Senate in rare bipartisan form, filibuster Cop Killer advocate for position in Justice Department

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/5/senate-blocks-obamas-civil-rights-nominee/

Senate blocks Obama’s civil rights nominee
The Senate filibustered President Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division, with seven Democrats joining Republicans Wednesday in arguing his past history defending a convicted cop-killer made him the wrong man for the job.

The defeat of Debo P. Adegbile, who as a lawyer for the NAACP filed a brief arguing that former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal’s murder trial was tainted by racism, is a major blow to Mr. Obama. It comes even after Democrats changed the rules last year to overcome filibusters with just 50 votes — but on Wednesday Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn’t even muster all of his own troops.

A furious Mr. Reid hinted that Republicans’ opposition was based on racism, pointing to to several other black nominees that GOP senators had opposed earlier. But in the case of Mr. Adegbile, his defense of Abu-Jamal was too much for even some Democrats.

The Senate blocked Mr. Adegbile on a 47-52 vote, with eight Democrats voting along with Republicans for the filibuster. One of those was Mr. Reid, who had to change to vote for the filibuster in order to be able to ask for an eventual re-vote — which he did.

Signifying the heft of the vote, Vice President Joseph R. Biden was in the chair.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/5/senate-blocks-obamas-civil-rights-nominee/#ixzz2v76q5BQi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Also on Politico
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/senate-blocks-debo-adegbile-justice-department-104297.html

Several Senate Democrats joined with Republicans on Wednesday to block President Barack Obama’s controversial nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

The rejection of Debo Adegbile in a 47-52 vote marks the first time that one of Obama’s nominees was thwarted since Senate Democrats changed filibuster rules in November. The nomination needed 51 votes to advance.

Continue Reading Text Size
-+resetAdvertisementLatest on POLITICO
McCain: Clinton comments 'right'
Senate blocks Obama's DOJ nominee
Facebook to monitor gun ads
Bachmann pans SB 1062 veto
Military ups game amid Ukraine crisis
Romney backs Ernst in Iowa race
Vice President Joe Biden presided over the vote in case he would need to break a tie.

(Also on POLITICO: Reid continues battle with Kochs)

Adegbile drew opposition and scrutiny from national law enforcement organizations as well as Senate Republicans for his work representing Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. Adegbile previously worked for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, which worked in support of Abu-Jamal’s efforts to overturn his death sentence.

That past led both of Pennsylvania’s senators — including Democrat Bob Casey — to oppose Adegbile’s nomination. Republicans spent much of Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning on the Senate floor criticizing the assistant AG choice pointedly for his work with Abu-Jamal.

“He decided to join a political cause … and in my view, by doing so he demonstrated his own contempt for — and frankly a willingness to undermine — the criminal justice system of the United States,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). “I do not believe that Mr. Adegbile’s nomination is consistent with justice for the family of officer Danny Faulkner or for anyone else that cares about the law enforcement community.”

(Also on POLITICO: Facebook to monitor gun ads)

But it wasn’t just the GOP. Along with Casey, Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Chris [see forum posting rules] of Delaware voted to block the nomination. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also voted no, which — under Senate rules — allows him to bring the nomination back to the floor at a later 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,” Casey said, explaining his opposition in a written statement. “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.”

The GOP most likely would have blocked the high-profile Obama nominee before Democrats changed the Senate rules on Nov. 21, 2013, to lower the voting threshold needed to clear a filibuster on most presidential nominees from 60 votes to a simple majority. President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate Adegbile to the assistant AG post on Nov. 14.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that if Democrats approved Adegbile, they shouldn’t be surprised if Republicans continue to slow confirmation of Obama’s nominees, given that the party can no longer reject the president’s picks.

“The nominee inserted his office in an effort to turn reality on its head, impugn honorable and selfless law enforcement officers and glorify an unrepentant cop killer,” McConnell said. “Members of the majority who voted for this heavy-handed [rules change] last fall will be responsible for the nominee’s confirmation today.”

The nomination was also opposed by local Pennsylvania officials as well as national organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Officials, which described Adegbile as someone who “made his name defending one of the most notorious and unrepentant cop killers around.”

A group of 86 organizations, including the AFL-CIO and NAACP, wrote to senators this week urging them to support Adegbile. In the letter the groups called Adegbile “one of the preeminent civil rights litigators of his generation” and made no mention of Abu-Jamal.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/senate-blocks-debo-adegbile-justice-department-104297.html#ixzz2v77TlB3y

**djones520**

Of course... it had to be about his race. That's why the Republicans blocked him.

I'm getting so fething sick and tired of hearing that bs excuse.

