RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "When the United States Senate voted against the United States Constitution on March 5, 2014, the anti-constitutional majority included, as expected, all the Republican senators voting, but also, more unexpectedly, seven principle-free Democrats."

Debo Adegbile. (photo: AP)
Debo Adegbile. (photo: AP)


Democrats Join Republicans in High-Tech Lynching of Black Nominee

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

13 March 14

 

Seven Democratic dwarves prefer police state veto to due process of law.

hen the United States Senate voted against the United States Constitution on March 5, 2014, the anti-constitutional majority included, as expected, all the Republican senators voting, but also, more unexpectedly, seven principle-free Democrats.

The majority vote represents an affirmation of imaginary guilt by association, with deep racial overtones, in what amounted to a Senatorial lynching of an attorney who dared participate in the constitutionally-mandated legal defense of a pre-judged black man long since found guilty and still in prison after thirty years. These senators were less persuaded by the Supreme Court's finding of a flawed trial than by the orchestrated baying by white vigilantes whose police state mentality allows no nuance when they want someone dead no matter what.

The Senate vote in question on March 5 was whether to end a Republican filibuster against President Obama's nominee to serve as the United States Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice – attorney Debo Adegbile, 48, who is currently senior counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. A native New Yorker, he was born Adebowale Patrick Akande Adegbile (his father Nigerian, his mother Irish) and raised by his single mother. As a child he was an actor on Sesame Street for nine years. He earned his law degree from New York University law school in 1994.

After seven years in private practice at the N.Y. law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, & Garrison, Adegbile joined the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, where he was a respected litigator from 2001 to 2013. He argued his first Supreme Court case in 2009, defending the Voting Rights Act. His career path, without the major cases, is similar to that of the late Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall, but only up to this point.

Republicans opposing Adegbile are vehement, adamant, and dishonest in their opposition, which is rooted in passion and prejudice. Their critique does not challenge Adegbile's competence or qualifications to be in charge of the Civil Rights Division, which currently has an acting head. Arguing Adegbile's nomination on its merits is not something Republicans even tried to do. Their "case" against Adegbile was an ugly, demagogic stew of partisanship, race baiting, and irrelevance worthy of the late Senator Joe McCarthy at his worst.

"I stand with the Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to Debo Adegbile…. We all should agree that those who go out of their way to celebrate, to lionize, convicted cop killers are not suitable for major leadership roles at the Department of Justice. Under Adegbile's supervision, LDF lawyers fanned the flames of racial tension through rallies and protests and a media campaign all to portray Mumia Abu-Jamal, an unrepentant cop killer, as a political prisoner." – Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, on the Senate floor, March 4, 2014

In this brief statement, Cruz manages to:

  1. Defend what amounts to a police lobby veto over presidential appointments to the Justice Department;

  2. Lie about Adegbile's activities (no evidence to support Cruz's smear);

  3. Invent "lionization" of the man at the center of a case that is genuinely about due process and the death penalty, a case that has been found wanting by the Supreme Court;

  4. Pretend that racial tensions have not been present in this case since the moment it started (the trial judge promised "I'm going to help them fry the nigger," and a higher judge found the comment not prejudicial);

  5. Lie about Adegbile's "supervision," offering no evidence, using only a kind of "guilt" by association that also attacks free speech;

  6. Reach final judgment on a case in which he has played no role, and in which both sides have arguable positions for which neither side has managed to provide ultimately definitive evidence;

  7. Illustrate one of the ways Abu-Jamal is used as – and is, in fact – a political prisoner, whatever else he may be.

Cruz and other senators opposing Adegbile got many of their distorted talking points from the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), a Washington-based labor union and lobbying organization that claims membership of more than 330,000 police employees and whose motto is "Building on a Proud Tradition." (According to FBI statistics, there are more than a million full-time law enforcement employees in the U.S.) In a letter to the president dated January 6, 2014, FOP president Chuck Canterbury expressed his organization's opposition to Adegbile with a rambling argument in which FOP's apparently real issue doesn't appear until the fourth paragraph, which complains: "The Administration did not consult the FOP during the decision-making process for this nomination…. This nomination can be interpreted in only one way: it is a thumb in the eye of our nation's law enforcement officers."

