion.

    And yes, I stand by my statement, murdering a police officer for doing his job - while he is pulling someone over for a traffic infraction - is horrendous.  Since we are putting a number on it - should I not think it horrendous that a woman was murdered here in nearby Alexandria for opening the door?  I mean - she was only one person, so that can't possibly be a horrendous crime, right?

    Parent

    You're confusing jb's argument (none / 0) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    Yes, oddly I'm defending jb here.

    Bob Casey is from Pennsylvania, not Florida. Also Bob Casey wasn't a Senator when John Roberts was confirmed. There is nothing to compare here concerning Bob Casey's vote yesterday.

    Parent

    My comment was not really about Casey (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    My comment may not have been clear. It had little to do with Bob Casey and much to do with the use of the word horrendous. By my interpretation of the word, Mumia Abu-Jama crime would not meet the level of being horrendous. I personally think using the word is overkill whether it is used by jb, the media or members of the Senate.

    YMMV

     

    Parent

    Another thing that's "horrendous" (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    is the history and track record of corruption and brutality in the Philadelphia P.D..

    In their heyday, they'd beat a confession out of Mother Teresa for involvement in the Lindbergh kidnapping.

    Anyone who wants to read up on the history can Google Philadelphia police - corruption or Philadelphia police - brutality.

    Parent

    How does that history (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    have any bearing on this case?

    For the same reason we vigorously pursue a race base murder, the same attention needs to apply to a cop killer as both are attacks on civil society beyond on the attack on human life.

    Parent

    How does this case have any bearing (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    on the nomination of Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ?

    Parent
    Homework? (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    Apparently you still have not read the statements of the Democratic Senators who voted against Adegbile nomination.

    Must be that you have all the information you need to maintain your opinion that Democratic leadership is weak, and that the 7 democrats who voted against Adegbile are fake democrats because their ideology is problematic.

    May want to do some research, so you appear less like a demagogue.

    Parent

    Have you read the statements? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    Here are a few:

    Chris Coons:

    "I embrace the proposition that an attorney is not responsible for the actions of their client," said Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, who voted no and who comes from a state where many Philadelphia police officers live. "The decades-long public campaign by others, however, to elevate a heinous, coldblooded killer to the status of a political prisoner and folk hero has caused tremendous pain to the widow of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner and shown great disrespect for law enforcement officers and families throughout our region."

    Bob Casey:

    "I respect that our system of law ensures the right of all citizens to legal representation no matter how heinous the crime," he said in a statement on Friday. "At the same time, it is important that we ensure that Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country have full confidence in their public representatives -- both elected and appointed. The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well as the City of Philadelphia."

    Joe Manchin:

    "I made a conscientious decision after talking to the wife of the victim," Manchin told reporters. But the senator, who usually likes engaging with reporters, was otherwise tight-lipped on his decision, saying repeatedly that "I made a conscientious decision."

    Chris Coons, again:

    "At a time when the Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community, I was troubled by the idea of voting for an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who would face such visceral opposition from law enforcement on his first day on the job," Coons said, in a statement released after the vote. "The vote I cast today was one of the most difficult I have taken since joining the Senate, but I believe it to be right for the people I represent."

    Perhaps what I should have asked was whether the case should have anything to do with the rejection of Adegbile, so I will ask it of you: should Adegbile's representation have mattered?

    What I see in these statements are Senators making Adegbile's work on the Abu-Jamal case relevant because of who was on the other side of that case - a dead cop.  These senators can say they understand that everyone is entitled to representation, but their words indicate they believe Lady Justice has an obligation to peek out from under the blindfold to make sure "the right kind" of people get treated better.

    Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop attributing to me opinions I have gone out of my way to repeatedly reject.  I do not view Democrats as weak; I think they make the decisions they do and vote the way they do because that is what they believe.  It may be just peachy with you that so-called Democrats keep aligning themselves with Republican policies, but it isn't okay with me.

    Parent

    Yes (3.00 / 2) (#170)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    I have not only read the statements but looked at their voting record.

    regarding your question:

    How does this case have any bearing on the nomination of Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ?

    Well regarding the nomination, I think that Obama showed great leadership and courage to nominate Adegbile, but that is not something you appear to be interested in. Your comments here do not seem to be about the nomination but the Democratic votes against Adegbile as well as your common complaint about the Democratic leadership being weak and spineless.

    Regarding Coon's statement::

    There is no question that Mr. Adegbile has had a significant and broad career as a leading civil rights advocate, and would be an asset to the Justice Department, but at a time when the Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community, I was troubled by the idea of voting for an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who would face such visceral opposition from law enforcement on his first day on the job.

    Seems to me that in Coons' decision to vote against Adegbile the  case has, in how opinion, everything to do with  the Abu-Jamal case. Do you think that Coons' is against Civil Rights? Do you think that Coons voted against his constituency's wishes. If so he will be toast in the next election.

    It sounds like Casey and Coons were voting on whether they believed the nominee would advance Civil Rights where it matters most, which is in law enforcement  which has time and time again shown racist bias. And they want to be re-elected and so their vote, they believed reflected their constituency,

    "It was a tough one because you had the NAACP on one side and police officers on the other so people voted the best they could given the circumstances," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who voted for Adegbile.

    Regarding your question to me:

    Perhaps what I should have asked was whether the case should have anything to do with the rejection of Adegbile, so I will ask it of you: should Adegbile's representation have mattered?

    I can only answer for myself, I would have voted for Adegbile, and would take into consideration anyone who voted against him were they to come up for re-election as my rep. But my reps voted for him, reflecting their constituency.

    Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop attributing to me opinions I have gone out of my way to repeatedly reject.

    Reject all you want, your opinions are clear. One point that we do not seem to agree on is this:

    I think they [democratic representatives] make the decisions they do and vote the way they do because that is what they believe.

    Politicians make their decisions in order to stay in office. They change their position as the voters change. Your insistence that the Democratic Senators have ideological problems when they vote in a way that you do not like is absurd, imo.

    Not sure why your set up a rosy scenario only to be regularly disappointed. Your representatives need to appease you, if not you vote against them. America is a big country, everyone does not share your view, and I am not even sure that you are still aligned with the Democratic party.

    Parent

    Which has nothing to do with this case (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    As usual.

    Officer Faulkner made the stop because of a traffic violation.  And then he was killed.

    You cannot in one breath claim that it is wrong to persecute people based on their skin color based on the acts of some people within that group and then turn around and make broad sweeping claims against every person who has been a member of the Philadelphia Police Department.

