|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Ok, this one has me so mad I can't even think straight. Your thoughts? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Hey Kerr, suck my no longer anonymous dick. You're not the supreme court, you don't get to decide how to interpret the Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights.
Speaking of, where the fuck is the supreme court?
|
ScottKuma reads a news report, and it "has [him} so mad!!! willravel asks, "where the fuck is the supreme court?"
...ScottKuma, how made would it make you, if you know what I've found out? willravel, the Supreme Court ain't comin' "to the rescue".
Why? For 30 years, ideological conservatives and politically strategizing conservative evangelical christians, have developed, funded, and executed a plan that brings us to where we find ourselves today.
The key players were the wealthy folks who backed Reagan's political campaigns, founded the Council for National Policy (CNP) and the Federalist Society, now thiry thousand plus conservative lawyers strong.
The same names appear and reappear, no matter who the republican candidates are, Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, Giuliani, or Romney.
Ted olson, James Bopp, Pat Roberston. (The latter two are CNP members...) Robertson's protege, Sekulow, is reported in a Chicago Tribune article (below, near bottom..) to have had enough influence to literally "select" Roberts and Alito.
Timothy Flanigan, now advising Romney on "The Constitution And The Courts", received attention from me in prior posts:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ed+politics%22
All of it is related, and the agenda is consolidation of power and control. The goal is to make the government and the courts objects of scorn from the POV of even those who formerly believed they offered solutions and justice.
Part of the agenda is to "demonize" the "have nots"...remember Reagan's "welfare queen driving a Cadillac"? They want your attention and your resentment focused on the powerless, the "have nots", as they consolidate the country's welath, one addtional percent at a time into their patrons' hands, until they are completely unaccountable, beyond the reach of the government and it's IRS and SEC, with the added "insurance" of a "unitary executive", to block efforts by the rest of us to use the government for our benefit, instead of them using it against us, for theirs.
Too many here, I'm startled by the number, post such resentment against "lazy people sucking off the government tit", while ignoring those who do the real damage, because they see the controlling parasites as the faction that they hope one day to be part of...."self made", virtuous example of American ingenuity and drive...deserving to keep it cuz I earned it. No illness, no setbacks. just naive ambtious crystal clear "vision", the best results of indoctrination that the RNC/CNP Ayn Rand "message" can buy.....
If it is so certain, so attainable, if "I work hard enough". how come just ten percent of American residents control 70 percent of total US assets?
If, as Time magazine reported in an article last month, the "Supreme Court is irrelevant", why are these people working so hard to gain overwhelming control of it?
There is nothing other to consider these people as, than fanatics. They care nothing about your rights, or about justice. I find them so repellent, I lean toward inept, clueless and objectionable democrats, only because they are not CNP, not Federalist Society, and not committed to eliminating women's rights to choose, and to jamb the ten commandments and the man on the cross, in our faces, and up our @sses.
Learn the names of the players and the organizations, understand that this is all part of the same thing. It's killing the country, and if it succeeds....what then?
<h3>Ask yourselves, who appointed the effing guy who testified that we have to hand over our prior anonynimity to the government and private business, and who does he, and the candidates who hope to replace him, take instruction from? Do you find ANY dissent or disagreement concerning the deliberate steps they've made towards making the US a police state, under "marshall law lite", because I don't.....</h3>
It's about intelligence gatheing against anticipated political and legal opposition. If they can look into everyone's records, background and communication, they can identify potential for opposition to their continued control of the apparatus of state, and preempt it.
Preemption is not only a policy to prevent future 9/11 attacks, it is about preempting all opposition to "the plan", as early after it is first perceived, as possible. I think the press knows this, and the corporate media owners are not adverse to <h3>this campaign to restore, and maintain "order in a post 9/11 world"!!!</h3>
Wouldn't a US press with "liberal bias", trumpet the news that newly sworn in Atty. General Micahel Mukasey is also a very close personal friend of Rudy Giuliani?
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...670489,00.html
The Incredibly Shrinking Court
Thursday, Oct. 11, 2007 By DAVID VON DREHLE
....In which case, no one should be surprised that Roberts has turned out to be an uncompromising conservative on a court split 4 to 4 on ideology, with a fifth conservative, Justice Anthony Kennedy, deciding case after case according to his own self-dramatizing muse. When Roberts was picked to be the nation's 17th Chief Justice, he talked a great deal about the need for the fractious court to find more coherence and common ground, to wage fewer ideological spats on the pages of unnecessary separate opinions. Some wondered if this was an offer on his part to split the difference between the rival camps, but no one wonders anymore. <h3>In two terms, Roberts has not taken a single position on a high-profile case that you would not expect a darling of the conservative Federalist Society to take.</h3>
Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2005, when Roberts was confirmed, was so annoyed by some of the Chief Justice's opinions last term that he threatened to investigate whether Roberts had misled the panel. But Roberts has told friends he stands by every word. <h3>He wasn't talking about compromising on ideological principles, he explains.</h3> He was talking about conducting disputes and expressing outcomes in the voice of a durable institution--not as nine voices of nine headstrong pundits.
