Tag Archives: Judiciary

Attorney General Holder’s Glaring Incompetence

holder_obama
Atty General Eric Holder (foreground)

It should come as no surprise that Ahmed Ghailani was acquitted on 285 of 286 charges relating to his involvement in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 262 people. This trial highlights the fact that the American criminal justice system is no place to try Guantanamo Bay detainees, aka enemy combatants. It also is the cause of criticism directed to Attorney General Holder to step down.

Bringing Club Gitmo detainees to trial in New York is just a continuance of Eric Holder’s defense (as opposed to prosecution) of these enemy combatants. Defending them is what he did at his New York law firm Covington & Burling. That the trial of these Islamic extremists is more politically motivated (in Obama’s mind) than constitutionally motivated (to protect and defend) is evident when you consider that eight years ago, Holder was of the position that the Gitmo detainees did not qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention. The right and only place for their trials is via a military tribunal at Club Gitmo.

Links:

The Folks Win, For Now

Wouldn’t you like to know where your bank bailout money went? Who knew, in this age of transparency and accountability, that you would have to go to the Supreme Court to find out?

A U.S. appeals court refused to reconsider a ruling that requires the Federal Reserve Board to disclose documents identifying financial firms that might have failed without the largest U.S. government bailout.

And speaking of the accountability and transparency that President Obama promised we would see, what does it take to see that we were lied to?

Link: Fed Loses (Again), Expected to Appeal

Kagan’s Paper Trail

What Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan lacks in the way of academic writing, she (apparently) more than compensates for with her lawyerly output during her time in the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office.  Recalling that former President George W. Bush shared over 50,000 pages of material associated with now Chief Justice John Roberts’s time as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, Byron York of the Washington D.C. Examiner reports which way precedent points in divulging Kagan’s work product.

“There is now a precedent that a White House lawyer’s materials will be produced,” says Bradford Berenson, an associate counsel in the Bush White House. “I think it will be very difficult for the Obama administration, given everything they’ve said about transparency and openness, to withhold these documents.”

Before anyone starts salivating over the thought of reading thousands of legal memos, remember that the current Oval Office occupant is not inclined to share information.  Unlike President Bush, Obama can’t be bothered to take a single question from the press after signing the Freedom of the Press Act.

Constitutional controversy over executive privilege, anyone?

The above is totally lifted from the CFIF website by author Ashton Ellis.

Links: Ashton Ellis: Kagan’s White House Paper Trail |  Byron York: Will the Senate see Kagan’s long paper trail?

Why Civilian Trials For Terrorists?

To understand why President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder chose to try five of the worst terrorists in New York City, putting the brakes on their military tribunal process in which they already plead guilty, all you need to know is where he came from.

That, plus the sensationalism of having the opportunity to put the previous administration on trial is a ‘crisis’ too good to pass up. Especially after Obama said on this matter, that he was going to look forward and not backward.

Holder said he was going to speed up justice for these detainees. He didn’t say it was his friends in the al-Qaeda bar that caused the trial delays he now criticizes.

Holder is a partner in a law firm, Covington & Burling, which has been representing 18 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. You may have seen a picture of one of the other lawyers at C & B, David Remes. A natural defense attorney for the panty bomber don’t you think?

Where are the conflict of interest concerns? Not to mention the increased security risk the administration is putting upon New Yorkers. Not to mention the world stage that this dog squeeze will be put on, using their new found freedom to resume their jihad in a media that will be hanging on their every word.

The motivation is purely political. Obama ran on closing Club Gitmo without a plan on how he was going to do it. To fulfill this promise, who better to do that than Eric Holder, a lawyer in a law firm with a track record of attempting to criminalize the prosecution of the war by the Bush administration. He and Holder both enhanced these terrorists’ defense when they said that they deserve the same protection of our judicial system and Constitution afforded to U.S. citizens. They enhance their defense when they both said publicly that these enemy combatants were tortured. And in a civilian criminal trial, they enhanced their defense because they were not Mirandized.

Remember this. They all had already plead guilty in the military tribunal court system. Rather than let that play out, Holder resurrected it in favor of a show trial.  Reckless behavior for a Commander in Chief don’t you think?

Populating the Justice Department with terrorist defense lawyers is one thing. But what about people with direct ties to terrorists and loony radical groups?

Having heard an earful from New Yorkers, including Mayor Bloomberg and the Democratic Senators, Obama is looking for a way to back peddle, a way to save face. The only right thing to do here is to leave it all under the purview of the military court system and to send the panty bomber to Club Gitmo to face his fate as well. Watching this dance between the American people and his far-left base will be a show in and of itself. Not one I’ll take any enjoyment in seeing.

The President has not shown himself to be on the side of the American people when it comes to the war on terror. If Americans are left with no other alternative than the ballot box to make a correction, I’m confident that they will.

Links:

State Of The Campaign Speech

An analysis of the road show in Washington, or as Obama has made it, a campaign stop along the way to the remaking of America. Some people referred to it as the State of the Union Address. Your mileage may vary, and your comments are, of course, welcome.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.

