Buchanan and Tancredo protege Marcus Epstein's pending hate crimes sentence is dismissed.
Marcus Epstein's class 6 felony hate crime case was dismissed by the DC Superior Court on July 8.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Buchanan and Tancredo protege Marcus Epstein's pending hate crimes sentence is dismissed.
Marcus Epstein's class 6 felony hate crime case was dismissed by the DC Superior Court on July 8.…
Article comments
26 - Baronius
Handy, I think it was Senator Kyl who put it quite well, that most judges keep whatever biases they have in check, but a few don't. If a judge repeatedly, publicly says that she doesn't believe that judges can or should keep their biases in check, it's worth considering the possibility that she meant it.
27 - Clavos
The Rep reps with questionable remarks in their past may seem ironic, but they aren't being considered for a lifetime job with the power to literally make law.
Their "racist" comments are therefore less potentially important (or damaging) to the country than Sonia's "racist" comments.
28 - handyguy
The Dems started this whole poisonous road with the Bork hearings. But the GOP has proven this week they can be just as petty and unfair as anyone else.
Bork should have been criticized and examined fairly, and then confirmed. A president should get to appoint his choices to the court unless they are really unqualified [Harriet Miers? and some of us might argue Clarence Thomas].
Jeff Sessions was rightly not confirmed for his lifetime judgeship appointment. He is a true ass. The people of Alabama have mystifyingly seen fit to foist him as a senator on the rest of the country.
Sotomayor, a liberal replacing a liberal on the court, won't change anything fundamental in the coming year's decisions. She is utterly and unquestionably qualified for the job.
Bringing up the 'wise Latina' speech once or twice would be perfectly reasonable. For every Republican on the panel to bring it up once, and then for several of them to keep going back to it, over and over, is just a waste of time.
29 - Bliffle
Apparently, John Roberts successfully hid HIS biases in order to get appointed chief justice, according to Jeffrey Toobins report in the New Yorker:
Toobin on Roberts
Looks like Umpire John Roberts feels free to define his own strike zone and when he applies it.
You might want to read the Volokh Conspiracy take on it, which was actually where I found the primary source citation.
30 - Bliffle
Bork shot himself in the foot when he denied article 9 of the constitution and revealed himself as a rightwing functionary determined to take a rightwing activist position to deny civil rights.
How stupid. How inept. And I thought the guy was a good constitutional authority right up to that point.
Ptooey.
31 - pablo
28 handguy and 30 bliffle
handguy says:
"Bork should have been criticized and examined fairly, and then confirmed. A president should get to appoint his choices to the court unless they are really unqualified [Harriet Miers? and some of us might argue Clarence Thomas]."
Seeing as how Robert Bork referred to the 9th (amendment handguy) as an "ink blot" on the constitution, and that nobody really knows what it means, at his confirmation hearings, I would have to say that Bork was unqualified to sit on the bench. Not only is the 9th (I have written about this amendment before on this site) amendment part and parcel of the Bill of Rights, it is the one amendment to the constitution that re-affirms that our rights do not come from the enumeration in the constitution of said rights, but that they are innate, as in unalienable, and that it is government itself that has limitations. Unfortunately throughout the Court's history it has been ignored due to what an honest interpretation of it will yield.
The people are free and the government is not. Thus by ignoring it, the totalitarians increase their violation of our liberty.
32 - Cannonshop
#23 I'd say "Catastrophically Stupid" and criminal. (not to mention fundamentally dishonourable-it is fundamentally dishonourable for a man to strike a woman, regardless of the crap dripping out of his mouth at the time.)
HOwever, it's an individual act,something you Collectivists really can't fathom-the guy doing the striking and spewing the verbal garbage is an Asshat who needs to be fed his teeth, but that's it-it's on HIM, not on everyone who happens to be members of the same political or socioeconomic demographic.
Collectivists, of course, assume that the behaviour of one, is the behaviour of all, and all too often make the mistake of assuming that a Tattoo and a Piercing make one "Individual" even though every OTHER twenty-somthing is getting one for the same reason.