    Logic = FAIL

    Parent

    Sad comment on views of crime (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    John Adams defended and got an acquittal of a number of the British soldiers who perpetrated the Boston Massacre.  And it did not hold him back.....Now, our country is so knee-jerk pro prosecution that could never happen today.

    A lawyer representing unpopular defendants is very, very American.  You do know whom the proprietor of this blog has represented?

    All this crime fighting has led to a corrosion of American values.

    Parent

    Well said sir... (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    may as well change to name of the DOJ to the Department of Former Prosecutors, others need not apply.

    Kudos to Obama for trying...the "nays" should be ashamed of themselves, Adegbile's work defending Mumia's constitutional rights is exactly the kind of thing that would make him well-qualified to head the Civil Rights Division.

    Parent

    - which is precisely why they didn't want him. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    Roberts v Adegbile (2.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    To the best of my knowledge Roberts never spoke at any rallies held in support of the murder client he was defending.  What ever one says about him he does not seem to be overtly political in his public actions.

    The same can not be said of Adegbile.  He spoke at public rallies with the purpose to bring pressure on the courts to grant his client a new trial.

    There is a big difference between providing legal counsel to a client and publicly advocating for that client at rallies.

    Are you a defense counsel? (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:44:58 PM EST
    Because if you're not, then you're hardly someone to be prescribing "acceptable" limits to an attorney's advocacy for his or her client, never mind your own implied advocacy for curtailing constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech for criminal defense counsels.

    Given you're previous postings on matters unrelated to this topic, I'm under the assumption that you're probably too young to have any contemporaneous knowledge of the case of Mumia Abu-Kamal, who was first tried for and convicted of the Dec. 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer more than 30 years ago. While there is little doubt that Abu-Jamal was at the crime scene, the circumstances resulting in the death of Officer Daniel Faulkner have never been adequately answered to my own satisfaction to this very day.

    Further, it should be noted that Abu-Jamal was also president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists and a member of the Black Panthers. And I'm not talking about those two guys of the New Black Panthers who regularly gets trumped up as something of a national security threat by Fox News.

    Rather, he was a member of the original Black Panther party, whose members had in fact been singled out by local, state and federal law enforcement on numerous occasions for persecution throughout the 1970s because of their perceived political radicalism.

    So it's not at all a stretch to consider the possibility that he had been railroaded by the prosecution. And to be fair, it must also be noted that the defendant really did himself no favors with his own disruptive behavior at his 1982 trial, in which he first attempted to defend himself before counsel was assigned to him.

    There were many public rallies held in numerous cities and towns across the country in support of Abu-Jamal because there were a number of very troubling and worrisome aspects relating to the reliability and veracity of certain key witnesses for the prosecution, and the case had become political.

    And please don't get me started on the behavior back then of the Philadelphia police department, which in 1985 had actually planned and carried out an aerial firebombing of the dissident organization MOVE, which ended up leveling nearly an entire city block, destroying 65 homes and resulting in the deaths of six adults and five children, all of whom were African American.

    Finally, please remember that you're posting on a blog that's both owned and run by a defense attorney. At the very least, you should show a little healthy respect for what she does.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    no evidence of railroading (none / 0) (#28)
    by gilligan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:30:15 PM EST
    All of the appeals resulted in his death penalty being reevaluated because "appellate courts ruled the jury instructions were erroneous and Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned. He was resentenced to life in prison."
    No court found him to be innocent of anything.

    Parent
    The original trial was farcical, ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 07:26:50 AM EST
    ... partly due to Abu-Jamal's own disruptive behavior. The trial judge really had no business allowing the defendant to initially defend himself, given the seriousness of the charge and the potential fate that awaited him if found guilty.

    Several prosecution witnesses contradicted one another, yet their testimony was allowed to stand and prosecutors shape-shifted their case to fit what was said, and multiple scenarios were offered the jury. Abu-Jamal was a pretty prominent and hardworking guy with a couple of decent jobs, and it didn't make sense that he would simply leave his cab, walk across the street and shoot an officer for writing his younger brother a traffic ticket. There was something else at play that day.

    Mumia Abu-Jamal may well be guilty of the crime, but I was not at all convinced of his guilt because prosecutors could even agree what exactly went down that day. The evidence should have been clear and unambiguous, and it wasn't. The defendant's membership in the Black Panthers and MOVE should not have been used against him by the prosecution to sway the jury toward conviction, and it was.

    In my honest opinion, capital trials with death penalty implications should not be conducted like that. Abu-Jamal's trial failed to meet acceptable standards, and he should've received a new one.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's my understanding (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 07:57:11 AM EST
    The courts tend to disagree with your wish to violate the defendant's rights by preventing him from proceeding pro se in state court.

    Parent
    Pro se (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    Lawyers and Latin.  It is called Pro Per in state court here.....

    Parent
    Huh? The jury is charged (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    with assessing the credibility of witnesses and determining the facts.

    Several prosecution witnesses contradicted one another, yet their testimony was allowed to stand....


    Parent
    Yeah, Donald is again confused (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    That happens ALL THE TIME in court cases.

    And then the jury decides who is telling the truth.  The fact that the jury still found him guilty, even after contradictory testimony says that other stronger evidence existed.

    Parent

    Or they found some witnesses more (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    credible than others.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    But as you said - it's the jury who gets decide the verdict - not the prosecutor.

    And of course, no mention is made of the credibility of defense witnesses who may have also impacted the jury's decision.  No one really knows what evidence hits a jury the hardest and which evidence can be brushed aside - even if the jury is interviewed afterward, it's very hard to say from person to person what really made them come to their decision.

    Parent

    "Again confused" (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    Wow. If you're gonna stick your chin out there like that, jb, don't be shocked if you take a shot or two and then need Anne to tell people to stop picking on you.

    Parent
    Well, since Donald was WRONG (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    It needed to be pointed out.

    I'm not sure what you're implying with

    don't be shocked if you take a shot or two and then need Anne to tell people to stop picking on you.

    I can fight my own battles, thank you. Anne chooses to further engage - but it isn't like she always agrees with me.  More often, it's just that she can actually read what I wrote.  I tend tolean toward the idea that when discussions involve people like you, squeaky, or a couple of others, they veer off into what you THINK my positions are (and what you'd like to extrapolate my opinions as) as opposed to what I actually SAID. Honestly, I find it is much better not to continue to engage at that point.  You know what Mark Twain said about arguing with fools and all...

