Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Justice Department's Civil Rights Division contender:

I've been wanting to ask what you think of Debo Adegbile being nominated to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.   This is the guy who defended the killer of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia Abu-Jamal.  Everybody gets a public defender so someone has to do it, but this seems to go a little farther than just doing one's job.  Here are the details........
 
Critics of President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division have described Debo Adegbile as “radical,” “dangerous” and “outside the mainstream.” Now he is facing heated criticism for his role in getting convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence overturned during his time as a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF).

Abu-Jamal was convicted of the 1981 killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

Adegbile was asked about the case during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week and replied, "It's important, I think, to understand that in no way does that legal representation, zealously as an advocate, cast any aspersion or look past the grievous loss of Sergeant Faulkner."
His critics, including Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., disagree. According to Fitzpatrick, "[Abu-Jamal's] attorneys ...  attended a rally in Philadelphia and said that they could not have been prouder than to have had the opportunity not to represent justice, not to fight for the Constitution, but to represent Mumia Abu-Jamal."

Faulkner's widow, Maureen, says she is "outraged" by Obama’s decision to nominate Adegbile to such an important post.  "To have a man who defended a murderer, someone who murdered a police officer with premeditation and malice, is a radical, is a Black Panther, and to give him an appointment, to nominate him, to the Department of Justice, I mean it's a disgrace."
Adegbile is senior counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised his "calm demeanor" and ability to "build consensus."
Leahy added, "He is a careful lawyer and good listener."

Dozens of organizations, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, penned a letter of support to the Senate as well - calling Adegbile "a tireless advocate, a skilled litigator, and a well-respected member of the legal community who is extraordinarily qualified for and suited to this position."

At the same time, Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, contends there are questions about Adegbile's qualifications. There were reports that President Obama intended to nominate him to serve as a judge on the D.C. Circuit back in 2011, and that Adegbile was submitted to the American Bar Association (ABA) for a rating.  Whelan says Adegbile didn't make it past the ABA's qualification screening.  
Skeptics are also publicly speculating about whether Adegbile is the best fit to head up a department that has been the subject of much recent criticism.  Last year the Justice Department's Inspector General released a report blasting the Civil Rights Division, citing inappropriate conduct, harassment of conservatives in the division, and the appearance of partisanship and racial politics.

Many wonder why the White House would tap such a controversial nominee when the Division is in need of a public relations boost. Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow with the Heritage Foundation, believes the White House doesn't care about the public perception and says the administration sees the Division as "a tool to be used ... to do things like win elections."
He also says of Adegbile,,"He filed a brief in the Supreme Court in a case in which he said it was okay for universities to discriminate against white students because of their race in college admissions and said employers should not be able to do criminal background checks."
However, both Adegbile's supporters and detractors believe he will successfully navigate the Senate votes necessary to be confirmed to head up the Civil Rights Division in the near future.

Z:  Man, that says a lot about the senate, huh?  What do you think?  Why pick someone SO questionable? 

z

35 comments:

beakerkin said...

Of course lefties seldom ever discuss Mummia Schlemiel's involvement with MOVE. Didn't some Mayor in Phili bomb the place and burn down ... Lets see it wasn't Rudy or Bloomburg...or a Republican.

Always On Watch said...

Do Obama and the Dems enjoy adding to America's racial divide?

Duckys here said...

Imagine, he actually acted as a defense attorney for a criminal.

That clearly disqualifies him for any position in the justice department.

Mary said...

What the DOJ and the Obama Administration have done is illegal and is a very long list of acts that are going to deprive American citizens of their liberty's.This Administration has continually broken laws, violated the constitution and its amendment's. Targeting Tea party groups, Bengazi, NSA surveilence, EPA changes without senate approval, spying and taping and lieing about filing a warrant to arrest this reporter. Numerous lies have been told to the American people ( keep your DR and health plan decrease in costs, a viedio is responsible for 4 Americans being killed, complete transparency, uniting the party's, all lies told to us by our president. Now our president is boasting that if the Senate doesn't do the widespread changes he wants he will take executive action and make these changes. He will also form groups to back him up, and will use every measure to make the change's he wants. Face it people we don't have a president we have a dictator with of course the complete cooperation of the media.

And you liberals don't have a thing to say about this in your blogs. You only know haw to ridicule Sarah Palin don't you idiots!

Duckys here said...

I notice that Faux news is up to its usual top flight reporting.

He "didn't make it past" the ABA review. Note that Faux doesn't report any findings.
You are left to infer that he was not qualified although no such evidence is presented.
Typical Faux and shame on people for accepting this shoddy reporting.

The Heritage Foundation starts some serious pear clutching because he supported affirmative action. But note how they word it.
No wonder the right is so ill informed.

Impertinent said...