Individualism means owning what you do-both the good, and the Bad, and owning the consequences of doing it.
Sessions is an asshat-one that gets re-elected, so he must be pretty good at bringing the Federal Pork home, or he must face some of the limpest opposition known to man in his district (maybe he's the Republican equivalent of John Murtha?).
The bizarre thing is, we finally can see a hispanic Pat Leahy will champion for a Judicial seat... and we finally see a confirmation hearing that didn't take almost half a year to get INTO committee.
33 - Ruvy
Not only is the 9th (I have written about this amendment before on this site) amendment part and parcel of the Bill of Rights, it is the one amendment to the constitution that re-affirms that our rights do not come from the enumeration in the constitution of said rights, but that they are innate, as in unalienable, and that it is government itself that has limitations. Unfortunately throughout the Court's history it has been ignored due to what an honest interpretation of it will yield.
While I agree fundamentally with how you view the 9th Amendment, I have to disagree with your last statement. Usually (not always) the judges writing appeals decisions take large parts of one side's legal brief or another and just reproduce it, slightly amended, as a large part of the judgment. To make that last assertion with confidence, you would have to have at your fingertips not only case law, but the briefs submitted by the attorneys arguing the appeals. It might be more accurate to say that the attorneys have ignored the 9th Amendment because they themselves did not understand it. Attorneys with the power to adjudicate legal cases (judges) therefore have ignored it as well.
34 - roger nowosielski
The Ninth Amendment
35 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop -
I think you summed up one of the great differences between Republicans and Democrats - Republicans will not share the blame with others of their party...even when it's Republicans who keep reelecting the racist in question!
The Republicans re-elect him...and then say "what he does isn't MY fault!" They will NOT take responsibility for each other. They are the party of, "I am not my brother's keeper!"
We Democrats, OTOH, see things somewhat differently. We know that what ONE Democrat does reflects on ALL Democrats. We accept this. We take responsibility for each other. We ARE our brother's keeper.
36 - Dr Dreadful
Cannonshop @ #32:
For the life of me I can't see, anywhere either in the comments or the article itself, that 'you Collectivists' have claimed that Epstein's idiotic behaviour was anything other than an individual act.
And if going up to a black woman, karate-chopping her and calling her a nigger isn't a racist act, I don't know what is.
I don't care how wasted he was at the time. In fact, alcohol does rather unbutton your tongue: it's the original truth serum. Far from 'not meaning it', it's very likely that he did.
37 - roger nowosielski
It's a Cannonshop I no longer recognize. Radicalization of a conservative.
38 - Baronius
Handy, I just reread your comment #25. You begin by saying that no one's accusing the Republican senators of racism. You then pass along charges made against Senator Sessions. So you simultaneously (1) say it's not happening, (2) report on it happening, and (3) do it yourself.
39 - Clavos
Heh.
40 - Cannonshop
36- Duh, Epstein is an asshat. Not only that, but he's a VIOLENT ass-hat. Where's the Assault charge, or better yet, AGGRAVATED assault. Proving his bias indicates a high chance of recidivism and motive...this should be a slam-dunk for an attorney...unless one is more interested in making points politically with the label "Hate Crime" rather than acknowledging all violent crime is nested in hatred.
#35 Why should I "Share Blame" with this guy? He doesn't represent me, I didn't pick him, I'm only compelled to pay a miniscule fraction of his salary because I pay taxes. AND I have to endure anything he manages to get passed. Democrats LEGITIMIZE bad behaviour by "Sharing the Blame out" among their own ranks, and use it to mass-tar their opponents by "Sharing the Blame out" among THEM.
I know it's difficult to both accept responsibility for yourself, and hold others to that standard, but it's fundamental to freedom to accept that there are asshats in the world, that sometimes idiots elect them, and that in some places, there are lots of idiots.
Lady hits me in the parking lot, I don't assume all women are bad drivers. (Or, in this case, all Christians-she had a jesus-fish on her car.)