    Parent

    Donald I have to correct you (none / 0) (#46)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:21:31 AM EST
    I am old enough that the federal government requires me to take mandatory disbursements from my 401k starters.

    My point was not that a defense attorney should be limited in advocating for a client, or cause.

    Rather I was pointing out that there is a general agreement that since Bork was Borked lawyers who hope to be appointed to political jobs have taken great pains to not do things that might be a negative to some if brought up in hearings related to their appointment.

    Roberts was very careful in not leaving a trail opponents of his appointments could use against him.  On the other hand  Adegbile seems to have participated in activities that his opponents point out as objectional to them.

    While you and I may not like the system I suspect we both would agree since Bork many folks sitting for an appointment hearing have dodged questions or given milk toast answers, not to mention trying to appear to be fence sitters.

    Parent

    To say that the majority of Democratic voters were (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:26:01 PM EST
    totally against John Roberts selection for the Supreme Court would be an understatement. He was involved in trying to overturn the death penalty for a mass murderer.

    Three months ago, John Errol Ferguson was executed for one of the worst mass murders in Florida's history. After tricking his way into a woman's home, he eventually bound, blindfolded and shot eight people. Six of them died. While under indictment for those crimes, Ferguson murdered two teenagers on their way to church.

    Ferguson might have been executed earlier, but his attorneys, one of whom was later rewarded with a position of unparalleled influence in the U.S. government, argued Ferguson was mentally ill and dragged out the process for years.

    Now as I said Roberts was not someone who Democratic voters wanted on the Supreme Court but I don't recall any effort like what was pitted against Adegbile to damn him for defending a mass murderer.

    On Fox News, Adegbile has been called a "cop killer coddler." The conservative Washington Times ran a caricature of Adegbile with the words "cop killer" that Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said was "reminiscent of the racist iconography of late 19th century America." Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick said the NAACP LDF's representation of Abu-Jamal "made a mockery of the jury's verdict and the court's sentence." Katie Pavlich, a columnist at the conservative website Townhall, wrote: "Through his extensive work at the NAACP [sic] and in arguments before the Supreme Court, Adegbile has made it clear he does not believe civil rights apply to whites."

    Why people of both political parties should want this type of character assassinations of defense lawyers to stop:

    "There's actually a stronger case here to identify (Adgebile) with the client because there's more discretion about how to represent in these post-conviction proceedings," says Steve Lubet, an expert in legal ethics and a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. At the same time, he says, "when you're challenging a sentence on appeal, you're not endorsing the client, you're trying to make sure the sentence is lawful and appropriate. Nobody benefits when sentences are imposed inappropriately, and the only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to have everyone represented by capable lawyers."
    ...
    ...former assistant U.S. Attorney. John Dixon, President of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, wrote that "[t]he attacks on Mr. Adegbile's character for upholding one's constitutional rights are troubling. To take away one's right to a proper defense because of the act committed, is against the constitutional oath that we as law enforcement officials have sworn to protect and defend."

    Adegbile is likely not the last attorney to be nominated by either party who will face scrutiny and opposition based on having represented a hated client. It's a partisan game that Geyh, the Indiana University professor, said should stop.



    Parent
    Adegbile didn't speak at rallies (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:41:40 AM EST
    Adegbile didn't speak at public rallies for his client ... that was someone else entirely at LDF - Christina Swarns, as acknowledged by the Senators who were questioning Adegbile about her comments.


        9. On January 28, 2011, your colleague Christina A. Swarns, who appears with you on two LDF Supreme Court briefs on which you are counsel of record, stated at a rally for Mr. Abu-Jamal that "there is no question in the mind of anyone at the Legal Defense Fund that the justice system has completely and utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal and in our view, that has everything to do with race and that is why the legal defense fund is in this case."

         a. Does Ms. Swarns's claim that the "justice system...completely and utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal in [LDF's] view" refer to LDF's prior allegations of a culture of racial discrimination in the Philadelphia County District Attorney's Office?

        ANSWER: Ms. Swarns was counsel of record on the aforementioned briefs; I was not. I am not familiar with Ms. Swarns' comments and am not aware of the context in which they were offered. I do not know what Ms. Swarns had in mind when she made the comment.


    So, given that your distinction between Roberts and Adegbile is incorrect, can we now assume that you agree he (like Roberts) should be put to a vote?

    (crickets chirping)

    Parent

    Thanks for pointing out that is was (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:19:05 PM EST
    Christina Swarns who actually made the public comments about the abu-Jamal trial and sentencing.  I had the privilege of serving as Christina's co-counsel (both of us being court-appointed) for a (white) death row prisoner in Pennsylvania (immediately before she left to go work for the Inc Fund).  She was creative, courageous, and energetic in her part of the case.  As it turned out, our client, who looked very guilty from the circumstantial evidence, was in fact innocent of a "horrendous" kidnap-rape-murder for which he had been convicted and sentenced to death.  He was exonerated by DNA testing of "lost" (hidden) evidence that Christina uncovered about 20 years after the killing.

    Parent
    Chilling (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:24:09 PM EST
    Not only agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    Adegbile should be subject to a vote, I also think once there is a vote it should be accepted, unless Reid is able to get the dems in line and get a second vote.

    I have not followed this issue closely and sit corrected.

    But my point was not to rehash the case or take a stand on Adegbile being appointed.

    Rather I was noting his past left the impression with opponents that he was too political.  Enough so that some dems, for what ever reason, voted against him.

    My problem is with the process of appointing folks to govt positions.  Since Bork was not appointed, despite his qualifications, the level of ones qualifications seems to be less important than how much dirt opponents are able to bring to light.  Not a good system in my mind.

    Parent

    I will take someone who is out there (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    being "political" fighting FOR our civil/constitutional rights over someone who is "political" trying to deny them to us.

    Parent
    Anne what bothers me about your position (none / 0) (#109)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    is not who you favor.  It is your failure to grant others the right to favor someone else.

    Jeralyn gets bashed a lot here for her views on 2A constitutional rights.  A lot of folks who share Jeralyn's view on 2A rights also get bashed.

    I don't have issues with folks  who support pols I disagree with as long as they grand others the right to support pols they like.

    Parent

    I haven't stopped anyone from (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:27:19 PM EST
    expressing their opinions; I'm not in a position to "grant" anything to anyone.  You are free to support the politicians you like, as I am free to criticize the positions and voting records of those politicians.