More raw emotionalism of Canterbury's letter came earlier:

As word of this nomination spreads through the law enforcement community, reactions range from anger to incredulity. Under this nominee's leadership, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People volunteered their services to represent Wesley Cook, better known to the world as Mumia Abu-Jamal – our country's most notorious cop-killer. There is no disputing that Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner was murdered by this thug. His just sentence – death – was undone by your nominee and others like him who turned the justice system on its head with unfounded and unproven allegations of racism.

As Canterbury is presumably well aware, Abu-Jamal remains in prison under a life sentence, and his death sentence was undone by the Supreme Court under John Roberts (who has also done pro bono work for a man who killed eight people). But logic requires the FOP to falsify the facts in order justify their seemingly race-based and untenable argument: "We are aware of the tried and true shield behind which activists of Adegbile's ilk are wont to hide - that everyone is entitled to a defense; but surely you would agree that a defense should not be based on falsely disparaging and savaging the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer."

This claim, unsupported by evidence and rooted in irrelevance (even if true in any respect), is essentially an attack on the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment – not an effort to eliminate completely the right of a defendant to have legal representation, but an effort to give others the power to decide which defendants shall have constitutional protection, and which shall not.

The Sixth Amendment does not allow for such intervention by hostile parties like an enraged and frustrated police union. The amendment says, in pertinent part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In its own brief statement of Goals, the FOP states: "We believe that Law is the safeguard to freedom, and it is our duty to defend it." The effect of the FOP's letter to the president is to carve out arbitrary exceptions to its stated "belief" and "duty" whenever constitutional law serves a defendant that the FOP just wants to kill. The FOP stands ready to defend the law only to the extent that the law does its bidding.

The FOP's attack wasn't intended to have integrity, logic, or supporting evidence. Its primary purpose was political, to block a non-white defender of civil rights whose record suggested he would be effective in the civil rights job at Justice. The shortest, quickest route to blocking Agedbile would be to panic enough Democrats to prevent the Senate from even voting on his nomination. Democrats, with a 54-46 vote advantage in a party line vote, could lose four members and still shut down the Republican filibuster against Agedbile (with Vice President Biden present to break a tie). The challenge for Republicans was to terrorize more than four Democrats into cutting and running. What better way to panic politicians than to scream, irrelevantly, "cop-killer" and imply that a vote for a qualified attorney was the same as supporting a hated black man? To Democrats' shame, the deceitful race-baiting worked.

Quick to pick up on the FOP's "thumb-in-the-eye" letter was the FOP in Philadelphia, where the killing took place in 1981. Philadelphia in 1981 had been close to open race war for years, with Police Chief/Mayor Frank Rizzo often making matters worse with pre-emptive raids, a vicious cycle that culminated in the Police bombing of the MOVE house, killing eleven people, including five children. That's context missed by the FOP tunnel vision: "It's [Adegbile's nomination] an absolute slap in the face to every police officer, especially those who gave their lives in the line of duty. There's outrage, there's resentment there's disapproval – you name it and our cops are feeling it," said the Philadelphia FOP president, adding that he'd be lobbying his senators on the nomination, meaning Democrat Bob Casey, since Republican Pat Toomey was already in the bag (and among the vigilantes).

A few weeks later, Senator Bob Casey abjectly caved to the pressure in a sadly craven political statement, issued on a Friday (February 28):

I believe that every person nominated by the President of the United States for a high level position such as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should be given fair and thoughtful consideration as senators discharge their responsibility of 'advise and consent.' I respect that our system of law ensures the right of all citizens to legal representation no matter how heinous the crime. At the same time, it is important that we ensure that Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country have full confidence in their public representatives – both elected and appointed. The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well as the City of Philadelphia. After carefully considering this nomination and having met with both Mr. Adegbile as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, I will not vote to confirm the nominee.

Instead of "fair and thoughtful consideration," Casey voted for a filibuster. Instead of respect for our system, this lawyer and Democrat voted for random application of the law, sometimes dictated by dishonest hate-brokers.

Casey was the first Democrat to collapse completely in the face of the emotional illogic of anti-constitutionalists. Casey, 54, a child of white privilege and a career politician, was first elected to the Senate in 2006. Even though he's not up for re-election this year (not till 2018), he could not find the strength to stand for principle against a baying mob.

