If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SacBee)   In a stunning departure from routine, the Senate blocks an Obama appointee   (sacbee.com) divider line 77
    More: Asinine, President Obama, appointees, legal representation, Fraternal Order of Police, Chief Justice John Roberts, Mumia Abu-Jamal, D-Ill, Pat Toomey  
•       •       •

1284 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2014 at 5:05 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 04:15:38 PM
This was stunning.
 
2014-03-05 04:28:22 PM
Harry Reid reportedly voted against the appointment for procedural reasons.

The other seven democratic senators opposing were Bob Casey (PA), Chris Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Pryor (AR), and John Walsh (MT) -- pretty much the seven most conservative ones on the Democratic side.

This seems an ill omen for the rights of the accused.
 
2014-03-05 04:31:30 PM
FTFA: "Today, as my husband lies 33 years in his grave, his killer has become a wealthy celebrity," she wrote.

I can't begin to imagine what it's like to lose a loved one in the line, but the killer is in prison for life, and until recently was on death row, I'm not sure what else you could really ask for.
 
2014-03-05 05:04:15 PM
obama blundered by appointing him. there was no way he was going to get through.
 
2014-03-05 05:07:58 PM
Again?

Maybe Fartbongo should start appointing manikins to the federal judiciary.
 
2014-03-05 05:09:26 PM
Anyone with any ties to Mumia Abu Jamal has no business working for taxpayers.
 
2014-03-05 05:11:45 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Again?

Maybe Fartbongo should start appointing manikins to the federal judiciary.


Too liberal, he should try Reagan Impersonators.
 
2014-03-05 05:13:26 PM

nmrsnr: FTFA: "Today, as my husband lies 33 years in his grave, his killer has become a wealthy celebrity," she wrote.

I can't begin to imagine what it's like to lose a loved one in the line, but the killer is in prison for life, and until recently was on death row, I'm not sure what else you could really ask for.


Not having douchebags turn him into some sort of cause celebre?
 
2014-03-05 05:14:38 PM

havocmike: Anyone with any ties to Mumia Abu Jamal has no business working for taxpayers.


Ties?

Legal representation of a firm that employed an appointee in the future is now ties?
 
2014-03-05 05:15:13 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Again?

Maybe Fartbongo should start appointing manikins to the federal judiciary.


Yeah, what IS Andrew Shue up to these days?

nmrsnr: FTFA: "Today, as my husband lies 33 years in his grave, his killer has become a wealthy celebrity," she wrote.

I can't begin to imagine what it's like to lose a loved one in the line, but the killer is in prison for life, and until recently was on death row, I'm not sure what else you could really ask for.


And surely, keeping the killer's lawyer away from a presidential appointment is going to bring her husband back...no? Well, then she'll definitely get some closure out of...really?

Hmmm. The bereaved can apparently be assholes too.

// what kind of "chilling effect" does this kind of shiat have on defense attorneys?
 
2014-03-05 05:15:48 PM
I can understand the political reasons, so that's not what really bothered me.

The troubling thing was the rhetoric from the opponents; they chastised him for representing a murderer as a defense attorney.  This is absolutely beyond the pale.

The message there is that if you ever want to be appointed to serve the public, you need to avoid honoring our due process requirements rights at all costs lest you be labeled a supporter of cop killers.

The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is to undermine a defendant's right to representation in a court of law.
 
2014-03-05 05:20:02 PM
I gotta give the President credit. I would have thrown up my hands, yelled "fark you people" and gone home a long time ago.
 
2014-03-05 05:21:22 PM
Defend someone accused of an awful crime? You'd better not ever have aspirations to higher office.
 
2014-03-05 05:22:29 PM

Old enough to know better: I gotta give the President credit. I would have thrown up my hands, yelled "fark you people" and gone home a long time ago.


In fairness, there were several Democratic "nays" on this one.
 
2014-03-05 05:23:30 PM
So as a defense attorney he defended his client? Outrage.
 
2014-03-05 05:23:48 PM

abb3w: Harry Reid reportedly voted against the appointment for procedural reasons.

The other seven democratic senators opposing were Bob Casey (PA), Chris Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Pryor (AR), and John Walsh (MT) -- pretty much the seven most conservative ones on the Democratic side.

This seems an ill omen for the rights of the accused.