    I respect your right to state your opinion, but my respect does not have to extend to the opinion itself.  I won't apologize for having little respect for or patience with those who actively work to deny people their rights.

    This is the point where the gun-lovers accuse me of wanting to do exactly that with respect to the 2nd amendment.  My response to that is that the courts have ruled that the right to bear arms is not an unqualified one, exempt from regulation; that's a position I fully support.

    One suggestion: if you're going to put quotes from various sources in your comments, you should provide a link.

    Parent

    Your "point" was false (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    Rather I was noting his past left the impression with opponents that he was too political.  Enough so that some dems, for what ever reason, voted against him.

    So now we're down to a "perception" of being too political, despite the fact that the "impression" is based on false claims being made by conservatives.  And you blame this "impression" while acknowledging that "some dems, for what ever reason, voted against him."

    Heh.

    Parent

    shoephone, the problem with you (1.50 / 2) (#110)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 04:44:39 PM EST
    saying Bork was wrong for the court is not that you don't have the right to say that, rather you do not grant the right to say Adegbile was wrong for the court to those who believe that.

    Adegbile wasn't nominated to the court (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    Dear gawd CG (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:54:39 PM EST
    You are trying to confuse the issue with ... wait for it ... FACTS.

    Parent
    My apologies MO :) (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:01:29 PM EST
    The cat very definitely does not (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:39:46 PM EST
    like FACTS. But then again, everyone already knew that.

    Parent
    A nearly unintelligible comment from you (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    The fact remains, Bork was complicit in Nixon obstructing justice. It was a HUGE stain on his record as a justice department official.

    As for Adegbile, I never made any comment regarding his fitness for the court. (You might want to reread the thread to confirm that.) My one and only reference to Adegbile was in pointing out that you made a false statement about him speaking on behalf of his client at public protests.

    You're tiresome.

    Parent

    shoephone your are splitting hairs (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:38:10 PM EST
    Historians and dictionaries point to the Bork hearings as the start of ignoring qualifications and using politics to defeat nominations by borking them.

    If it is OK for the dems it is OK for the gop.

    I am quite sure there are plenty of conservatives who are as opposed to Adegbile as you are to Bork.

    You just seem unwilling to admit it.

    Parent

    You just made all that up. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:08:21 PM EST
    Surprise, surprise. You seem to spend a lot of comment space assigning thoughts and opinions to people they never expressed, and statements they never made. I never had an opinion on Adegbile at all, and never expressed one here. I also never made any comments or conclusions about what conservatives think of Adegbile.

    Try responding to what people actually post in their comments, instead of responding to imaginary comments.

    Parent

    Wikipedia ... (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:22:14 PM EST
    Historians and dictionaries point to the Bork hearings as the start of ignoring qualifications and using politics to defeat nominations by borking them.

    ... is not "historians and dictionaries."

    BTW - I guess you've never heard of Abe Fortas.

    Filibuster Foes Argue Over '68 Fortas Precedent.

    Or we could check the source you cite as fact Wikipedia.

    The debate on Fortas's nomination had lasted for less than a week, led by Republicans and conservative southern Democrats, or so-called Dixiecrats. Republican Senator John Cornyn noted in 2003 that several senators who opposed Fortas asserted at the time that they were not conducting a perpetual filibuster and were not trying to prevent a final up-or-down vote from occurring.  The filibuster of Fortas would become a partisan issue for future generations, with a debate over whether Fortas would have been confirmed in a straight up-or-down vote. The Fortas vote is seen as an early precedent for later filibusters of judicial nominees.


    Parent
    Once again, no one is prohibiting (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:12:54 AM EST
    anyone from voicing his or her opinion as to whether Adegbile is right or wrong for the position for which he was nominated (which, to be accurate, was not a seat on the bench of any court).

    The opinions to which you are objecting speak to the rationale by which Adegbile's nomination was rejected.  As I stated in a reply to a comment you made to me, I respect everyone's right to express an opinion, but I am under no obligation to respect the opinion expressed.

    I'm not sure you understand that distinction, so this comment is not likely to make much difference to you.

    There is no problem in expressing the opinion that Bork was wrong for the Supreme Court, but I don't have to respect the reasons given for why others felt he was right for it.  I don't happen to share the opinion that the rejection was a strictly political one; I think that was the safe harbor for those who didn't want to acknowledge that Bork engaged in activities that were inconsistent with the law and constitutional principles.

    Here is a report you (and others) might find enlightening: Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007

    Parent

    You do realize that this is a site where (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    people debate issues.

    IOW, you state your position or POV and people are then free to comment on why they agree or disagree with your comment or provide facts that disprove statements made in your comment.

    You have replied to comments and stated why you disagree with them. By stating your disagreement, are you denying the original commenter the right to make that comment or have that opinion? I don't think so. You are debating the issue and stating your POV.

    If the someone comes back with a rebuttal of your comment, they are not denying you the right to make that comment or have that opinion. They are exercising their right to tell you why they don't share your opinion or why you are misstating the facts. IOW, they are debating the issue.
     

    Parent

    Well-phrased. Now to apply these guidelines. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:23:17 AM EST
    In what way have these "guidelines" (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    not been applied?

    Has anyone told anyone else he or she is not allowed to express an opinion?

    And does your praise for phrasing mean your awarding ragebot the "top comment to this diary. By far" still stands?

    Because I have to say, that one was a puzzler, given that no one did what he claimed.

    Parent

    Please read my "top comment" (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:58:12 AM EST
    as snark. Which it was.

    As to mo blue's comment, to me, some, but not most, comments seem to be written to discourage others from expressing opinions.

    Parent

    Just out of curiosity , (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    do you personally think you have made comments that strongly suggest that any additional comments to one of your posts from another commenter would not be welcome? IOW, discourage others from expressing opinions.

    Parent
    Probably. When the opinion (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    was about me rather than about my opinion.

    Parent
    Hmm that is an interesting response (none / 0) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    And it just proves how it is in the eye of the beholder whether a comment is discouraging others from expressing opinions or even if it is directed at the person rather than the opinion expressed.

    Parent
    Top comment to this diary. By far. (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:07:43 PM EST
    Shouldn't your headline read (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    "Democrats block appointment for Civil Rights"?

    Under the new rules, only a simple majority is required on nominees, so since the Republicans only have 45 seats, there is no way they could actually and technically block an appointment.

    This is all on the Democrats.