Public reaction was even harsher on philly.com, where "Attytood" was able to distinguish between his own feeling about Abu-Jamal ("the guy murdered a cop in cold blood") and the value of the Constitution: "Faced with the choice of voting for a good man or responding to the bullying tactics of the Fraternal Order of Police, Casey wilted. I don't know why that's a surprise. Spinelessness has been a trademark of Casey's career…. What does Bob Casey stand for? Cowards tend to congregate, and so Casey's chickenry encouraged six other feckless wonders – [Senators] Pryor, Walsh, Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Coons (say it ain't so, Chris) – to join in…."

Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, 51, another son of white privilege and career politician, is running for a third term in the Senate. After two easy races in 2002 and 2008, he's now considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in 2014. His record has no well-known highlights. He has voted to keep prisoners in Guantanamo, to set up extra-constitutional military commissions, and to block background checks for gun purchases. Pryor issued no statement explaining his vote against his party's president's nominee, and if he made any public comment, it remains obscure.

Senator John Walsh of Montana, 54, was appointed to the Senate on March 9, 2014, having already announced his plan to run for the seat in the 2014 election. He's not a career politician, but as a retired National Guard general, he's presumably drawing both a pension and a salary from the government. Walsh's campaign website slogan is "Montana courage," but the site has no information about his vote against Adegbile, or much of anything else requiring courage. A Montana newspaper reported that: "Walsh said through a spokeswoman that he voted against Adegbile because the controversy over his appointment would 'follow him to the Justice Department and distract from the important work of defending civil and voting rights.' " A few days later, Walsh was criticizing his opponent in the Montana Senate race of having "a cruel ideology, a cowardly ideology."

Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, 67 and a former governor, was first elected in 2010 (a special election) and won a full term in 2012 with 60% of the vote. He is devoted to the coal interests of his state, supports the Keystone XL pipeline, and was named second most bi-partisan senator in 2011 by Congressional Quarterly. After voting against Adegbile, according to the Washington Post, the usually chatty Manchin was tight-lipped with reporters, saying only, "I made a conscientious decision after talking to the wife of the victim, I made a conscientious decision, I made a conscientious decision" repeatedly. Manchin's campaign website offers an "editoial" written by the campaign claiming Manchin was "Right to Follow Conscience." The "editorial" does not mention the Constitution.

Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, 59, an attorney and former state attorney general, was first elected to the Senate in 2012. A search for "Adegbile" on her official webpage turns up nothing. In an email statement, Heitkamp explained her anti-constitutional vote with suitably craven illogic in support of the demagoguery that intimidated her, affirming the right of police state tactics to trump due process:

Mr. Adegbile has had an impressive career advocating for civil rights. But, as a former Attorney General, I was very concerned about a nominee who would face such staunch opposition from law enforcement officers from day one, as that will only make it more difficult for the Civil Rights division at DOJ – a very important and needed group – to do its job. I agree with North Dakota law enforcement officers that the President would be better served by nominating another individual who is not so controversial.

The speciousness of this argument prompted Ari Melber of MSNBC to write Heitkamp an open letter calling her on the hypocrisy of claiming to defend voting rights in a fundraising letter sent out after she has just undermined a strong defender of voting rights. His letter concludes, "President Obama called the vote a 'travesty.' And if this is the precedent you want to set – that no one who's defended 'controversial' clients can serve the public – then it's a travesty for all of us."

Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana, 59, an attorney, former Congressman, and child of white privilege, was elected to the Senate in 2012. His official website has no mention of "Adegbile," but touts a ranking that rates him slightly more conservative than liberal, neither of which explains a vote against constitutional principle by a lawyer. Appearing briefly on an Indiana TV station, Donnelly followed the Heitkamp script to explain his vote against Adegbile: "In Sen. Donnelly's interview with Amos, Donnelly stressed that while he respected Adegbile's qualifications for the job, Donnelly was convinced that the controversy would 'undermine' Adegbile's 'ability to work with law enforcement officials,' given the fierce opposition by police organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, to Adegbile's involvement in the Abu-Jamal case." Or in other words, why defend a qualified non-white man from being hounded by police bigots who don't even tell the truth?

Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, 51, a child of white privilege, has Yale graduate degrees in both divinity and law. A former county council president, Coons won the 2010 Senate special election against Christine O'Donnell. He is running for a full term in 2014. Coons initially came out in support of Adegbile, only to cave under pressure and make this statement after flip-flopping on his vote in favor of Adegbile in the Judiciary Committee: "At a time when the Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community, I was troubled by the idea of voting for an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who would face such visceral opposition from law enforcement on his first day on the job. The vote I cast today was one of the most difficult I have taken since joining the Senate, but I believe it to be right for the people I represent."