Mark Pryor is one of my Senators, and he votes in line with the Democrats nearly 90% of the time, so I'm actually surprised to see his name on this list. Usually the only time he votes against his party is when the issues involves guns.
 
2014-03-05 05:23:52 PM
Maybe Harry Reid can change the rules again and only require 40 votes for confirmation.
 
2014-03-05 05:31:15 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Defend someone accused of an awful crime? You'd better not ever have aspirations to higher office.


Farking 5th Amendment, how does it work?
 
2014-03-05 05:34:12 PM

red5ish: So as a defense attorney he defended his client? Outrage.


How dare he not "do the right thing" and get disbarred so that he would not be elgible for the position for other reasons.
 
2014-03-05 05:35:17 PM

doyner: I can understand the political reasons, so that's not what really bothered me.

The troubling thing was the rhetoric from the opponents; they chastised him for representing a murderer as a defense attorney.  This is absolutely beyond the pale.

The message there is that if you ever want to be appointed to serve the public, you need to avoid honoring our due process requirements rights at all costs lest you be labeled a supporter of cop killers.

The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is to undermine a defendant's right to representation in a court of law.



I guess the teatards need to start referring to John Adams* as a FFINO (Founding Father in Name Only).

*Provided defense and secured not guilty verdicts for the accused British soldiers from the Boston Massacre.
 
2014-03-05 05:37:04 PM

qorkfiend: Old enough to know better: I gotta give the President credit. I would have thrown up my hands, yelled "fark you people" and gone home a long time ago.

In fairness, there were several Democratic "nays" on this one.


And they all deserve a cockpunch too.
 
2014-03-05 05:39:10 PM

max_pooper: doyner: I can understand the political reasons, so that's not what really bothered me.

The troubling thing was the rhetoric from the opponents; they chastised him for representing a murderer as a defense attorney.  This is absolutely beyond the pale.

The message there is that if you ever want to be appointed to serve the public, you need to avoid honoring our due process requirements rights at all costs lest you be labeled a supporter of cop killers.

The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is to undermine a defendant's right to representation in a court of law.


I guess the teatards need to start referring to John Adams* as a FFINO (Founding Father in Name Only).

*Provided defense and secured not guilty verdicts for the accused British soldiers from the Boston Massacre.


John Roberts provided pro bono legal representation to a man in Florida who had been convicted of killing eight people and was on death row. I don't recall hearing about that during either of his confirmation hearings.
 
2014-03-05 05:43:17 PM

Cat Food Sandwiches: Maybe Harry Reid can change the rules again and only require 40 votes for confirmation.


"Any nominee who isn't so toxic that 2/3 of the Senate votes against him, should be considered acceptable."

-Future Harry Reid
 
2014-03-05 05:46:48 PM

abb3w: Harry Reid reportedly voted against the appointment for procedural reasons.


Yup. The leader does that any time a vote's about to fail- there's a parliamentary rule that allows you to ask for a new vote (motion to reconsider), but in order to make the motion, you have to have be on the prevailing side of the previous vote. So Reid is in a position to bring it up for another vote if he manages to flip 2 votes, which would then allow Biden to cast the tiebreaker.
 
2014-03-05 05:47:13 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Debo Adegbile, DIDN'T kill this police officer, his client did. Are they UPSET that he defended a cop killer or are they UPSET that he lost? Because the comments about this previous case don't make any sense.
 
2014-03-05 05:47:53 PM

qorkfiend: max_pooper: doyner: I can understand the political reasons, so that's not what really bothered me.

The troubling thing was the rhetoric from the opponents; they chastised him for representing a murderer as a defense attorney.  This is absolutely beyond the pale.

The message there is that if you ever want to be appointed to serve the public, you need to avoid honoring our due process requirements rights at all costs lest you be labeled a supporter of cop killers.

The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is to undermine a defendant's right to representation in a court of law.


I guess the teatards need to start referring to John Adams* as a FFINO (Founding Father in Name Only).

*Provided defense and secured not guilty verdicts for the accused British soldiers from the Boston Massacre.

John Roberts provided pro bono legal representation to a man in Florida who had been convicted of killing eight people and was on death row. I don't recall hearing about that during either of his confirmation hearings.


You fail to take into account that it's ok when Republicans do it.
 