    No it's not all on Democrats (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    It was the Republicans who spearheaded the effort and they voted in a block. The Democrats who sided with them are to be criticized, but the underlying problem is with the Republicans and their beliefs. If we had fewer Republicans in Congress, this wouldn't have happened.

    Parent
    But the fact remains (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    Even since all the Republicans voted to block, that alone wouldn't have blocked the nomination.

    It was the Democrats who are responsible for this nomination going down.

    Parent

    The fact remains (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:46:31 PM EST

    The fact remains that Obama could not get is own party to support this guy.  

    Expecting the opposition party to support controversial nominees is naive.  If you are too weak to keep your own party in line it speaks volumes on the nominee, or your own power, or both.

    Parent

    It speaks more of conservative Dems (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    trying to keep their seats in the 2014 election.

    Real similar to the times that Boehner couldn't get the votes he needed because Republicans were afraid of being challenged by Tea Party candidates in the primaries.

    Parent

    Given your dubious logic and standards, ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 07:43:49 AM EST
    ... Jeralyn would be considered controversial and therefore unworthy of political consideration for public office, because she once defended Timothy McVeigh.

    Why do you seek to penalize defense attorneys for doing their jobs? It's certainly not about their professional qualifications. Rather, it's about your desire for punishment and retribution to be meted out to anyone who happens to say or do something which you find distasteful and disagreeable.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I don't seek to penalize defense attorneys (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 09:29:23 AM EST
    .

    I don't seek to penalize defense attorneys in any way shape or form.  

    President Obamacare forwards a nominee that can't get near unanimous senate support from his own party!  Perhaps that evil genius Mitch McConnell has mind control capabilities over the poor Prez.  Not likely.

    This looks like another sad example of President Obamacare living in a fantasy world.  BTW, how is that Syrian nerve gas destruction coming along, or the reset with the Russians, or folks voluntarily abandoning their "junk health insurance" for vastly much better Obamacare, or the Obamacrud exchanges operating as smoothly has he imagined?

    .

    Parent

    Because I happened to read this yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    here is the answer to your first question.

    Syria has sped up deliveries recently and has proposed finishing the job by the end of April, the international group monitoring the process reported on Tuesday....Michael Luhan, a spokesman for The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, said that Syria had now delivered all its mustard gas.


    Parent
    Mixed at best (none / 0) (#63)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    So (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    I go with what the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague says yesterday, and you go with Wikipedia.

    No need to discuss it further.


    Parent

    From what I heard he (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    participated in various protests and demonstrations making various claims.

    That's a bit beyond what a defense attorney normally does.

    Parent

    From "what you heard" ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    ... on Fox News?  Or was it Rush?

    Because your claims - as usual - are entirely false.

    Parent

    I think he "heard" it (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:09:45 PM EST
    from ragebot.

    Parent
    Donald do you really think (none / 0) (#76)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn is not considered controversial in many circles.

    I am not defending those who would dis Jeralyn (and I am not one), just pointing out that they exist.  There is also the fact that a defense attorney who is controversial is much different than some one aspiring to political appointment who is controversial.

    Bork was perhaps one of the most qualified lawyers ever nominated for the SC.  Dictionaries point out the word borked is the result of what dems did to him.  What Teddy Kennedy did to Bork was beyond the excusing.  It was known that Bork had a sick child and any money Bork got from speeches went to cover medical expenses for the child.  Kennedy knew this and had agreed to not bring it up in the hearing.  Never the less Kennedy questioned Bork about outside income until he was stopped by other senators in the hearing.

    Wiki sums it up best:

    "The tone of the Bork battle changed the way Washington worked - with controversial nominees or candidates now experiencing all-out war waged against them - and the ramifications of it were still being felt two decades later."

    Parent

    You're not quoting Wiki (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    "The tone of the Bork battle changed the way Washington worked - with controversial nominees or candidates now experiencing all-out war waged against them - and the ramifications of it were still being felt two decades later."

    You're quoting Manuel Miranda, the right wing self appointed chairman of a blog called the Third Branch Conference.

    Parent

    Quoting a wiki entry (none / 0) (#87)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    The point is not who made the entry but how accurate it is.

    There is a lot of agreement the dems are the ones who started rejecting nominations based on the politics of the person nominated rather than the person's qualifications when they borked Bork.

    Dems have little justification to complain when the favor is returned.

    Parent

    Quoting Wikipedia ... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:01:19 PM EST
    There is a lot of agreement the dems are the ones who started rejecting nominations based on the politics of the person nominated rather than the person's qualifications when they borked Bork.

    .... to support this claim is seriously funny.

    Parent

    Jeralyn is not considered controversial (none / 0) (#80)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:49:19 PM EST

    Jeralyn is not considered controversial in many circles.

    Make that most circles.  She is not considered by almost all as a race baiter.

    Parent

    Anybody (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:24:58 PM EST
    who does a frequent amount of public speech and appears controversial to any group will have a hard time getting past a smear campaign.

    Adegbile got Borked, an invention of the Democrats biting them back seems like Karma, not tragedy.

    Parent

    More talking points (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:36:22 AM EST
    Anybody who does a frequent amount of public speech and appears controversial to any group will have a hard time getting past a smear campaign.

    Well - now that we've established that Adegbile wasn't the one speaking at the public rallies, do tell ... what are those "frequent" public speaking events that made him so controversial?  Or are you just making it up ... again?

    Adegbile got Borked, an invention of the Democrats biting them back seems like Karma, not tragedy.

    Guess you just skipped right past Abe Fortas in history class, huh?

    Parent

    Fortas was filibustered (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:59:04 AM EST
    Bork was the tide turning case, where a media smear became the tool of choice.

    Learn to read a thread Yman, comment was not directed to Adegbile. Its also my opinion that cop killer cuddler was the smear and not the basis for the rejection. Its like expecting the left to respects the merits of a lawyer from the NRA, naive.

    Parent

    Yeah, because ... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:23:30 PM EST
    ... 8 Democrats voted against cloture (while 47 voted in favor) and all 44 Republicans vote against it, and the Democrats are responsible.

    Heh.

    Parent

    It is unconscionable that the (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:42:56 PM EST
    Democrats couldn't even muster the simple majority it would have taken to confirm this nominee, who, from everything I've read about him, was a stellar candidate to head the Civil Rights division.

    Where is the Democratic leadership?  Isn't Dick Durbin the majority whip in the Senate?  Where was he?

    What is the point of having a majority if we still can't get anything we want?  If we're going to assume that the GOP is always going to vote in a bloc, then the math becomes really simple: get 51 Dems to vote Democratic.  