**Ahtman**

Sometimes racism can play a part, but I don't think this was one of those times. It just seems like they picked an untenable nominee, to the point where most of their own party wasn't agreeable.

**Kanluwen**

Ahtman wrote:
Sometimes racism can play a part, but I don't think this was one of those times. It just seems like they picked an untenable nominee, to the point where most of their own party wasn't agreeable.

Of course not, because it's more important to portray an idea of "we support law enforcement!" than it is to actually look at someone based on their merit.

**Frazzled**

Advocating for a cop killer, and having the cop's widow show up to testify against him tends to put a damper on the old nomination.

**Jihadin**

Cop Killer and in the way he did it...

Cop Killer

Ried is wrong on saying racism played a part Those two words right there tainted the nominee.

**Ahtman**

Kanluwen wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Sometimes racism can play a part, but I don't think this was one of those times. It just seems like they picked an untenable nominee, to the point where most of their own party wasn't agreeable.

Of course not, because it's more important to portray an idea of "we support law enforcement!" than it is to actually look at someone based on their merit.

What fantasy world are you living in where political nominations were ever based solely merit?

**Frazzled**

Are you saying the nominatee for the Argentinian Ambbassadorship was not based solely on merit? How dare you sir!

**Jihadin**

Ambassadors are different from department positions.

**Frazzled**

Judging by this nominee that would be incorrect.

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
Of course... it had to be about his race. That's why the Republicans blocked him.

I'm getting so fething sick and tired of hearing that bs excuse.

Is that why the Democrats blocked him also?

I'm happy that my Senator crossed party lines to block this nomination

**Chancetragedy**

All I want to do is quote mumia abu'Jamals sound clips from revolutionary volume 2. Bummer that defending someone who had some pretty good thoughts on civil rights gets you blocked from a civil rights leader type job.

**Frazzled**

Chancetragedy wrote:
All I want to do is quote mumia abu'Jamals sound clips from revolutionary volume 2. Bummer that defending someone blew a cop away kinds gets looked unfavorably upon for a Department of Justice position.

Fixed your typo.

**Chancetragedy**

Frazzled wrote:
Chancetragedy wrote:
All I want to do is quote mumia abu'Jamals sound clips from revolutionary volume 2. Bummer that defending someone who blew a cop away in self defense after being shot himself kind of gets looked unfavorably upon for a Department of Justice position.

Fixed your typo.

Fixed your typo fix typos for yah.

**Frazzled**

Can't be self defense if he was convicted and upheld by 18,000 appellate decisions. Sorry charlie. He's a cause for the lefty mouth breathers, many of whim like to say things like "F the Man" and where Chevera Tshirts.

Being part of that circus is a negative, when there are actual qualified candidates available. Frankly you have to ask, what were they smoking when they submitted him for nomination for the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (you know DA's who have to work with cops and all)? Its an unserious candidate.

**easysauce**

A furious Mr. Reid hinted that Republicans’ opposition was based on racism, pointing to to several other black nominees that GOP senators had opposed earlier.

seven Democrats joining Republicans Wednesday in arguing his past history defending a convicted cop-killer made him the wrong man for the job.(so democrats are also racist on this?)

sounds like someone is mad that even with changing the rules to his magic # to pass things, he still cant do whatever he wants.

Playing the "Calling everyone racist for disagreeing" card a bit early here...

Im pretty sure that the people voting against this are more along the lines of "hmm his history as defending a cop killer might not be good for such a high public office"-ist

**Chancetragedy**

I can't and won't argue with the fact there are more qualified candidates for sure. But to be rejected based solely(speculation as that's all the article really cites) on the fact you were an NAACP lawyer who filed a motion defending someone who (whether you agree or not is irrelevant) is regarded as having some pretty good civil rights ideas and papers written is not exactly what I would deem on the up and up.

Edit : to say I agree with easy sauce to say that it's pretty clear this was or based in that they would rather not deal with. " defended a cop killer" rants and such.

**Frazzled**

I'm just running the opposition's ad in my head showing the face of Jamal the killer and having that slow change to the candidate's face with "voted to have this guy's attorney elected to the Department of...Justice! SHAME!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chancetragedy wrote:
I can't and won't argue with the fact there are more qualified candidates for sure. But to be rejected based solely(speculation as that's all the article really cites) on the fact you were an NAACP lawyer who filed a motion defending someone who (whether you agree or not is irrelevant) is regarded as having some pretty good civil rights ideas and papers written is not exactly what I would deem on the up and up.

Horse gak. He advocated for the cause of a cop killer. Nominating him to head up a department of prosecutors is not sane.

**Chancetragedy**

Edited my post to kind of agree with that last sentiment frazz.

**Frazzled**

Exactly.