Epstein's a racist, there's not much doubt of that-but his crime was assault, not what weird, convoluted, twisted logic is tumbling through his diseased little mind. His defense that he couldn't be one because he belongs to TWO minority groups-that's purely from your side of the fence, Glenn, and the contention broadcast by the radical left that, essentially, only white men can be racists.
41 - handyguy
Jeff Sessions is a special case. Read up on him and tell me if you think he is wholly innocent on racial matters.
But the main objections against the Republicans on the committee are that they overemphasized barely relevant material [lines from old speeches, out of context], and avoided addressing Sotomayor's record as a judge. Few of the accusations against her had to do with this record -- which is many years long.
When they did ask about cases, it was mostly hypotheticals about hot-button issues. What does this prove? Nothing at all. And the overemphasis on the New Haven firefighters suit just showed how little real ammunition the senators could come up with.
But the real bottom line is that smart, qualified nominees like Roberts and Sotomayor have to mute their own intelligence before the committee. They have to avoid saying anything meaningful, because it might be blown out of proportion and torpedo their nomination.
Thus these hearings are always a travesty and a sham. They shouldn't really be about how liberal or how conservative a judge is, but just about how qualified they are. Having your appeals court's opinion overruled by the Supremes is not a disqualifier. Happens several dozen times a year.
Nonetheless, an embarrassment like Jeff Sessions grilling Sotomayor and trying to prove that she is 'prejudiced' is grotesque and offensive.
42 - Baronius
Handy, I'll grant you this much, that Senate confirmation hearings don't serve any real purpose any more. Although if memory serves, they were originally cooked up as a plan for Democrats to implement race policy. (God, what is wrong with those people?)
43 - zingzing
baronius: "(God, what is wrong with those people?)"
i dunno, but you guys do a pretty good impersonation. but it wasn't funny the first time around...
44 - Baronius
Zing, please explain.
45 - handyguy
Senate confirmation hearings don't serve any real purpose any more. Although if memory serves, they were originally cooked up as a plan for Democrats to implement race policy.
I don't have the slightest idea what you mean my this.
46 - Baronius
Handy, I double-checked this. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing came out of the 1950's. The Democrats used them to try to block anyone sympathetic to civil rights.
47 - handyguy
Dixiecrats, you mean. I imagine Hubert Humphrey and others would not have been in agreement with that motivation, and some Republicans conversely were just fine with blocking civil-rights-minded judges from appointment.
The direct relevance of your comment to the current hearings is tenuous at best. But thank you for sharing.
48 - Baronius
Handy, I think it's great that your party counts minorities as whole people now, but why do you have to keep counting them at all?
49 - Clavos
The direct relevance of your comment to the current hearings is tenuous at best. But thank you for sharing.
The "direct relevance," it seems to me, lies in the fact that we're still holding these "exercises in futility" which you characterize as a "travesty and a sham."
So, at least in this admittedly tiny cohort, we seem to be in agreement as to the uselessness of the Senate (in this exercise, though I would generalize that to its very existence).
50 - handyguy
The hearings as they are currently conducted are fairly useless. That doesn't mean the Senate shouldn't perform its constitutionally required advise-and-consent role.
Politicians will always do political things. We live in a democracy and we elect officials who are by definition politicians.
So expecting the Senate to do its duty without acting like bloviating politicians is a pipe dream. But some senators do the job a bit better than others, so maybe, just maybe, by encouraging the good and criticizing the awful, we can collectively and eventually have some effect.
You've probably seen Mr. Smith Goes To Washington [1939] and Advise and Consent [1962]. Parts of the two movies are Hollywood nonsense, but the amusing caricatures of preening, blowhard senators still ring true, 70 years and 47 years later.
51 - Cannonshop
#50 Don't forget Eddie Murphy's movie, "The Distinguished Gentleman", which, in a way, is like "Mister Smith", but also includes some rather pointed (and sadly, accurate) commentary about HOW these bozos get into office.