2014-03-05 05:48:35 PM
To be fair, even though a lot of Senators are lawyers and are, in fact, law makers, and as such they understand what they are doing is wrong, they are also politicians, so their ethics are terrible.
 
2014-03-05 05:48:42 PM

qorkfiend: max_pooper: doyner: I can understand the political reasons, so that's not what really bothered me.

The troubling thing was the rhetoric from the opponents; they chastised him for representing a murderer as a defense attorney.  This is absolutely beyond the pale.

The message there is that if you ever want to be appointed to serve the public, you need to avoid honoring our due process requirements rights at all costs lest you be labeled a supporter of cop killers.

The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is to undermine a defendant's right to representation in a court of law.


I guess the teatards need to start referring to John Adams* as a FFINO (Founding Father in Name Only).

*Provided defense and secured not guilty verdicts for the accused British soldiers from the Boston Massacre.

John Roberts provided pro bono legal representation to a man in Florida who had been convicted of killing eight people and was on death row. I don't recall hearing about that during either of his confirmation hearings.


did any of the eight have crazy widows that wouldn't let shiat go after 30+ years and was the killer a favorite of Che-shirt-wearing pseudo-anarchists in the '90s?
 
2014-03-05 05:53:09 PM
qorkfiend:
John Roberts provided pro bono legal representation to a man in Florida who had been convicted of killing eight people and was on death row. I don't recall hearing about that during either of his confirmation hearings.

Well, in John Roberts defense, he's not black.  So there you go.  Totally different story here.

It's not the Senators who voted no that ticks me off.  It's not the fact that those Senators voted no because they are terrified of the "issue ads" that will run basically tying them to a cop killer because they voted for the guy who defended the cop killer.  Nope.  It's the people in this country who are so farking stupid that they would fall for this "issue ad" and vote for the other guy.  That's who I'm pissed at.  Those people are ruining this country.
 
2014-03-05 05:58:20 PM
The vote against advancing Debo Adegbile

Glad they borked him, don't want our gold chains and bikes stolen...

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-05 06:02:11 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: qorkfiend: max_pooper: doyner: I can understand the political reasons, so that's not what really bothered me.

The troubling thing was the rhetoric from the opponents; they chastised him for representing a murderer as a defense attorney.  This is absolutely beyond the pale.

The message there is that if you ever want to be appointed to serve the public, you need to avoid honoring our due process requirements rights at all costs lest you be labeled a supporter of cop killers.

The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is to undermine a defendant's right to representation in a court of law.


I guess the teatards need to start referring to John Adams* as a FFINO (Founding Father in Name Only).

*Provided defense and secured not guilty verdicts for the accused British soldiers from the Boston Massacre.

John Roberts provided pro bono legal representation to a man in Florida who had been convicted of killing eight people and was on death row. I don't recall hearing about that during either of his confirmation hearings.

You fail to take into account that it's ok when Republicans do it.


Apparently it's also ok when Federalists do it.
 
2014-03-05 06:08:27 PM
There is no such thing as a moral republican.
 
2014-03-05 06:27:39 PM

Tigger: There is no such thing as a moral republican.


So, a MINO?
 
2014-03-05 06:31:18 PM

red5ish: To be fair, even though a lot of Senators are lawyers and are, in fact, law makers, and as such they understand what they are doing is wrong, they are also politicians, so their ethics are terrible nonexistent.


FTFY
 
2014-03-05 06:36:41 PM

Tigger: There is no such thing as a moral republican.


This has nothing to do with morals. Politics rarely does.

The Republicans didn't vote against him  for moral reasons, they voted against him because they vote against all Democratic nominees, something hardly unprecedented (see Owen, Priscilla and Bork, Robert). The Democratic senators who also voted against him did so because Mumia is a third rail in the regions they are from.

Obama didn't do his homework on this nominee. Just as important as qualifications is their ability to be confirmed. He thought that because the Democrats nuked the Senate that it would be a slam dunk and he didn't need to look at the big picture, such as running the guy past the usual interest groups, which is (for better or worse how it is usually done). The Fraternal Order of Police made him pay for it. He'll get another nominee, he'll do it right this time, and he'll be confirmed, hopefully learning the appropriate lesson from it.
 
2014-03-05 06:43:11 PM

Old enough to know better: qorkfiend: Old enough to know better: I gotta give the President credit. I would have thrown up my hands, yelled "fark you people" and gone home a long time ago.

In fairness, there were several Democratic "nays" on this one.

And they all deserve a cockpunch too.


As someone from Indiana, can I buy multiple tickets for my Senators? Coats is a prick and Donnelly is a blue dog.
 
2014-03-05 06:51:37 PM
We get it...
 
2014-03-05 06:51:41 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Tigger: There is no such thing as a moral republican.

This has nothing to do with morals. Politics rarely does.

The Republicans didn't vote against him  for moral reasons, they voted against him because they vote against all Democratic nominees, something hardly unprecedented (see Owen, Priscilla and Bork, Robert). The Democratic senators who also voted against him did so because Mumia is a third rail in the regions they are from.

Obama didn't do his homework on this nominee. Just as important as qualifications is their ability to be confirmed. He thought that because the Democrats nuked the Senate that it would be a slam dunk and he didn't need to look at the big picture, such as running the guy past the usual interest groups, which is (for better or worse how it is usually done). The Fraternal Order of Police made him pay for it. He'll get another nominee, he'll do it right this time, and he'll be confirmed, hopefully learning the appropriate lesson from it.


All valid points. But there is still no such thing as a moral republican.
 
2014-03-05 06:53:37 PM

JusticeandIndependence: havocmike: Anyone with any ties to Mumia Abu Jamal has no business working for taxpayers.

Ties?

Legal representation of a firm that employed an appointee in the future is now ties?


It works for the Justice Department.

http://lynnestewart.org/about-lynne/
 
2014-03-05 07:16:22 PM

deeyablo: We get it...


No, I don't get the impression that many of you people do.

When Adegbile was acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he played a pivotal role in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned. Had Adegbile been nominated, Abu-Jamal would be strutting down the street a week later, just like Marshal Conway.

Abu-Jamal shot a 25 year old cop, Daniel Faulkner, in the back. Then in the chest. Then in the head. There were four eye witnesses. He should still be on death row. Period.
 
2014-03-05 07:26:27 PM

MJMaloney187: Abu-Jamal shot a 25 year old cop, Daniel Faulkner, in the back. Then in the chest. Then in the head. There were four eye witnesses. He should still be on death row. Period.


Nah. I used to think so, but in the end he'll be in genpop for the rest of his life, looking out the fence at the things he can never do again.

Prison may be better than it was, but it's not any place you want to be, even for someone with celebrity status as a cop killer. Ideally he'd be in a cell for 23 hours a day and isolated, making his life a living hell that death can only liberate him from, but this is the next-best thing, being caged up like cattle in a feedlot. We can feel better about the fact that we're not killing anybody even as he rots in prison. There's no reason to kill him, we've already done that, we've just stretched out the time span.
 
2014-03-05 07:26:45 PM

MJMaloney187: When Adegbile was acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he played a pivotal role in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned. Had Adegbile been nominated, Abu-Jamal would be strutting down the street a week later, just like Marshal Conway.


Had Adegbile been nominated to what? When?

That ambiguity aside. We really do get that. And justice was served. You know what else serves justice? Living in a society where even the worst criminals get a competent defense, and where we don't hold a defense attorney doing his job against him later in life.
 
2014-03-05 07:27:37 PM

MJMaloney187: deeyablo: We get it...

No, I don't get the impression that many of you people do.

When Adegbile was acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he played a pivotal role in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned. Had Adegbile been nominated, Abu-Jamal would be strutting down the street a week later, just like Marshal Conway.

Abu-Jamal shot a 25 year old cop, Daniel Faulkner, in the back. Then in the chest. Then in the head. There were four eye witnesses. He should still be on death row. Period.


Well, it's nice to see that somebody isn't concerned with the loss of our personal freedoms in America.
Pillorying a defense attorney for doing his job?
Sure, why not - the guy he defended was, like, really icky!!
Jesus wept.
 
2014-03-05 07:28:57 PM
Love it when I get crap for representing high profile criminals. Don't call me when you get your DUI.
 
2014-03-05 07:41:02 PM

jso2897: MJMaloney187: deeyablo: We get it...

No, I don't get the impression that many of you people do.