If, as Coons says, the "Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community," why is that not a sign that the law enforcement community is having trouble enforcing the law? Coons's full statement, on his official website, only makes his weakness look more pathetic:

Last month, I voted in the Judiciary Committee to move his nomination to the Senate floor because I believed his nomination should be debated and considered by the full Senate. As a lawyer, I understand the importance of having legal advocates willing to fight for even the most despicable clients, and I embrace the proposition that an attorney is not responsible for the actions of their client.

The decades-long public campaign by others, however, to elevate a heinous, cold-blooded killer to the status of a political prisoner and folk hero has caused tremendous pain to the widow of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner and shown great disrespect for law enforcement officers and families throughout our region. These factors have led me to cast a vote today that is more about listening to and respecting their concerns than about the innate qualifications of this nominee.

These seven Democratic dwarves agree on one thing: when a thuggish police-based minority dishonestly attacks democratic due process, it's the Constitution that should suffer. These people, like the rest of Congress, have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, even against a mob of cops outraged by the courts' denying them their lynching. They have enabled a cowardly tactic, but one that works: that the best way to avoid losing an argument is to prevent it from happening.

"Cop-killer" is a powerful epithet, rooted in an understandable outrage, but it is also a verbal barrier to any disinterested understanding of the underlying case, the 1981 murder of officer Daniel Faulkner, which is an undisputed fact. Also a fact, Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook) was convicted in 1982 of the murder. Another fact, usually omitted from summaries of the event, is that Abu-Jamal was also shot, in the lower abdomen, a wound that prevented him from fleeing the scene. This matters because none of the eyewitness statements describe the officer or anyone else firing any weapons, and no one says Abu-Jamal shot himself. That's only the beginning of the evidentiary strangeness of this case. It appears, from a brief review, that the jury verdict was supported by at least a preponderance of not very strong evidence, but perhaps not enough to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Unlike some cases of wrongful conviction, this one lacks any credible alternative to the central conclusion reached by the jury, but there are enough contradictions, omissions, and procedural failures to make anyone wonder, with some humility, just what really happened.

With Abu-Jamal in prison for life, the appearance of justice has been met – except for those who will settle for nothing but the death penalty. But that is an emotional demand, not a legal or rational one. It is the reflexive but unreflective emotional cry of pain from Faulkner's widow and his fellow officers, as expressed here in Maureen Faulkner's online petition on change.org, with extreme bitterness: "In the three decades that followed [the murder], Abu-Jamal filed appeal after appeal – each rooted in lies, distortions and allegations of civil rights violations. Today, as Officer Faulkner lies in his grave, Abu-Jamal has become a wealthy celebrity and continues to spew his vitriol from prison."

This isn't argument, it's ad hominem attack. Although the consequences here do not include thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans, this is hysterical manipulation every bit as much as the scare-mongering of "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." And yes, it is also a protected form of free speech. But it is not a reasonable basis for governing, especially when it stampedes a majority in the Senate. That majority has done a lynch mob's job metaphorically and the White House called them on it with startlingly mild language:

The Senate's failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant. Mr. Adegbile's qualifications are impeccable. He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience, and the deep respect of those with whom he has worked. His unwavering dedication to protecting every American's civil and Constitutional rights under the law – including voting rights – could not be more important right now. And Mr. Adegbile's personal story – rising from adversity to become someone who President Bush's Solicitor General referred to as one of the nation's most capable litigators – is a story that proves what America has been and can be…. The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice….

That Senate majority – but especially those seven Democratic Senators – who voted against Adegbile's nomination did much worse than merely deny advancement to a capable and principled lawyer without any cogent reason for doing so. Adegbile may well be hurt, but he seems likely to survive this assault, which he has apparently suffered with a silent grace.

The seven timorous Democrats, in their collaboration with a nihilistic Republican strategy, have added to the damage from which American democracy will be a long time recovering, if it ever can.

