I would be interested to hear Seedy's take on this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/05/senate-rejects-obama-appointment-of-debo-adegbile-to-top-civil-rights-post/
QuoteSenate rejects Obama appointment of Debo Adegbile to top civil rights post
BY WESLEY LOWERY AND ED O'KEEFE
March 5 at 12:33 pm
Opponents of President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division prevailed in blocking his confirmation Wednesday, as he failed to clear a procedural hurdle.
Several Senate Democrats joined with Republicans in voting against Debo Adegbile, whose nomination was adamantly and vocally opposed by conservatives due to his participation in an appeal filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal -- an internationally-known prisoner convicted of the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
The vote was expected to be close -- with Vice President Biden on hand to potentially cast a tie-breaking vote -- but the final tally was 47-52 in opposition to the appointment. [...]
:nelson:
Why is this a surprise?
Surprise to whom?
Hehe, I said "whom".
Mumia Abu-Jamal supporters should be sent to work camps.
This is Obama's Benghazi.
Whom?
I'm kinda surprised they were able to get as many votes as they did. Mumia is the worst.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2014, 08:39:42 PM
I'm kinda surprised they were able to get as many votes as they did. Mumia is the worst.
:yes: He's a piece of shit cop killer. If not for the fact that he also happens to be eloquent, he'd already have been executed and nobody would care about him.
My first thought was, defending someone in court shouldn't disqualify someone for high office.
My second thought was, how does working as a defense attorney qualify someone to be the head of Civil Rights at Justice?
My third thought was, what does qualify someone to be the head of Civil Rights at Justice?
Sounds like a do-nothing job to me. Probably get to hang out with Jesse Jackson all day.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2014, 07:20:52 PM
Why is this a surprise?
Everyone thought it would be close, but I don't think many expected that many Dems to vote against. Obama usually does better than that in Senate votes.
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2014, 08:39:42 PM
I'm kinda surprised they were able to get as many votes as they did. Mumia is the worst.
:yes: He's a piece of shit cop killer. If not for the fact that he also happens to be eloquent, he'd already have been executed and nobody would care about him.
I FROTH WITH RAGE every time Antioch college makes him thier graduation "speaker". Via cassette.
Fucking commie cancer in mah county.
Barf, that crappy school is in Dayton? :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2014, 08:56:10 PM
Barf, that crappy school is in Dayton? :lol:
Yellow Springs.
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2014, 08:53:05 PM
Sounds like a do-nothing job to me. Probably get to hang out with Jesse Jackson Southern Poverty Law Center all day.
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2014, 08:39:42 PM
I'm kinda surprised they were able to get as many votes as they did. Mumia is the worst.
:yes: He's a piece of shit cop killer. If not for the fact that he also happens to be eloquent, he'd already have been executed and nobody would care about him.
John Adams defended British soldiers who killed unarmed protestors because he believed that every one deserves a fair trail. It was true then and it's true now. Everyone deserves competent defense, even scum like Mumia and the British. To argue otherwise is simply unamerican and bespeaks the speakers fondness for authoritarianism.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2014, 12:14:53 AM
John Adams defended British soldiers who killed unarmed protestors because he believed that every one deserves a fair trail. It was true then and it's true now. Every one deserves competent defense, even scum like Mumia and the British.
The British? Really? Are you not familiar with the trial?
QuoteTo argue otherwise is simply unamerican and bespeaks the speakers fondness for authoritarianism.
Well Cal is fond of bowing down to well endowed women.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2014, 12:19:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2014, 12:14:53 AM
John Adams defended British soldiers who killed unarmed protestors because he believed that every one deserves a fair trail. It was true then and it's true now. Every one deserves competent defense, even scum like Mumia and the British.
The British? Really? Are you not familiar with the trial?
A quick look online indicates that I remember the basics correctly. :unsure:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/rare-books/john_adams.php
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2014, 12:14:53 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2014, 08:39:42 PM
I'm kinda surprised they were able to get as many votes as they did. Mumia is the worst.
:yes: He's a piece of shit cop killer. If not for the fact that he also happens to be eloquent, he'd already have been executed and nobody would care about him.
John Adams defended British soldiers who killed unarmed protestors because he believed that every one deserves a fair trail. It was true then and it's true now. Everyone deserves competent defense, even scum like Mumia and the British. To argue otherwise is simply unamerican and bespeaks the speakers fondness for authoritarianism.
Then it is a good thing then that Adams was never allowed to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
Here is what the division does.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/March/14-crt-235.html
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2014, 08:53:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2014, 07:20:52 PM
Why is this a surprise?
Everyone thought it would be close, but I don't think many expected that many Dems to vote against. Obama usually does better than that in Senate votes.
Who's "everyone" here?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2014, 12:14:53 AM
John Adams defended British soldiers who killed unarmed protestors because he believed that every one deserves a fair trail. It was true then and it's true now. Everyone deserves competent defense, even scum like Mumia and the British. To argue otherwise is simply unamerican and bespeaks the speakers fondness for authoritarianism.
Where did I say Mumia didn't deserve a competent defense? :huh:
See, this is why I miss Mart. If he was still around he would have replied by now and told me I was the piece of shit for not applauding Mumia for killing a cop. :(
The Civil Rights Division does some real work I think but like most political heads the head of it is just a poster-boy / window dressing, it always goes to a minority lawyer and it's usually a hollow position in any case.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2014, 12:22:59 AM
A quick look online indicates that I remember the basics correctly. :unsure:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/rare-books/john_adams.php
OK I guess I missed where the British were scum there.
I think the bigger point is Jimmy is dead wrong: neither Mumia nor the British peretrators of the Boston Massacre deserve a fair trail. In fact, they shouldn't be out hiking at all. And I'm pretty sure John Adams believed the same thing.
Mowing down secessionists deserves a medal, not a trial.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2014, 09:58:09 AM
I think the bigger point is Jimmy is dead wrong: neither Mumia nor the British peretrators of the Boston Massacre deserve a fair trail. In fact, they shouldn't be out hiking at all. And I'm pretty sure John Adams believed the same thing.
HA!
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2014, 01:11:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2014, 08:53:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2014, 07:20:52 PM
Why is this a surprise?
Everyone thought it would be close, but I don't think many expected that many Dems to vote against. Obama usually does better than that in Senate votes.
Who's "everyone" here?
Never mind, Raz.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 06, 2014, 11:03:37 AM
Mowing down secessionists deserves a medal, not a trial.
What secessionists?
Mowing down rowdy drunks in Boston is genocide, pure and simple.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2014, 12:56:18 PM
Mowing down rowdy drunks the Irish in Boston is genocide, pure and simple.
:yes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2014, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 06, 2014, 11:03:37 AM
Mowing down secessionists deserves a medal, not a trial.
What secessionists?
Mowing down rowdy drunks in Boston is genocide, pure and simple.
Your post is assault!
Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2014, 01:40:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2014, 12:56:18 PM
Mowing down rowdy drunks the Irish in Boston is genocide, pure and simple.
:yes:
Crispus Attucks wasn't Irish, putzski.
And Mumia Abu Jamal is a worthless piece of shit.
But whether or not a lawyer that wrote a brief on his behalf that the courts eventually agreed with anyway was qualified to run the Civil Rights Division should have nothing to do with that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2014, 11:47:20 PMBut whether or not a lawyer that wrote a brief on his behalf that the courts eventually agreed with anyway was qualified to run the Civil Rights Division should have nothing to do with that.
Yeah, that seems a weird thing to base a rejection on.
I mean, maybe there are other reasons to reject the guy but that seems a bit far fetched.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:21:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2014, 11:47:20 PMBut whether or not a lawyer that wrote a brief on his behalf that the courts eventually agreed with anyway was qualified to run the Civil Rights Division should have nothing to do with that.
Yeah, that seems a weird thing to base a rejection on.
I mean, maybe there are other reasons to reject the guy but that seems a bit far fetched.
The main reason is that we won't bow to the Kenyan socialist monster.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:21:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2014, 11:47:20 PMBut whether or not a lawyer that wrote a brief on his behalf that the courts eventually agreed with anyway was qualified to run the Civil Rights Division should have nothing to do with that.
Yeah, that seems a weird thing to base a rejection on.
I mean, maybe there are other reasons to reject the guy but that seems a bit far fetched.
Being an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is more than enough of a reason for the "but-we're-not-racist" racist crowd.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:21:52 AM
Yeah, that seems a weird thing to base a rejection on.
I mean, maybe there are other reasons to reject the guy but that seems a bit far fetched.
The police unions wanted to flex their muscles, so they attacked the lawyer of a guy they didn't like. This serves as a warning to the Republicans not to ignore police special interests, and as a warning to lawyers that may consider defense work that the cops won't forget any lawyer who defends someone charged with a crime when that lawyer tries for a political or appointed post. From the union point of view, this is a big win.
Other unions shouldn't get their hopes up, though. Police unions have some special powers that a typical union (say, the teachers' union) lacks.