So much for human wishes. Roberts, of all people, ought to have been more circumspect in trumpeting his plans to reform the vociferous court. His ambitions have so far been in vain. The warring factions of the Roberts court--and their pocked and smoking battlefields--have made his talk of self-effacing harmony seem obsolete. After a brief honeymoon of unanimous opinions in obscure cases, it is the same four Justices on the right and the same four on the left in one high-profile case after another, with Kennedy determining the law. Bombast, rhetorical excess and dueling opinions are thick as Pompeian ash.
Yet there is something strange about all this heat and division. As the dust rises and the opinions, concurrences and dissents pile up, the court turns its attention to ever smaller cases related to ever narrower points of law. There is, it seems, an inverse relationship between the passions expressed in judicial writings and the import of the cases that inspire them. In the midst of these battles, no one seems to have noticed that the stakes have diminished. This trend--a steady shrinking of the judicial role in public policy and a handing over of issues to the states--is consistent with Roberts' conservative philosophy. And it points to an obvious question about the highest court in the land. How much does the Supreme Court matter anymore?
The Incredible Shrinking Court
<h3>The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans.</h3> The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend. His speeches on the judicial role suggest a man more interested in the steady retreat of the court from public policy than in a right-wing revolution. Unless the Roberts court umpires another disputed presidential election (à la Bush v. Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the least), the left-right division will matter mainly in the realm of theories and rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law professors and political activists but remote from day-to-day existence. What once was salient is now mostly symbolic.....
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670489-2,00.html">(2 of 4)</a>
A single death-penalty decision, Furman v. Georgia, in 1972 struck down more than 30 state laws and spared some 600 prisoners. This year the Roberts court will hear a case asking whether death is an excessive punishment for the rapist of a child. There is only one such prisoner on death row in the U.S.
Of course, symbols matter. Court cases dealing with Executive power over Guantánamo detainees will directly affect relatively few people, but such cases help strike the philosophical balance between security and human rights that is relevant to the entire nation and to America's place in the world. As Harvard professor Frederick Schauer pointed out in an influential recent law-review article, however, "most of the court's agenda lies some distance from the nation's." Compounding this is the fact that the court is tackling fewer cases than at any other time in the past half-century. Last term's output of just 68 decisions was the lowest since 1953. Court watchers and even the Justices themselves aren't sure why the docket is so small. Nor do the Justices have a plan for picking up the pace. The U.S. is the world's most litigious society, but our
lawsuits aren't sexy enough to interest the Justices of the Roberts Court. We're not that into them, and they're not that into us....
|
Quote:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/def...oId=24570#time
Countering TIME on the Court's Relevance to Americans
TIME magazine’s cover story this week told Americans they don't need to care about the Supreme Court because its decisions don’t make a difference in most people’s lives. That premise is just wrong, as the letter we submitted to TIME makes clear (see below). It’s also pretty astonishing to have that article appear the very same week that the GOP presidential candidates will appear before right-wing activists and the so-called "Values Voter Summit" <h3>and enthusiastically pledge to put more Justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas on the Court — and cement for a generation the right-wing trends that are undermining Americans’ legal rights and protections.</h3>
To the Editor:
David Von Drehle ("The Incredibly Shrinking Court") claims the Supreme Court is less relevant to Americans because its cases now involve narrow legal issues and few people. This is simply not so. Von Drehle’s example, last June's 5-4 decision in which the Court invalidated voluntary school integration programs in Seattle and Louisville, may have directly involved "at most a few hundred students," as he claims, but now school districts across the country are struggling to find ways of achieving racial diversity in schools without running afoul of the new Court majority.
In another 5-4 ruling, the majority held that Goodyear Tire worker Lilly Ledbetter, who was subjected to sex-based pay discrimination for years, was not entitled to compensation because she filed her suit too late. It would be wrong to say this ruling affected only one person. The legal rules handed down in this cramped interpretation of civil rights law will keep anyone in similar circumstances from having her day in court.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what our Constitution means and how our laws are applied. And at a time when the President claims the power to override the Constitution, and bullies Congress into violating Americans’ rights and legal protections, the Supreme Court’s role as a check and balance to the exercise of executive and legislative power is particularly important to all Americans.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Schaeffer
Legal Director
|
Quote:
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/news/pr/447
Rudy Giuliani Campaign Unveils Justice Advisory Committee
Jul 16th
The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee today unveiled the members of Rudy Giuliani’s Justice Advisory Committee. Former Solicitor General of the United States Ted Olson will serve as Chairman.
The Committee is comprised of some of America’s leading conservative scholars and practicing attorneys, many of whom Rudy Giuliani has known since his time serving as Associate Attorney General in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department. Members include former Assistant to the Solicitor General Miguel Estrada, Co-founder of the Federalist Society Steven Calabresi and former Deputy Attorney General of the United States Larry Thompson.