**easysauce**

Chancetragedy wrote:
I can't and won't argue with the fact there are more qualified candidates for sure. But to be rejected based solely(speculation as that's all the article really cites) on the fact you were an NAACP lawyer who filed a motion defending someone who (whether you agree or not is irrelevant) is regarded as having some pretty good civil rights ideas and papers written is not exactly what I would deem on the up and up.

Edit : to say I agree with easy sauce to say that it's pretty clear this was or based in that they would rather not deal with. " defended a cop killer" rants and such.

looked up this guy, and he wasnt exactly ... forced into it, he filed an amicus curiae after the initial trial, which is something done completely at his own behest.

from wiki
"Adegbile and other lawyers filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in 2009, arguing that the conviction was invalid because of racial discrimination in jury selection"

so lawyer freely stands up for a guy who killed a cop, on the grounds that the jury was racist.

now this same guy doesnt get the appointment, on the grounds that the senate is racist.

**Ouze**

I have never understood the Mumia abu-Jamal fan club. You want to argue that he's redeemed himself in prison sufficient to wiggle out of the death penalty, I could buy that argument (I would not agree but the courts did, so whatever), sure. You want to say it's immoral to even have the death penalty, ever, as my mom does, I could see that argument as well (I would not agree).

But, free him? Seriously, wtf? The evidence is pretty overwhelming. He did it. He definitely did it. I don't care about his politics, he murdered a cop. They found his gun, registered to him. The rounds match the gun. He was wearing a fething shoulder holster. The bullets in him came from the cop. Sure, there were eyewitness inconsistencies, but that's human nature, there always will be. His best explanation is a SODDI defense? Don't make me laugh, man.

**hotsauceman1**

I agree with frazz, After so much evidence was that Mumu just shot a cop for pulling over his brother, to still say he is innocent is pants on head,

**Dreadclaw69**

easysauce wrote:
looked up this guy, and he wasnt exactly ... forced into it, he filed an amicus curiae after the initial trial, which is something done completely at his own behest.

from wiki
"Adegbile and other lawyers filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in 2009, arguing that the conviction was invalid because of racial discrimination in jury selection"

so lawyer freely stands up for a guy who killed a cop, on the grounds that the jury was racist.

now this same guy doesnt get the appointment, on the grounds that the senate is racist.

So it was not as though he was appointed as a public defender and just so happened to get this particular client.

**Peregrine**

I'm disappointed to see so many people who don't understand that the justice system only functions when everyone, no matter how much you might hate them or think that they deserve their punishment, is entitled to the best defense possible. And yes, in a country where racism still exists and biases juries, that includes questioning whether racism had an impact on the conviction and sentencing. There's something seriously wrong when merely defending the "wrong" person is enough to cast doubt on someone's professional qualifications.

And I'm also disappointed by the mindless police worship here. A "cop killer" is no worse than any other murderer, and we need to stop acting like anyone defending someone accused of that particular kind of murder is guilty of treason.

**Jihadin**

I'm disappointed to see so many people who don't understand that the justice system only functions when everyone, no matter how much you might hate them or think that they deserve their punishment, is entitled to the best defense possible. And yes, in a country where racism still exists and biases juries, that includes questioning whether racism had an impact on the conviction and sentencing. There's something seriously wrong when merely defending the "wrong" person is enough to cast doubt on someone's professional qualifications.

Stigma of helping a "Cop Killer" of avoiding "justice". I've nothing against the guy Reid though playing the race card was a bit much. People have spoken through their Reps to not nominate the Lawyer for the position.

**Ahtman**

You would probably be less disappointed in others if you read what they actually wrote and projected a little less about what you want to think they wrote. For instance, he was never denied a defense, and no one has claimed wasn't allowed one. The instance in question wasn't a lawyer defending the person as their counsel in court, but as a third party years later.

**Jihadin**

like 25 years later

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
like 25 years later

And the argument wasn't even very good. It wasn't that he should go free because he wasn't guilty, but that it was ok to shoot the cop back then because race relations were more problematic.

**Ouze**

Peregrine wrote:
I'm disappointed to see so many people who don't understand that the justice system only functions when everyone, no matter how much you might hate them or think that they deserve their punishment, is entitled to the best defense possible. And yes, in a country where racism still exists and biases juries, that includes questioning whether racism had an impact on the conviction and sentencing. There's something seriously wrong when merely defending the "wrong" person is enough to cast doubt on someone's professional qualifications.

And I'm also disappointed by the mindless police worship here. A "cop killer" is no worse than any other murderer, and we need to stop acting like anyone defending someone accused of that particular kind of murder is guilty of treason.

I will concede you the last point, but only that. The others have already been well covered.