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  
•       •       •

1287 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2014 at 5:05 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-03-05 07:48:09 PM

X-boxershorts: Tell me now, how that Adegbile him from public service.


Cripes...FARK editing is such a beeeeyotch too...

Tell me now how filing that brief disqualifies Adegbile from public service?

What was in that brief that was filed well after the death sentence that was thrown out that was SOOOOOooooOOOOOOoooooOOOOOOooooo Offensive as to disqualify this guy from public service?
 
2014-03-05 07:50:36 PM

jso2897: 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.


That really nice. Thank you. But in the real world, the only people that deserve a competent defense are the ones who can afford to pay a lawyer. Otherwise, you probably shouldn't shoot a cop in the back in front of witnesses.
 
2014-03-05 07:53:12 PM

MJMaloney187: jso2897: 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.

That really nice. Thank you. But in the real world, the only people that deserve a competent defense are the ones who can afford to pay a lawyer. Otherwise, you probably shouldn't shoot a cop in the back in front of witnesses.


I see.
 
2014-03-05 08:11:30 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.


It's not too late
 
2014-03-05 08:17:56 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.


There's a very important (to everyone) distinction here that I think is being lost. He's not defending the personal freedoms of a brutal murderer. While the accused was on trial, he was innocent (until proven guilty) and in order for our justice system to function every accused citizen is entitled to a fair trial. What trial can be considered fair when the accused can't get a competent defense?

We so casually toss aside the concept of innocent until proven guilty, but it is one of the cornerstones of our nation. That is one of only two things that make the U.S. truly unique in the world (separation of Church and State being the other). Every defendant is entitled to a proper defense, no matter how despicable the accused or how heinous the alleged crime. If we ignore that facet of our judicial system, we might as well do like the rest of the world and place the burden of proof on the accused, presuming guilt until proven otherwise.
 
2014-03-05 08:22:02 PM

cptjeff: Bork was extreme


In your opinion. So, you see, it always comes down to whose ox is being gored. As with the person we're talking about now, a very vocal PR campaign shot down his nomination, so effectively that we can now say that Adegibile was "borked".
 
2014-03-05 08:50:01 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: cptjeff: Bork was extreme

In your opinion. So, you see, it always comes down to whose ox is being gored. As with the person we're talking about now, a very vocal PR campaign shot down his nomination, so effectively that we can now say that Adegibile was "borked".


Well, actually, there was a pretty significant majority of the Senate at the time that agreed with that assessment.
 
2014-03-05 08:54:12 PM

MJMaloney187: That really nice. Thank you. But in the real world, the only people that deserve a competent defense are the ones who can afford to pay a lawyer. Otherwise, you probably shouldn't shoot a cop in the back in front of witnesses.


Well, okay... As long as we can vote on who deserves equal protection...

Are you listening to yourself?
 
2014-03-05 09:43:00 PM

X-boxershorts: Adolf Oliver Nipples: cptjeff: Bork was extreme

In your opinion. So, you see, it always comes down to whose ox is being gored. As with the person we're talking about now, a very vocal PR campaign shot down his nomination, so effectively that we can now say that Adegibile was "borked".

Well, actually, there was a pretty significant majority of the Senate at the time that agreed with that assessment.


Amazing what happens when Teddy Kennedy and the National Organization of Women put the hit on you, isn't it? Same same here, except this time it was the Fraternal Order of Police.
 
2014-03-05 10:07:23 PM
I've never understood why the wife is more upset at the defense attorneys rather than the judge who bungled the jury instructions, resulting in the death penalty being taken off the table.
 
2014-03-05 10:18:42 PM

MJMaloney187: Otherwise, you probably shouldn't shoot a cop in the back in front of witnesses.


Well, they do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

Cops aren't 'special'. They don't deserve to live more than the rest of us.
 
2014-03-05 10:39:25 PM

I guess it could be worse when you consider what happens to to other attorneys who represented killers.

jeweell.com

 
2014-03-05 10:47:28 PM
You ever hear the story about LeBron James and the 5'1 120 lb 13 year old.  It seems they had a one on one pick up game and everyone thought LeBron was going to win because, you know, it's a slam dunk so to speak.

Then a funny thing happened.  LeBron threw sand in the guy's eyes and tied his hands behind his back and, to make absolutely sure, glued his sneakers to the basketball court floor.  And he won big.  People said, "Wow, LeBron was going to win anyway why did he have to cheat so bad?"

Now, in this situation, Lebron is the Philadelphia police/DA/Judge and the 5'1 guy is Mumia Abu-Jamal.  It was a slam dunk case that they were easily going to win because Abu-Jamal did it and was caught dead to rights.  Yet they were still cheating like hell during the trial.  That kind of corruption in a trial always needs to come to light or we don't stand a chance as a nation with the rule of law.
 
2014-03-05 10:48:22 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: X-boxershorts: Adolf Oliver Nipples: cptjeff: Bork was extreme

In your opinion. So, you see, it always comes down to whose ox is being gored. As with the person we're talking about now, a very vocal PR campaign shot down his nomination, so effectively that we can now say that Adegibile was "borked".

Well, actually, there was a pretty significant majority of the Senate at the time that agreed with that assessment.