These seven democrats represent profiles in no courage, running scared on a vote that should not have required any courage. These seven Democrats have colluded in a vote that reeks of racial bigotry:

  • A vote that attacks due process of law;

  • A vote that undermines vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act;

  • A vote that reinforces Republican efforts in recent years to prevent certain categories of Americans from voting ever;

  • A vote that ignores relevance, logic, and facts;

  • A vote that promotes filibuster as an acceptable evasion of public responsibility;

  • A vote that punishes civility and allows the screeching of a hate mob to overwhelm reasoned debate;

  • A vote that punishes an innocent man for serving the Constitution;

  • A vote that punishes the Constitution for giving rights to all.

After these seven Democratic quislings had collaborated in stopping Adegbile's nomination in its tracks, another Democrat switched his vote to join them. The eighth Democratic vote to sustain the filibuster was majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada who changed his vote for tactical reasons. Under Senate rules, only a senator who has voted against the nomination is entitled to bring it the floor again, and that's just one of many good deeds the other seven Democrats can't be trusted to do.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
0 # MidwesTom 2014-03-13 09:46
In our current "police state" promoted by Obama's promised "civilian army larger than the US Army" and the spying by the NSA, I can understand why anyone would be fearful of opposing anything that the Fraternal rider of Police supports.

We are3 reaching a point where everyone will be afraid to oppose anything that our government promotes.
 
 
+2 # ericlipps 2014-03-13 12:48
Quoting MidwesTom:
In our current "police state" promoted by Obama's promised "civilian army larger than the US Army" and the spying by the NSA, I can understand why anyone would be fearful of opposing anything that the Fraternal rider of Police supports.

We are3 reaching a point where everyone will be afraid to oppose anything that our government promotes.

Are you okay, Tom? Apart from your usual vitriol, I note a couple of odd errors in your post: (1) Shouldn't it be "Fraternal Order" rather than "Fraternal rider"? and (2)"are3" should be "are".

You don't usually make so many typos. What, did you finally work yourself up to the point where you blew a blood vessel?
 
 
+2 # MidwesTom 2014-03-13 17:03
Pardon my typing, I lost parts of three fingers years ago in a plainer.
 
 
+4 # ritawalpoleague 2014-03-13 13:39
Sorry, MidwestTom, but there are many of us who only get more determined to:

'OCCUPY LIBERTY and JUSTICE FOR ALL'

WHEN SUCH DREADFUL GREED AND POWER OVER ALL ADDICTIONS REAR THEIR UGLIER THAN UGLY HEADS, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

LOTS AND LOTS WE HAVE TO (AND WILL) DO, TO...

UNDO THE EVIL COUP !!!
 
 
+8 # listentome 2014-03-13 10:32
All 7 states of these "white privilege" dems. must be carefully followed, and candidates defeated next time around, and a strong campaign against them can be launched. How dare they? including Reid. Perhaps a campaign against them will start now.
 
 
+7 # WBoardman 2014-03-13 12:17
listentome --

They are not ALL children of white privilege.

Reid has acted honorably.
His change of vote is tactical, NOT substantive.
 
 
+24 # Phlippinout 2014-03-13 10:40
Get real Tom! It was long before Obama that this crap has been going on. The white man hatred for any change has been here since we tortured the natives. There is always an enemy when they cant have their way 100 per cent! There is always a war on people of color, women, gays, free thinking, change, the list goes on, but the table will turn like it or not and change comes with or without their blessing! Evolution rocks!
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-03-13 11:52
Unfortunately guys, color has nothing to do with it. Just take a look at what black men have done to black men (Rawanda anyone?). Native
American tribes were constantly kidnappig and killing people from other tribes. The problem here is MEN. And it is the fault of us women. We have been enabling men for far too long. Ladies, this has got to stop. Or it will end badly.
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2014-03-13 12:50
Quoting bmiluski:
Unfortunately guys, color has nothing to do with it. Just take a look at what black men have done to black men (Rawanda anyone?). Native
American tribes were constantly kidnappig and killing people from other tribes. The problem here is MEN. And it is the fault of us women. We have been enabling men for far too long. Ladies, this has got to stop. Or it will end badly.

I suspect the problem is humans, not just men (or MEN). If women were in charge, they'd do just as badly; only the details would change.
 
 
+5 # bmiluski 2014-03-13 15:05
I'm sorry ericlipps, I am going to have to disagree with you.
If you notice the more patriarchal the society the more violent (especially towards women and children). i.e. Especially male monotheistic societies.
Just watch little boys and little girls play. The boys play games that are war-ike, violent and destructive. Little girls play games that are nurturing...gam es that take care of "babies", the house, and family. Just look at the difference between "real guy" movies and "chick flics".
 