@AOW:

"Do Obama and the Dems enjoy adding to America's racial divide?.."

Since Cambridge and right up to today and Holder....apparently so.

T Krabby said...

"we have a dictator "

And he should be treated as such.

Mustang said...

The fact is that in America, far too many innocent people receive long prison sentences, or worse, capital punishments. The number of wrongful convictions is so large that it is impossible for thinking Americans to have confidence in the justice system. The painful truth is that it is possible to get an indictment of a ham sandwich. At trial, it isn’t even a matter of the judge’s rulings, although many judges are required by law to impose minimum long-term sentences. Nor is it a matter of juries of from six to twelve citizens with the mental acuity of a frog —although the prospect of trusting any public school educated person to render justice is enough to scare the bravest of men.

No, the problem is far worse than this. It is that the entire weight of the government is levied upon the accused. Police departments, crime labs, prosecutors … all of whom are lined up to send an accused to jail. They have all the money they want, all the resources they need to achieve this, and these “servants of the public” then conspire with one another to achieve a conviction. Not justice, necessarily, but a conviction.

I intentionally used the word “conspire” because that is exactly what happens. There is no other word to describe how police investigators and prosecutors decide what to show the court, and what to hide from the court. They even lie on the stand, under oath, in order to convict someone of a crime. Do all police agencies and prosecutors do this? No … but that isn’t the point. The point is, how do you have confidence in a system as bad as this one?

Now place yourself into this situation: you stand accused of a crime. It is a serious crime. Do you want the best attorney you can get to represent you in court? Do you really care who this person previously represented, or do you mostly care about his track record in getting acquittals?

JonBerg said...

Z: "Man, that says a lot about the senate, huh?"

Why, yes it does. It says that we need to begin the purge of such this coming November!

Impertinent said...

@Mustang:

Hard to believe that George Zimmerman beat the whole lot of them, isn't it?

But...here we go again...the Tampa popcorn shooting...by a retired cop no less.

Baysider said...

Well, well, well. We wondered who would replace the notoriously inflammatory Tom Perez when he jumped Justice to try his hand at destroying labor relations in the U.S.

Along comes the more temperamentally sanguine DA (for short). Another son of a single mother with an absent African father, for whatever that's worth.

Credentials:
- Tirelessly dogmatic defense lawyer in one of America's most infamous murder cases.
- Took the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on a big leftward swing when he headed it. Shifting more and more to fringe agenda. The President says 'it's the best.'
- Staunch affirmative action 'outcome based' proponent
- Opposes civil rights for whites when such programs run over them
- Suppresses voting rights by vigorously challenging reasonable state actions to ensure clean and fair elections
- Strongly opposes employers being able to run background checks on prospective employees
- Attractive and well spoken. (Do I recall Harry Reid making such a comment about then Senator Obama?

skudrunner said...

At least Abegbile knows what practicing law is.

What can we expect from a Nobel winning lawyer who never practiced law but could organize a hell of a picnic. Surround yourself with corrupt people and it makes you look better.

Remember the community organizer has a pen and a phone. I do take that to mean he will do whatever he wants and to hell with you and the constitution.

Dave Miller said...

Mustang, that s a breathtaking statement... from you as a conservative no less.

What you have said is almost exactly what minorities and others from the lower economic strata have said for years, only to be derided by many conservatives.

Thank you for making my day... there is hope.

Boy of your dreams said...

Dave you are a two faced ass hole

The Gallant Warrior said...

As for the Report on the Benghazi attack,so the Senate Report Concludes the Benghazi Attacks WERE Preventable! I should have know something was up when Diane Feinstein reversed her position on Benghazi.

Baysider said...

Actually, Mustang's statement needs to be made. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team? That prosecutor Nifong fits this to a tee. I have seen some of it myself. I would be far more careful as a juror at my age now to be critical of what I was being told in the courtroom. In addition to all he says, I'll add 'piling on.'

But that's no excuse for what amounts to more of the same - in reverse - which this nominee has long shown his colors on. Ignoring the crime and criminal, telegraphing the message he's free to prey on society, is what Perez did. Or maybe voter intimidation is legal now? Nah!

This one was picked because he apparently has a 'nicer' persona than Perez but drinks out of the same swamp.

Mustang said...

Dave, perhaps you misunderstand what it is to be a true conservative. A true conservative is one who fervently believes in the ideals set forth by our founding fathers, whose arguments led to the Bill of Rights. We call these people conservatives because they seek to preserve the classic liberalism of our founding fathers, which includes this notion of equal justice to all. This means that if all the facts presented in a court of law demonstration beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, and the accused committed it, and after a careful examination of all mitigating or extenuating circumstances, the punishment handed down by a magistrate must be consistent with that awarded to others, without regard to any factor of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, or socio-economic status.

Every defendant is entitled to a lawyer; it should be the best one available.