    Yes, it's hard...boo-hoo.  Pull up your big-boy or big-girl pants and get to it.  Stop whining about the mean and evil Republicans who don't want to play, and get to work making them as irrelevant as they should be.

    Parent

    Harry Reid voted for the nomination but (4.00 / 2) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:19:33 PM EST
    changed his vote to "nay," purportedly so he could bring the nomination up for a vote a second time.

    Parent
    They should have been able ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:49:25 PM EST
    ... to muster 51 votes, but members won't always fall in line behind leadership ... even Republicans.

    That being said, to claim that the Democrats (as opposed to the 8 who voted against it) are responsible for this cloture vote just ignores the basic math.

    Parent

    Continuing to blame Republicans (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:26 PM EST
    isn't getting us anywhere.  It's like the old saying, "when you point a finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you."  It's time we figured out how to win, instead of always just playing not to lose.


    Parent
    Sadly, (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    it appears to me that the democrats have figured out a way to win. We have a democrat in the White House, and a democratic senate. When Obama first took office, we had the presidency, the House and the Senate.

    At that time, the Guardian wrote:

    Barack Obama is the first president-elect in 32 years to receive a Congress under the firm control of his party, a powerful political gift that bodes well for the enactment of an expansive Democratic agenda.

    So - what happened?
    Personally, I do not detect the enactment of an expansive Democratic agenda. And if there is in fact an expansive Democratic agenda, it has yet to be coherently and forcefully articulated imo.

    In short, I think that winning is only part of what we have to figure out.


    Parent

    Got any ideas why the administration (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:49:08 PM EST
    and Dem leadership didn't have a better handle on this? You gotta wonder if anyone talked to the Senators about this nomination before it was made.

    While members don't alway fall in line behind leadership, I would think leadership should be aware of the fact that they haven't mustered the required votes. Counting votes is one of the primary duties of the Majority Whip? Can't figure out why they didn't have a better count or why they would proceed to vote if they knew that they would come up short.


    Parent

    Wrong Yman (none / 0) (#57)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 09:35:47 AM EST
    .

    The fault is President Obamacare's for putting forward a nominee that could not get 50 senators (not 51) out of 55 in the caucus.

    .

    Parent

    Well, if YOU disagree ... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    ... Abdul, then there's not even the slightest doubt.

    I'm right.

    Parent

    Leadership? Spine? (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:12:41 PM EST
    If anyone has spine it is Obama for nominating Debo Adegbile. And as far as leadership you can't get representatives to vote AGAINST their constituency. Oh, you forgot to mention that, no?

    Your oft used metaphor "spine" seems to mean standing up for what Anne believes.

    More than likely those who voted against Adegbile stood up for their constituents not you (or me).

    Parent

    I never used the word "spine;" in fact, (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:50:30 AM EST
    I avoid using that word when talking about Democrats, because I don't think it is a matter of spine at all.  I think, in case you're interested, that it's a matter of ideology - that the positions these Dems take, aligning themselves with Republican interests, are the result of their sharing those beliefs and interests, not because they are too weak to stand up for what I would consider to be Democratic interests.

    So, sure - let's celebrate the principled stand of Democrats voting against Adegbile for his  legal representation of a man accused of killing a cop.  While we're at it, let's celebrate that same principled stand by Republicans, shall we?  Why would we want to ask our representatives to educate their constituents that we are all constitutionally guaranteed legal representation, whether we can pay for it or not, are all considered innocent until proven guilty, and having someone to head the Civil Rights division who understands these concepts is a positive, not a negative.

    Perhaps they should have taken something from the principled stand of the Attorney General of Kentucky, who is refusing to appeal on the state's behalf a federal judge's decision that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal.  The Democratic governor of Kentucky is hiring outside counsel to proceed with that appeal.  I'm sure he's just trying to represent those constituents who didn't approve the legislation or the constitutional amendment requiring Kentucky to recognize these marriages, right?

    Perhaps these Senators should think about what it means to defend the Constitution of the United States, after, of course, they refresh their understanding of what, exactly, the Constitution provides.

    I must say that I do look forward to your praise for and defense of the principled stand not just of these Democrats, but of the 44 Republicans who also voted no. Will you also be trashing Obama with the same vigor you are trashing me for my opinions, given that - get ready for this - he and I are on the same side:

    President Obama strongly denounced the Senate on Wednesday for failing to confirm a top nominee to the Justice Department.

    In a statement released by the White House, Obama said Debo Adegbile's defeat is a "travesty" and is based on unfair attacks.

    "The Senate's failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant," Obama said. "Mr. Adegbile's qualifications are impeccable."

    As earnest and as passionate as you can be defending Jeralyn for her work as a criminal defense attorney, and her participation in the defense of Terry Nichols, your defense of opposition to Adegbile is just as unconscionable and two-faced as the votes of the Senators who rejected him.

    This is the corner you have painted yourself into, and for what?  For the sole purpose of taking the opposite position I took.

    Now there's some principled stand.


    Parent

    Correction - s/b Timothy McVeigh (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    not Terry Nichols; sorry!

    Parent
    Spine (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    You may not have used the word spine as if is colloquially used, but your comment dances all around the word.

    that the positions these Dems take, aligning themselves with Republican interests, are the result of their sharing those beliefs and interests, not because they are too weak to stand up for what I would consider to be Democratic interests.

    You paint with a broad brush Anne. Did you bother to look at the voting record of Democrats who voted against Adegbile?  Or read the comments of those Democrats?  Doubt it... Do you believe that Representatives should lead against the wishes of their constituency? Dictatorship? Or is it their duty, (if they want to be elected again) to follow the wishes of their constituents.

    It appears that you are on your usual rant about spineless Democrats makes you, once again, sound a bit like those across the aisle.

    Parent

    Brain. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:53:09 AM EST
    Get one.

    Meanwhile (that means: "moving on"), the passage you cited makes it abundantly clear (that means: "it's plain and simple English - try reading it for comprehension") that I don't think these Dems have a spine problem, I believe they have an ideology problem (that means - as I stated - "they aren't voting the way they are because they are weak, they are voting that way because that is what they believe") and golly gee, that just happens to line up more with the other side of the aisle.

    I'll be on the edge of my seat waiting for the next installment (no sense numbering them - as Charlie Pierce would say, "Part the Infinity") of your unintentionally comedic attempts to debate the issues.  That is, if there's room to type in that tight corner you've rhetorically boxed yourself deeper into.

    Parent

    More Insults (3.00 / 1) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    You are starting to become # for insults at TL, that is if you have not already nabbed the prize.

    Again, have you looked into the voting record those Senators with ideology problems, as you put it.  I doubt it, as you would not be painting them with such a broad brush,

    And, since when did politicians have ideology? Seems like that would be death for a POL...  they are more akin to Actors who play the part that is needed to get the most votes. In our system, flawed as it is, the voters control who represents them, and when the politicians do not deliver the appropriate representation they get voted out of office.  Six of the seven D's are up for election next year. Do you think that they are planning on retiring? or do you think that they are representing their constituents.

    Clearly it is the latter.  

    Unless you consider ideology something fluid and constantly nutating, Ideology is for voters not politicians.

    Parent

    Oh, go crawl back in your bitter little (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:34:09 PM EST
    cave and take some reading comprehension tapes with you.  Work on seeing the words that are there, not the ones your fevered little brain is hallucinating.

    We get it, squeaky - you detest me - but you're getting to the point where your tag line should be "and your little dog, too!" accompanied by a shrill cackle.

    Parent

    Bitter Cave? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:25:50 PM EST
    Guess all you have is insults. Not fit for debate, just your head nodding kaffee klatch.

    Yup..

    Parent

    Terrible comment (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:52:08 AM EST
    Just another insult.

    You guys need to relent.

    Parent

    Unconscionable? (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    Do you think that Reid or Durbin should blackmail the democratic senators to vote in a bloc?

    More than likely it would be unconscionable for Senators to vote for an issue that their constituents were against.

    Is that what you are gunning for, or is this just another gratuitous slam at spineless Democrats?

    And Obama? was he spineless for nominating someone who had a chance of losing because of heavy law enforcement lobbying?  

    Parent

    The complexities of real life trip some (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    People up :)  

    Parent
    Heh is right (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    Harry Reid didn't know how to count his votes.

    Now there are several moderate Democrats up for re-election from reddish states who voted "Yes" in a wasted vote and now they are going to have to defend themselves this election cycle.

    Heh is right.

    Parent

    According to this NYT article (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    Harry Reid could count just fine.

    Senior congressional Democrats were incredulous about the White House's surprise. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, called Mr. McDonough at 10 p.m. Tuesday to inform him the votes were not there. He made the same call Wednesday morning, also informing the attorney general. The White House pressed forward anyway. NYT


    Parent
    You're right about not ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:08:34 PM EST
    ... knowing how to count, ...

    ... only it's not Harry Reid that has the counting problem.

    Parent

    Could not disagree more. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 02:05:50 PM EST
    Fewer Republicans isn't going to be the answer unless and until we get better Democrats to replace them - and I don't consider these cross-over Dems to be representative of "better;" they might as well be Republicans.

    And where is the criticism for Democratic leadership, that can not and could not corral their own to vote in a bloc and render the GOP's resistance futile and their agenda irrelevant?

    Republicans are - and always have been - a problem, but Dems can't sit on their hands and whine about them - they need to show some leadership.

    And if it turns out that this was another one of those deals where Dems allowed this nominee to be defeated in exchange for a(n empty) promise to confirm someone more "acceptable" to the GOP, I may have to throw up.

    Parent

    Does (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    anyone know what the "beliefs" of the Democrats are?

    I don't have a clear picture.

    Parent

    Been trying to (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    figure that one out for some years now.  I used to know, but I don't any more.      :-(
    As I have quoted before, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

    Parent
    Don't you mean Democrat Beliefs (none / 0) (#4)
    by met0213456 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    If all democrats felt like he was the right choice, then he would have be confirmed.  Either those democrats felt like he was a bad choice or they felt that their politics are more important than a quailifed canditate.  

    Parent
    "Democrat beliefs"? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    Did you mean "Democratic beliefs"?

    LOL. You just gave yourself away.

    Parent

    Either Way (none / 0) (#14)
    by met0213456 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    The question is, did 51% of the senate vote the way they did because he was a not a good candidate?  Or did the 7 democrats vote that way just to save their jobs?

    Parent
    An 8th grade history lesson for you: (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    Politicians almost always vote the way they do based on whether their consituencies will support them, regardless.

    Next question?

    Parent

    Not either way (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    It really is annoying to continue with this Democrat talk.  Some Republican thought it was cute because it rhymed with rat.  Ha ha.  Juvenile joke.

    Parent
    Yet the oft-used on TL "Rethuglican" (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    is side-splittingly funny.

    Parent
    Frankly speaking (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    I don't appreciate Rethuglican Party any more than I do the Democrat Party.

    I don't appreciate Demos any more than I do the Repubs.

    I adhere to the "auld ways" and think Dems and GOP.

    Parent

    That certainly sounds reasonable. (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:40:40 PM EST
    I hardly hear that (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    and "Democrat" party is used wide and far.  Standard issue on Fox News.

    Parent
    I thought we were discussing something (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:31:54 AM EST
    said in a comment on TL.
    Don't you mean Democrat Beliefs (none / 0) (#4)
    by met0213456 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:26 AM PST


    Parent
    Someone want to tell me again (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    how Obama should be able to get anything he wants through the Senate because it is majority Dem? Dems do not vote as a block, this is just the latest example.

    Very disappointing to say the least, since Adegbile was on the right side of the law according to the appellate court. Pure right wing pandering. I understand some of these Dems are in reddish areas, but maybe taking a stand on the side of justice would help rather than hurt their re-election chances.

    Pure right wing pandering (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    by the conservative Dems who more often than not share the same ideology as their Republican counterparts on too many issues.

    Parent
    Not looking to start another battle, but, (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    I can't imagine Lyndon Johnson sending up a name for Justice and being back stabbed by his own Democrats like this.

    This is what happens when you don't instill any fear into, not only your opponents, but your colleagues as well.

    Parent

    Not going to battle on this (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:17:38 PM EST
    In most cases, I would prefer a discussion to a battle.

    Lydon was around a whole lot longer than Obama and probably knew the location of every body (rhetorical phrase) buried in D.C. and had accumulated a lot of IOUs.

    I blame the conservative Dems for casting the no votes yet I think the administration and Dem leadership should have had a better handle on this.

    While working with conservative Dems IMO, might be the same as trying to work with Republicans, I do believe that the great communicator (Obama) doesn't spend enough time communicating with the Democratic members of the House and Senate.