 
0 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-03-15 11:06
Women wait until after they are married to play war games. I guess C. Rice, Bush's war hawk was an exception to "nurturing." OK, I'm wrong. She "nutured" war. What violent and destructive war games are you speaking of that "little boys play at school which are war-like, violent and destructive?" Is baseball violent and dstructive? Is touch football violent and destructive? Soccer, violent and destructive? Are very young kids in your neighborhood allowed to bring guns and swords to school? Not in my school district. If women are so "nurturing" why is it that American youth rank 25th in the world in math and science, upper 10 percentile. Both of which are critical thinking skills. Americans are some of the fattest, if not the fattest nation on the planet. Where are the women's healthy diet "nurturing skills as regards their children and husbands? American Husbands have one of the highest heart attack rates in the world. Why, if American women are so nuturing do we have a nation with one of the highest rates of children born out of wed-lock? Teen age pregnancy? One of the highest rates, if not the highest in the world. Teen age pregnancy is inversely proportional to a woman's educational level. In China, children born out of wed-lock and teen age pregnancy is almost unheard of. In China, it is considered a "social disgrace" to be a woman who is pregnant, not married. Women had their chance to be "nurturing" in America, blew it. Maybe that is why this country is so messed up.
 
 
0 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-03-15 14:07
(Cont.) I really wish bmiluski would take the time to understand that while it is better to have more "educated and wise" women in political office, the nation will not be better off just because "women are better at running the country because they are women." not until they first prove themselves in educating our youth. Which also includes sex education, decreasing the very high rate of teen pregnancies and providing nutritious diets to their families and themselves which will help our kids succeed in school.
 
 
-2 # MidwesTom 2014-03-13 17:20
bmliski; you make a very valid point. However, most of the people on this thread see no problem with the growing numbers on Muslims in this country. Apparently they are blind to the male on female practices of Islam.

My business has taken me to several Muslim dominated areas in other countries, where I have seen first hand the treatment of women that Americans would consider a crime. But you do not have to go overseas, just go to Washington DC and witness the women who must cover all but their eyes when in public. Or if more adventuresome, visit any Islamic middle eastern county and ask about the 10 and 12 year old girls being married off to men in their twenties and thirties. Then come back and tell me how hard it is here for women.

P.S. if you think that Hillary is not a neocon, and would make a great peace loving President, I have a bridge for sale.
 
 
+5 # WBoardman 2014-03-13 19:03
You can say this about Hillary Clinton --
she's no Shirley Chisholm.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2014-03-14 13:46
Hillary Clinton has to work within a male dominated society/world. She can't come across touchy/feely or she'll be eaten alive.
I agree with you regarding the treatment of Muslim women. People and especially Muslim women don't realize that everytime one of them puts that rag on her head she is allowing to be shamed and is in turn shaming all women. That rag sybolizes the 2nd place in which women are held in the Muslim world. If this were not true, then Muslim men would also be wearing those rags on their heads and those sacks covering them from head to toe. Muslim men would also not be allowed to feel a cool breeze across the back of their necks, while walking down the street on a hot summer day. Or a warm sun on their hair while sitting in the park with friends, on the first day of Spring. And all in the disguise of religion.
 
 
+2 # Cassandra2012 2014-03-14 17:55
The American 'Christian' Taliban is quite evident in the comments by schmucks like Akin, Huckabee and that other brilliant ass who called women 'hosts' ... it is not just Muslims. It is men, brought up to feel themselves 'entitled' , without conscience or decency. The Serb treatment of Bosnian women doesn't serve the so-called 'Christian' ideal much either. And no, I am not Muslim.
 
 
-1 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-03-15 23:33
TO:bmiluski
Why do you hate men?
 
 
+21 # Edwina 2014-03-13 11:29
This was extremely disappointing. Another good man, who would do an excellent job of defending civil liberties, prevented from serving in a capacity for which he was eminently qualified. I continue to be amazed that racism is such an effective weapon in this country, especially among political leaders, who should know better. And who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and to represent all their constituents.
 
 
+20 # DaveM 2014-03-13 11:53
Surely every criminal defense attorney has defended guilty clients. The purpose of an attorney for a defendant is not to "get them off", but rather, to insure that their civil rights are respected and that the truth is arrived at via the evidence in the case.