Dr. Kidare said...

Dave will never understand that

Kid said...

So Sorry Z, but we can assume anyone placed into a position by obama Has to be a radical, anti-American blankety blank. Would hitler have given Ghandi a position?

?

Not that I object to it being pointed out 100 times a day.

Z said...

Mustang, thanks...I was reading your comment a few times trying to figure out what's liberal, or non-Conservative anyway.....didn't understand Dave's remark at all.

Of course, I like that he thinks there's HOPE because a Conservative thinks like 'those in lower economic strata do"...:-)

I often wonder if liberals think people are nicer or less criminal because they're poor.

Mustang; That's really my point; the defense of the guy is HIS RIGHT; we know that......and perhaps DA just felt he should ..but the more I read about him and then see that the ABA DID give him a poor bill of lawyer health, and then how HARD Obama's tried to get him okayed so he can appoint him to SOMETHING big...
that's worrisome.



Kid said...

Mustang. Agree 100%. In fact, it may be worse than that.

Z said...

Kid; I know...look at my comment I posted while you were typing yours above mine! Hadn't seen that before I started typing the previous comment, in other words :-)

Ya, I think Baysider or somebody mentioned that we can be sure something's odd about this guy just by nature of the fact Obama wants him so badly and he really has VERY LITTLE experience, really no great cases to point to that would make us all proud of him in the Civil Rights position.

yikes.

And no, I don't think Hitler would have hired anybody like Gandhi! :-)

Kid said...

Dave Miller. Yes, the country is broken. It was broken by libTards. Starting in earnest back in the day of LBJ in modern history.

See both sides Dave. you may not agree, but see and understand both sides. You clearly don't.

Most of us on the other hand Have been liberals at one time or another. We grew out of it.

Kid said...

Good point about labels. liberal-conservative.

I'm guessing one in 100,000 maybe understand what they really mean.

The conservative founders of the country were Extremely socially liberal.

All one has to do to disprove this is find verbiage in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other that carves out a discriminatory place for any group or people.

Kid said...

Z, the librat communists have been stripping away people's ability to communicate. A bullet point on the agenda of the commie takeover.

The latest? Common core removes cursive writing and sepplling from the cirriculum.

Geeez, maybe I'm infected now too. I hope y'all know what I said there.

Z said...

Kid! What a great point, and you are SO RIGHT "Most of us on the other hand Have been liberals at one time or another. We grew out of it."

Exactly so.

I know cursive's GONE but I didn't know they've done away with SPELLING?
Common COre is a joke...how very sad America is becoming.

Duckys here said...

then see that the ABA DID give him a poor bill of lawyer health

----
Citation pleas.

Your article only states he "did not make it past ABA review". It says nothing about the result of that review.

However there is this from the Washington Post (liberal rag):

"Conservative bloggers say the bar association found Adegbile unqualified. But Florida lawyer Ben Hill, who was chairman of the bar association evaluation committee, said in an interview that Adegbile’s name was withdrawn before he was rated by the group."

So you seem to know something the press doesn't. Details please.

Duckys here said...


I often wonder if liberals think people are nicer or less criminal because they're poor.

-----
Huh?

No, we believe they are entitled to due process.

Duckys here said...

The conservative founders of the country were Extremely socially liberal.
-------
Just what do you mean, kid?
Examples would help.

Since social liberalism didn't appear in America till the late 19th century in opposition to Herbert Spencer you may be blowing smoke. Just curious.

Z said...

Ducky..huh? What's that got to do with what I said?
and who doesn't believe in due process?>??? gad

By the way, you're outbrained by kid...keep pitching.

Duckys here said...

The "Huh?" is interrogative wondering why anyone would make such a foolish statement.

Thersites said...

John Adams defended British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre....

Lynne Stewart defended the blind sheik.

One of these things is not like the other, though.

skudrunner said...

"Every defendant is entitled to a lawyer; it should be the best one available"

Unfortunately, like medicine, it is the best one can afford. In law there has always been that divide and in healthcare the divide will widen.

Kid said...

"Every defendant is entitled to a lawyer; it should be the best one available"

- Cool, we get rid of all the lawyers except for one !
- We should all drive Bentleys too
- We should all live in the most bestest nicest houses ever
-And never run out of money.

Won't it be wonderful.

Kid said...

Duck. Individual Liberty. Look it up and study it, it may do you some good.

And outside of being tossed into a disgusting dungeon and tortured or being burned at the stake, American citizens are taxed and more abused by the [liberal] government than the new Americans were under English rule.

Damn sad. Not that republican politicians or the talking heads on the right understand much about individual liberty either.

Everyone wants to examine every microbe, play with it in the public square like the Romans did with Christians in the colosseum.

It's like living in a giant kindergarten playground being monitored by a-shoes. One big daycare center.