    I think that Obama nominated Adegbile in 11/2013. I would be interested to know what discussions if any he had with the Senate Dems prior to the nomination. Also, it surprises me that Dem leadership didn't have an accurate count before the vote or worse case scenario chose to vote knowing the nominee would be defeated. From what I read, they thought it would be close and had Biden standing by to cast the majority vote. 7 votes short is not close IMO. Shooting oneself in the foot is not a good idea either.

    Parent

    Then there is always the cynical (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:05:36 PM EST
    explanation that the nomination was just a sop to the left that they knew would fail. Wanted to get credit for trying. Don't think it worked.

    Parent
    That thought crossed my mind. (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:26 PM EST
    Excerpt from NYT:

    White House officials said they believed until Wednesday morning that the nomination would succeed, a vote count that proved disastrously wrong. Top aides to Mr. Obama were "furious" at the Democratic senators who voted against Mr. Adegbile, one senior official said.

    Senior congressional Democrats were incredulous about the White House's surprise. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, called Mr. McDonough at 10 p.m. Tuesday to inform him the votes were not there. He made the same call Wednesday morning, also informing the attorney general. The White House pressed forward anyway.



    Parent
    "What we had here... was a failure... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:46:25 PM EST
    ... to communicate."

    Parent
    Good catch (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 12:17:57 AM EST
    That article answered the majority of my questions.

    Parent
    That article has a lot of good information (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 07:22:03 AM EST
    on what actions were taken and not taken to get approval. Here is the link if anyone else is interested in reading the entire article.

    Parent
    So young, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    to be so cynical.   ;-)
    (At least, I assume that you are younger than I am, which counts as "young."  At least, to me.)

    Parent
    I can't help thinking that if his (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    name were Hunter Emerson Wellington III, he'd have stood a better chance, but he has one of those foreign, not-American names, and we all know how that goes over, don't we?

    Parent
    Nothing To Do With His Name (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:53:44 PM EST
    But to do with the Police lobby and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Disgusting!
    His name could have been John Adams and the GOPers would have still voted as a block along with the deems who are beholden to racist tough on crime constituencies.

    Parent
    Senator Harkins seems to agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    "Here's the message we sent today," Harkin said. "You young people listen up. If you are a young white person and you go to work for a law firm ... and that law firm assigns you to a pro bono case to defend someone who killed eight people in cold blood ... my advice from this, what happened today, is you should do that ... Because if you do that, who knows? You might wind up to be the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.

    "However, if you are a young black person and you go to work for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund ... and you're asked to sign an appeal for someone convicted of murder, what the message said today is, 'Don't do it! Don't do it.' Because you know what? If you do that, in keeping with your legal obligations and your profession, you will be denied by the U.S. Senate from being an attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice," Harkin said.

    "What about that guy sitting over there -- the chief justice of the Supreme Court -- defended a person who killed eight people?" Harkin asked, pointing toward the nearby court building. "Maybe we should institute a -- an impeachment process? Maybe that's what we ought to do. Maybe my friends on the Republican side did not know this about John Roberts, that he had defended a mass murderer. Maybe that's what we've got to do, bring up an impeachment process. Let's impeach the chief justice because he had fulfilled his legal obligation to defend a murderer. Well, I hope that you see the ridiculousness of that argument." TPM



    Parent
    Forgot One Point (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 04:57:51 PM EST
    The big distinction is that Mumia Abu-Jamal was accused and convicted of killing a law enforcement officer, and the defendant in Robert's case only killed little people.  

    That is why Adegbile was not confirmed. The lesson here is that if you defend someone is accused of killing a cop, your will have powerful enemies for the rest of your life.

    Parent

    It seems a bit revionist Sen. Harkins (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:37:57 AM EST
    neglected to mention the votes of his "friends on the Democratic side."

    Maybe my friends on the Republican side did not know this about John Roberts, that he had defended a mass murderer.

    But Harkins'point is solid.


    Parent

    There is no way Harkin would scold Dems (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    in public. What he may be feeling about those seven Dems personally is likely unprintable.

    Parent
    One wonders... (none / 0) (#48)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:59:53 AM EST
    ...if the client had been a white "militia survivalist" type, with a "normal white middle class" name instead of an original Black Panther with a self-assigned African name, how much of difference there might have been.

    But yeah, a name like Debo Adegbile probably didn't help any.

    Parent

    Noticed how much his name helped (none / 0) (#70)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:31:40 AM EST
    Bork

    Parent
    You sure are obsessed with Bork (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    Time to get over it.

    Parent
    As I posted above (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    from wiki

    "The tone of the Bork battle changed the way Washington worked - with controversial nominees or candidates now experiencing all-out war waged against them - and the ramifications of it were still being felt two decades later."

    advice to the dems

    you reap just about what you sow

    Parent

    Another criminal defense attorney (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    whose nomination was blocked:

    Samuel Paz

    I wonder what (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:41:59 PM EST
    sort of party punishment those no voting Democrats are going to be subject to?

    Guess you haven't done your homework, (none / 0) (#178)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:35:42 PM EST
    I very rarely rate comments at all.

    I don't find it to be an abuse of the system to rate someone a "1" for the kind of dishonesty you trade in - that dishonesty is pretty much the definition of trollish behavior.  And you continue it here in your comment.

    There's no point in responding to someone who (1) doesn't bother to make sure he understands the words written, (2) misrepresents them to suit his arguments, (3) regularly tells people their comments don't mean what they say they do and (4) continues these behaviors in spite of polite requests to stop.

    If there is no point in responding, (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    why do so?

    Parent
    My point exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    And, for that matter, nothing makes a more powerful, effective statement when responding to an adolescent than making no statement at all. Indifference is the best response; nothing says, "up yours," better than silence.

    Long live the scroll bar.

    Parent

    Weak (none / 0) (#181)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:03:56 PM EST
    Guess you got nothing. My comment stands unrefuted. Ad Hominem seem to be your speciality these days.

    Parent
    hahahahahahaha... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:22:48 PM EST
    Your comment stands unrefuted as a classic example of misdirection, manipulation, avoidance, distortion and general dishonesty...congratulations?

    Parent
    Laugh All You Want (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:43:37 PM EST
    And use fancy words, you still have not refuted anything I have said in response to your
    clear and unequivocal statements
    excerpt troll rate, hurl insults and now claim that I am doing what you have been doing in this thread in order to avoid backing up your claims regarding my comment in response to yours.

    Parent