Granted, "innocent until proven guilty" is increasingly a thing of the past, and "due process" is not far behind. But an attorney is ethically obligated to advocate as best s/he can for a client. Would this man have been better qualified to work for the Justice Department if he had "thrown" a case or behaved unethically?

If we punish people for doing the right thing....the results are not going to be pleasant for anyone.
 
 
+8 # geraldom 2014-03-13 14:25
What amazes me about the Democrats (and the Democratic Party in general) is that they act as if their completely insane. The definition of insanity is when one does the very same thing over and over and over again and expects different results.

Obama, and the Congressional Democrats in general, almost from leaving the starting gate in January of 2009, have betrayed their voting base big-time. Their words, their rhetoric, have not matched their deeds. For the most part, the Republicans have gotten their way from the get-go because the Democrats refused to stand up to their obstructionist ways.

But, even more damaging to the Democratic Party and to the Democratic members of Congress has been their constant capitulation to Obama's interests when Obama his interests went against the interests of the American people, the NDAA being a good example of one which now allows Obama to even murder, just on his word alone and without any due process, American citizens, not just in foreign countries, but even within the United States itself, to officially make him a dictator who can act as prosecutor, judge, and jury all in one. I would like to add "Executioner" to that list as well, but he himself wouldn't being doing the actual killing (murder) itself but his accomplice, the CIA, the very organization that he has been protecting for five years now against the Senate Intelligence panel investigation into torture.

Continued
 
 
+7 # geraldom 2014-03-13 14:26
Continued

Because the Democratic Party and the Congressional Democrats haven't appeared to learn the lessons that led up to the 2010 midterm disaster where they lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives big-time and almost lost their majority in the U.S. Senate, as well as the loss of government control in many of the major battleground states to the Republicans, what happened in November 2010 may end up looking like a cakewalk come November of this year.
.
In the upcoming 2014 midterm elections, the Democratic Party may actually lose control of the U.S. Senate and lose even more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives , and what just happened in the Senate concerning Debo Adegbile will not help at all.
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2014-03-14 17:56
they're
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-03-14 20:07
Quoting Cassandra2012:
they're


I was expecting someone to correct me. I didn't realize that it would take this long.

I realized my mistake almost immediately after I submitted the comment and then read it, but I didn't think it important enough to correct it since there is no way to correct a grammatical mistake once a comment is posted.
 
 
-11 # rmk948 2014-03-13 17:10
"Illustrate one of the ways Abu-Jamal is used as – and is, in fact – a political prisoner, whatever else he may be."

You lost me right there. Anyone who has spent a little time examining the case knows that Abu-Jamal is an unrepentant murderer, even if there were problems with his death sentence. Let him rot in prison. I for one am delighted that his mouthpiece is having a sad.
 
 
+10 # WBoardman 2014-03-13 19:01
rmk948 --

Being an "unrepentant murderer" and
being a "political prisoner"
are NOT mutually exclusive.

Ie he was not, in fact, a highly political prisoner
he wouldn't be any more useful to demagogues than
any other currently incarcerated unrepentant murderer.

To refer to Adegbile as "his mouthpiece" is just wrong.
 
 
+5 # Capn Canard 2014-03-14 09:30
Abu-Jamal... many are convinced that he is innocent. I am uncertain, however what I am certain of is that the Police are quickly becoming far more of an enemy to the American People than Abu-Jamal could ever be. Hard for me to feel real sadness when an overzealous cop gets his comeuppance.
 
 
+3 # Capn Canard 2014-03-14 09:26
It's official: The Democrats have abandoned the People. They are part of our Authoritarian overlords. In my opinion corrupt beyond reconciliation. Dumocrats and Repukelicans.
 
 
+1 # RODNOX 2014-03-16 08:35
honestly did not read all the posts but have followed ABUs case for quite awhile---- NO credible witnesses---dea d cop was working under cover or something to bust fellow cops on the take---what better thing to do than kill cop--frame black guy they dont like--and with the help of the court system --which always backs cops---screw ABU ??? as for DEBO---the reaction of our elected officials is out of the same cesspool as BOYCOTT CUBA--CRIMINALI ZE POT---CRIMINALI ZE WHISTLE BLOWING---REWAR D THE RICH ---ETC
 
 
0 # dquandle 2014-03-16 21:25
"Democrats" have been supporters of lynching for a couple hundred years now. Their take is "why stop a good roll"...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN