Seven principled Democratic senators joined Republicans in rejecting President Obama's nominee to head the Department of Justice Civil Rights section. Debo Adegbile was voted down principally over his appeals defense of cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. In addition, Adegbile drew fire from conservatives due to his long record of race-based activism. Those who voted in favor of the nomination ignored the pleas of Maureen Faulkner and the Fraternal Order of Police.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/05/senators-clash-over-doj-nominee-work-on-convicted-cop-killer-case/
In perhaps the greatest slap in the face to police officer Daniel Faulkner's widow, President Obama called the vote a "travesty". No Sir. Your very statement is a travesty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is a good day for law enforcement in America. Regarding Obama's response, LEOs should take not and be very careful.
Squid
Those who voted in favor of the nomination ignored the pleas of Maureen Faulkner and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Well they darn well should ignore both. Being Daniel Faulkner's widow doesn't make her a reliable voice on who is qualified to hold any office whatsoever.
Further, its never ethical to blame a lawyer for who his or her clients are. Lawyers have a duty to represent their clients.
Like I've always said, a lot of Democrats are scared of their own shadow.
(I'm not saying this nominee is qualified. I don't know enough about him, and I've heard some quite different criticisms that may hold water. But this is basically the Anita Hill tactic, being used by Republicans with some effect.)
Obama and his administration have taken the position, and argued in the courts, that it is they, and not the U.S. Senate itself, who determine when the Senate is, or is not, in session. Three (3) separate U.S. Courts of Appeal, I believe, have ruled that Obama's 2012 "recess" appointments to the NLRB were made when the Senate actually was in session, and were therefore unconstitutional/illegal.
I believe SCOTUS heard arguments in the case in January of this year, but a decision is not expected until sometime in June at the earliest. Accordingly, I for one would not be the least bit surprised to see yet another phony "recess appointment" for this idiot should any opportunity present itself for doing so.
Recess appointments have a long history, used readily by presidents of both parties and all points on the political spectrum. They are in fact provided for by the Constitution of the United States of America.
When the senators have all gone home to spend Christmas with their families in their respective states, trying to maintain a Potemkin session at the same time for the specific purpose of preventing recess appointments is unworthy of consideration.
President Obama knows a recess when he sees one.
Post a Comment