Couldn’t agree more. It should stop. How about you go first? And when you get back from your town hall rally in Tampa, how about visiting the Oval Office for awhile? Sit at that nice big desk and maybe do stuff. I know. Ask Speaker Pelosi to show you H.R.3400.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

A year has gone by where you signed bill after bill with thousands of earmarks in each of the major ones. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business . . .Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.

Saying no to socialized medicine, economic fascism, and committing inter-generational theft is a good thing. Does your interpretation of bi-partisanship include locking Republicans out of negotiations of important legislation then expecting them to approve it with their vote? And don’t blame Republicans for your failure. You have a super majority in both houses. Truth is, it is Democrats that are pushing back.  It wasn’t Republicans that were being bribed for votes was it? Community organizers handbook, ‘if you say a lie over and over again, it will eventually become reality.’ See above about the Republican’s proposal to reform health care and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.

YOU LIE! And NOT TRUE! See above quote from the Community organizers handbook and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Current federal law prevents “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country” from making, “directly or indirectly,” a donation or expenditure “in connection with a federal, state, or local election,” to a political party committee or “for an electioneering communication.”

We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.

Yeah. Like that whole openness thing, how negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

To close that credibility gap we must take action on
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

Right, er I mean Wrong again. Well, I guess if you don’t count all those in your administration that you gave waivers to. That trust deficit you speak of is real, and where you are concerned, I think unrecoverable.

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

Cool, OK, here it is, H.R.3400.

And in true campaign style, the arrogance and disrespect that you showed the Supreme Court, really shows the level of respect you have for the Constitution that gives the Judiciary separate but equal status in our government. You obviously feel that you are above all that and it was embarrassing to see you lash out in that forum in that way. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers.

Related links:

Black Conservatives Condemn Grayson Remarks

Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning remarks today by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) comparing today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to the Dred Scott case.

The decision in Citizens United eases certain restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns.  In response, Grayson said: “This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been, U.S. citizens.  The decision, formally known as Scott v. Sandford, also invalidated the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in portions of U.S. territories in the west.

Project 21 members said:

Bishop Council Nedd II: “In Dred Scott, the Court equated people with property.  The Court’s decision today was about giving people a voice.  There is no correlation between the two.  Congressman Grayson needs to apologize.  His flippant and unenlightened statement offends me personally, and it disrespects generations of black people who suffered from slavery.” (Council Nedd II is the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.)

Horace Cooper: “Where has Representative Alan Grayson been?  He compares today’s landmark decision – in which free speech trumps FEC restrictions – to the awful ruling that black people are nothing more than property.  He’s off base yet again.  It’s more than a little ironic that Democrats praised Dred Scott when it was handed down over a hundred years ago, yet now stand opposed to fundamental freedoms such as free speech today.”  (Horace Cooper is a former visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

Ellis Washington: “As a black man, I am outraged that Representative Grayson would equate the bondage of slavery with today’s Court ruling extending freedom of speech to businesses and corporations in the political process, and having the courage to bring modern jurisprudence in line with the guarantees of the Constitution.  In other words, the Court held that money equals speech and radio shows, media entities and corporations equal people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone!”  (Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review.)

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights.  The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.”

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Why The Left Hates Freedom Of Speech

Forget about the fact that McCain-Feingold was plainly and clearly contrary to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Especially the ”Congress shall make no law’ part. Here’s what the First Amendment of the Constitution is . . .

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.                    {emphasis added}

Forgive me, but what part of NO is unclear here?

And forget about the negligence of President Bush for signing that gawd-awful piece of legislation. Can’t stop there though. Both Bush and Obama deserve a refresher course regarding the oath they took when they placed their left hand on the bible and raised their right hand to (ostensibly) God.

Just what does it mean ‘to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?’ To both those Presidents, apparently it means don’t protect it at all. Shirk that responsibility and schluff it off to the Judicial branch.

But the far Left, including President Obama, is outraged that people and groups of people of any kind have the same right to free speech as you or I. Their straw man villain is ‘corporations.’ They’re foaming at the mouth that big corporations will start buying elections. Uh, does anyone believe that McCain-Feingold took big money out of political campaigns? Can you say ‘George Soros’ and the myriad of 527’s?

What’s ironic to me is the fact that, well gee, Big Labor has the same rights as General Motors now. Oh, bad example, that’s owned by The White House. But you get the point here don’t you? No one is disadvantaged, everyone has not only the right, but the opportunity to group resources together to make political statements of support either for or against any candidate. Whether a club, a union, a town, a corporation, or a wacko forum on the Huffington Post.

I think that’s what ‘freedom of speech’ embodies.

But to think that no one is disadvantaged would not quite be true with the current state of the mainstream media and here’s why. That part of McCain-Feingold what was stricken today prevented political speech either for or against a particular candidate within 30 days prior to an election. The only exception to that is the media. That’s making the large and foolish assumption that the media today is as it was a hundred years ago. But unfortunately, it is no longer the same media watchdog that was afforded specific protection in the Constitution. If you listen to the Left nowadays, they’re claiming that the media is controlled by the Right. Ridiculous of course, but it doesn’t matter to make my point.They help make my point.

That the folks cannot exercise free political speech 30 days before an election, tilts the power of persuasion away from the people and gives it all to the media. And we all know that in the last election, the McCain-Palin ticket was not only running against Obama-Biden, but against the media as well. The sum of which could not be overcome. (aside from the fact that McCain ran with one arm tied behind his back, but that’s another matter) That’s a power that neither the Left or the Right should accept.

But, what is Obama and the wacko Left wanting to do about this freedom of political speech? They want either a Constitutional amendment taking it away, or for Congress to make a law, (echo. . .shall make no law) taking it away. Forfeiting the people’s power back to the media. President Obama’s statement:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

As we just learned with Obamacare, when the Left and Obama over-reach, they do it on steroids.

related links:

First Amendment Upheld By Supremes

Freedom of political speech wins today in the Supreme Court of the United States.  Overturning part of the debacle called McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

Organizations of any size may pool their resources together and say whatever they wish to say about a candidate, pro or con. Freedom of speech is no longer a slogan. It is enforceable now under the Constitution.

Of course, the fact that it had to go to the Supreme Court to be tested is ridiculous. But it is confirmed now.

link: Supreme Court knocks down campaign spending limits

Obama All Around The Edges Of The War On Terror

The President made some progress in verbalizing the war that we’re in against Islamic extremism. In his stunning (not really) speech about the panty-bomber, he had to finally admit that we are at war outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, despite using the war term, he is still content on handling it as a law enforcement instead of a military issue.

He fell short by naming al-Qaeda as our enemy. In reality, the enemy is much wider than al-Qaeda. It consists 100% of Islamic extremists who bastardize the religion of Islam as an excuse to rule the world by killing non-believers. al-Qaeda is merely the tip of the spear.

If he were to get serious, he would use the M word, as in Muslim extremists, to correctly characterize our enemy. And they are not only our enemy. They are the enemy of the rest of the civilized world. We all know that not all Muslims are the enemy. But we also know that Muslim extremists are the enemy. Period.

His  Political Correctness infection projects his weakness and vulnerability in effectively prosecuting this war. The enemy is laughing at him in their caves and safe houses all over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, London, Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris, Indonesia, and Dearbornistan.

To get serious, he needs to call a spade a spade. He needs to change his tactic of using the Justice Department and the civilian criminal justice system to deal with captured terrorists.

Using his Justice Department to prosecute our CIA for doing their best has, no doubt, played a part in what Obama calls the ‘systemic failure’ that led to the  attack on flight 253.  CNN described it as a ‘failed attack.’ Take off the blinders.  In fact, it was a successful attack. By the grace of God and passengers on board, what failed was the detonation of the bomb.

He was right to say that the buck stops with him. But labeling it as a systemic failure is what he must do to avoid holding anyone accountable with their job.

He could start by removing the current head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano,  who said that the system worked perfectly. (a Brownie/Bush flashback from Katrina) Her credentials for the Cabinet position of Director of Homeland Security include representing Anita Hill in the harassment case to prevent Clarance Thomas from ascending to the Supreme Court. And becoming Arizona Attorney General in 1998, she focused on consumer protection issues and improving general law enforcement. Are we beginning to see why she was Obama’s pick for the position now? I don’t know about you, but I look at consumer protection and homeland security differently.

Obama needs to maintain Club Gitmo as the repository for the captured terrorists, under military control and within the military tribunal justice system. Those on the Left, including Obama, say that Gitmo has to be closed because it serves as a recruiting tool for the enemy. So what. Our being alive serves as a recruiting tool for the enemy, so they need to get over it. Here’s a clue, Obama ran on the platform of closing Gitmo and giving that dog squeeze the protection of our Constitution.  Two weeks ago, Northwest Airlines flight 253 was nearly incinerated. Maybe al-Qaeda didn’t get the memo? News flash: Club Gitmo wasn’t open when al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, or the World Trade Center (both times), or the Kobar Towers in the eighties and nineties.

Obama now admits we are at war. As our Commander In Chief, it’s  about time he grows a spine and acts like it.

It's The Supreme Court, Not Oprah

Sonia Sotomayor’s life story is one thing. It’s a picture perfect American success story. That is, in the America that she grew up in.

Take away the liberal heart-string tugging of her life’s story as a qualification to the Supreme Court, and what you have is a judge whose decisions have been overturned 60% of the time. A judge that upheld racial discrimination in a case now in the Supreme Court, where it is anticipated she will be overturned again.

It is not right-wing spin to say that her version of justice is not ‘blind.’ It’s just that you won’t see it put that way in the mainstream media. An automatic dis-qualifier for anywhere in the judiciary, let alone the Supreme Court.

President Obama picked an ideological soulmate with his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. His idea of the U.S. Constitution seems to be in line with hers. Being overturned 60% of the time turns out to be a resume enhancement for an Obama Supreme Court nominee.

Which begs the question. Will future generations of Americans have the same opportunities that she had in an Obama-remade America?

related link: Why did George H.W. Bush pick Sotomayor for the courts?

audio, in his own words: What Obama thinks of the Supreme Court, and the Constitution