Amazing what happens when Teddy Kennedy and the National Organization of Women put the hit on you, isn't it? Same same here, except this time it was the Fraternal Order of Police.


And your point is what?

That huge cross sections of America were offended by Bork's judicial record?

It is well taken, thank you.
 
2014-03-05 11:01:16 PM

X-boxershorts: Adolf Oliver Nipples: X-boxershorts: Adolf Oliver Nipples: cptjeff: Bork was extreme

In your opinion. So, you see, it always comes down to whose ox is being gored. As with the person we're talking about now, a very vocal PR campaign shot down his nomination, so effectively that we can now say that Adegibile was "borked".

Well, actually, there was a pretty significant majority of the Senate at the time that agreed with that assessment.

Amazing what happens when Teddy Kennedy and the National Organization of Women put the hit on you, isn't it? Same same here, except this time it was the Fraternal Order of Police.

And your point is what?

That huge cross sections of America were offended by Bork's judicial record?

It is well taken, thank you.


No, the point is that when organizations with clout oppose your nomination, you're going to lose, whatever else your qualifications are.
 
2014-03-05 11:30:43 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.


The Widow Faulkner has become as big an attention whore as Mumia.  Sadly and irritatingly, the local population of mouth-breathers who blindly support the local PD no matter how corrupt they become, eat her up with a spoon.

Mumia was guilty, but a certain poster in this thread is lying: there were no witnesses to the shooting.  The case was entirely circumstantial, and the death penalty should never have been on the table.  Even the notion that it was Murder 1 is debatable.
 
2014-03-06 12:17:47 AM
I love it when Democrats act exactly like Republicans.

I LOVE IT I LOVE IT GODDAMMIT
 
2014-03-06 12:38:11 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: cptjeff: Bork was extreme

In your opinion. So, you see, it always comes down to whose ox is being gored. As with the person we're talking about now, a very vocal PR campaign shot down his nomination, so effectively that we can now say that Adegibile was "borked".


Bork was, and still is, freaken nuts.
 
2014-03-06 01:00:13 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
Frowns on these shenanigans
 
2014-03-06 05:14:32 AM

geek_mars: Every defendant is entitled to a proper defense, no matter how despicable the accused or how heinous the alleged crime.


My opinion is the more despicable and heinous the alleged crime, the more important it is the defendant has competent defense: otherwise you are increasing the chance of a despicable and heinous criminal left free to commit more crimes if the first person being charged with the crime is incorrectly found guilty (even aside from the obvious issue of imprisoning/executing the wrong guy)
 
2014-03-06 11:11:13 AM
I think that the issue isn't that he defended the murderer but rather that he was such an apologist and cheerleader for the murderer.
 
2014-03-06 12:38:09 PM
the CONgress blocking that Socialist-giving-all-our-wealth-to-the-sheeple Obama, blocking him????


man, i need to write that in the calendar.
 
2014-03-06 12:44:45 PM

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


You left out "Volunteered to".
 
2014-03-06 02:34:38 PM

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

You left out "Volunteered to".


Well, he never actually participated in the defense. He filed an AMicus Brief with a Batson claim of racial bias in the sentencing trial that got Abu Jamal the death sentence.

The Batson claim was turned down but the death sentence was tossed anyways.

The Widow is making claims that Adegbile was out there vocally proclaiming support for AbuJamal but no one's brought any concrete proof of this forward. What's more likely is that some of Adegbile's staff were out there trumpeting the claims of police prejudice (It is Philly so not an outlandish claim) and the critics are tying this directly to Adegbile.
 
2014-03-06 03:20:57 PM

xria: geek_mars: Every defendant is entitled to a proper defense, no matter how despicable the accused or how heinous the alleged crime.

My opinion is the more despicable and heinous the alleged crime, the more important it is the defendant has competent defense: otherwise you are increasing the chance of a despicable and heinous criminal left free to commit more crimes if the first person being charged with the crime is incorrectly found guilty (even aside from the obvious issue of imprisoning/executing the wrong guy)


I get where you're coming from and I respect that opinion, but I don't entirely agree. I think all defendants and all charges should be viewed with equal weight (in terms of deserving competent defense). If we start coloring the charged and the charges with our own perceptions of the depth of their wrongness, we're only contributing our own bias in opposition to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Whether someone is charged with petty theft or child molestation, they must be viewed as equally innocent until tried and proven otherwise. I know which of those crimes I consider worse, but there is no correlating level or degree of innocence, and that presumption of innocence must be kept entirely intact or our system of justice is just a stage production. At least, that's my opinion.
 
2014-03-06 10:28:19 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.


"Here's the message we sent today," he said on the floor. "You young people listen up. If you are a young white person and you go to work for a law firm...and that law firm assigns you to a pro bono case to defend someone who killed 8 people in cold blood...My advice from what happened today is you should do that. As part of your legal obligation, as part of your profession. Because if you do that, who knows? You might wind up to be the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court."

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/06/3369041/harkin-adegbile/
 
2014-03-06 11:44:21 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Again?

Maybe Fartbongo should start appointing manikins to the federal judiciary.


It'd be cheaper for him to appoint mannequins, since they don't have to be anatomically correct.
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report