When Adegbile was acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he played a pivotal role in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned. Had Adegbile been nominated, Abu-Jamal would be strutting down the street a week later, just like Marshal Conway.

Abu-Jamal shot a 25 year old cop, Daniel Faulkner, in the back. Then in the chest. Then in the head. There were four eye witnesses. He should still be on death row. Period.

Well, it's nice to see that somebody isn't concerned with the loss of our personal freedoms in America.
Pillorying a defense attorney for doing his job?
Sure, why not - the guy he defended was, like, really icky!!
Jesus wept.


Adegbile didn't represent Abu-Jamal at trial. Abu-Jamal chose to represent himself, which the judge agreed to initially but revoked because Abu-Jamal has the brain of a child and kept disrupting the process with animal noises. I'm surprised you would reflexively defend the "personal freedoms" of a brutal murderer.
 
2014-03-05 07:42:57 PM

nmrsnr: MJMaloney187: When Adegbile was acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he played a pivotal role in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned. Had Adegbile been nominated, Abu-Jamal would be strutting down the street a week later, just like Marshal Conway.

Had Adegbile been nominated to what? When?

That ambiguity aside. We really do get that. And justice was served. You know what else serves justice? Living in a society where even the worst criminals get a competent defense, and where we don't hold a defense attorney doing his job against him later in life.


Take it up w/ the police unions, they absolutely despise the man

No matter how good somebodies qualifications are you're a terrible manager if you try and hire somebody who its out right hated by the customers and/or fellow co-workers
 
2014-03-05 07:44:27 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: because they vote against all Democratic nominees, something hardly unprecedented (see Owen, Priscilla and Bork, Robert)


Bork was extreme, and the Senate voted him down because he was too extreme. That's how advise and consent should work. Priscilla Owen was flat out insane and has been a wildly extremist disaster on the courts. The Democrats allowed all but the most extreme judges a quick confirmation- they weren't blocking them because they were Republicans, they were blocking a very small subset for substantive reasons, which is how the system was designed. Republicans have blocked every nominee, forcing a massive battle for every noncontroversial appointment.

Both sides are not equal.
 
2014-03-05 07:44:45 PM

havocmike: Anyone with any ties to Mumia Abu Jamal has no business working for taxpayers.


I kinda hope now that you get arrested. Karma really is a biatch dude.

Adegbile filed an Amicus brief during the appeals process using a Batson citation that suggested that Racial Bias played a role in the original trial/sentencing.

Tell me now, how that Adegbile him from public service.
 
2014-03-05 07:45:33 PM

MJMaloney187: jso2897: MJMaloney187: deeyablo: We get it...

No, I don't get the impression that many of you people do.

When Adegbile was acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he played a pivotal role in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned. Had Adegbile been nominated, Abu-Jamal would be strutting down the street a week later, just like Marshal Conway.

Abu-Jamal shot a 25 year old cop, Daniel Faulkner, in the back. Then in the chest. Then in the head. There were four eye witnesses. He should still be on death row. Period.

Well, it's nice to see that somebody isn't concerned with the loss of our personal freedoms in America.
Pillorying a defense attorney for doing his job?
Sure, why not - the guy he defended was, like, really icky!!
Jesus wept.

Adegbile didn't represent Abu-Jamal at trial. Abu-Jamal chose to represent himself, which the judge agreed to initially but revoked because Abu-Jamal has the brain of a child and kept disrupting the process with animal noises. I'm surprised you would reflexively defend the "personal freedoms" of a brutal murderer.


I'm not. I'm defending his, your, and my right to a competent defense when charged with a crime.
 
2014-03-05 07:46:07 PM

nmrsnr: MJMaloney187: When Adegbile was acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, he played a pivotal role in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned. Had Adegbile been nominated, Abu-Jamal would be strutting down the street a week later, just like Marshal Conway.

Had Adegbile been nominated to what? When?

That ambiguity aside. We really do get that. And justice was served. You know what else serves justice? Living in a society where even the worst criminals get a competent defense, and where we don't hold a defense attorney doing his job against him later in life.


I guess I should have written 'had he won the nomination (today) resulting in his appointment as chief of the civil rights division of the U.S. justice department.' Sorry. I forgot where I was.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report