<h3>“Rudy Giuliani believes in limited government, individual liberty and interpreting the Constitution the way its framers intended,” said Ted Olson</h3>, former Solicitor General of the United States and Chairman of the Justice Advisory Committee. “He understands that we need judges who interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. Rudy Giuliani will appoint strict constructionist judges who share that philosophy.”....
|
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...671089,00.html
Widow blames US officials for Guatemala dirty war death
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Thursday March 21, 2002
The Guardian
.........The US knew at the time of her husband's kidnapping who had carried it out but, Ms Harbury says, it chose to tell her that it had no information.
The government's lawyers argue that the case should not proceed, on the grounds that government officials are entitled to give misleading information.
<h3>"There are lots of different situations when the government has legitimate reasons to give out false information,"</h3> the solicitor general, Theodore Olson, told the supreme court this week. .............
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
The Two Theodore Olsons
Although Conservatives Love Him, Some Doubt Solicitor General Nominee's Candor
By Robert G. Kaiser and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 17, 2001; Page A01
...........Olson has done legal work for Ronald Reagan, Monica Lewinsky and Jonathan Pollard, an American who spied for Israel. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, and won several historic ones, most notably last year's Bush v. Gore..............
...............He has been not only an architect of the conservative legal movement but a significant political player as well, advising Paula Jones's legal team when she sued President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, and defending his friend Kenneth W. Starr during the Whitewater investigation...............
...............Olson's nomination was held up at the Judiciary Committee last week, after Democrats expressed concern that the nominee was less than candid in testimony about his role with the American Spectator magazine and its "Arkansas Project," a $2.3 million effort to report on Bill and Hillary Clinton that was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, a conservative philanthropist..................
................Fifteen years ago, Justice Department lawyers found "significant evidence" that Olson had given carefully worded testimony to Congress that "was knowingly false." An independent counsel cleared him of criminal wrongdoing in that episode...............
................ Olson and his wife, Barbara, have made no secret of their political predilections. Barbara Olson worked for House Republicans investigating Clinton, became a prominent anti-Clinton television commentator and wrote a gleefully hostile bestseller about Hillary Clinton, "Hell to Pay."
Olson himself wrote a long article for American Spectator denouncing Janet Reno's Justice Department as politically corrupt, and co-authored an article for the magazine enumerating, with sarcasm, the federal and Arkansas laws the Clintons might have violated. When R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the Spectator's combative editor, got married in 1998, Olson was his best man. ...............
Quote:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/074...t,78212,6.html
'No Skeletons in My Closet!'
Oh yeah? How Michael Mukasey and Bernie Kerik are haunting Rudy's run.
by Wayne Barrett
October 30th, 2007 5:57 PM
...The question for Mukasey is not what he'll do at Justice for the soon-to-be- departing Republican president, but what he'll do for the putative next one, <h3>his lifelong friend Rudy Giuliani</h3>. Mukasey and Giuliani were young federal prosecutors together in the early 1970s and then practiced at the same Manhattan law firm, Patterson Belknap, where Mukasey returned in 2006 when he retired after 18 years on the federal bench in New York. Giuliani chose Mukasey to swear him in at his inaugurals in 1994 and 1998....
|
|
Quote:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press...itution_Courts
Governor Mitt Romney Announces The Advisory Committee On The Constitution And The Courts
Tuesday, Oct 02, 2007
Co-Chairs Of The Advisory Committee On The Constitution And The Courts:
- Douglas W. Kmiec – Caruso Family Chair & Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University; Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
....Members Of The Advisory Committee On The Constitution And The Courts:
...- Bradford A. Berenson – Partner, Sidley Austin LLP; Former Associate White House Counsel to President George W. Bush; Law Clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; <h3>Chairman, The Federalist Society</h3>, Executive Committee of the Criminal Law and Procedure Practice Group
<h3>...- James Bopp, Jr. – Partner, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom; General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech; Special Adviser on Life Issues to Governor Mitt Romney</h3>
...- Timothy Flanigan – Former General Counsel, Corporate and International Law, Tyco International; Former Deputy White House Counsel to President George W. Bush; Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, for President George H.W. Bush; Law Clerk to the Honorable Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States
...- Allyson Ho – Baker Botts; Former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Counselor to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft; Law Clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the Supreme Court of the United States
<h3>...- Jay Sekulow – Constitutional Law and Supreme Court Advocate</h3>
Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6757620.story
or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
Legal groups putting God on the docket
By Lisa Anderson | Tribune national correspondent
September 5, 2007
.....Far fewer know of the American Center for Law and Justice, a leader in the flourishing field of Christian legal advocacy that may be less famous but is no less determined to see its views prevail in the nation's courts and, ultimately, its culture.
<h3>The best-financed and highest profile of these conservative Christian legal groups, the ACLJ, headed by aggressive chief counsel Jay Sekulow</h3>, has led the way in transforming the complaints of the religious right from raucous protests on the courthouse steps to polished presentations inside the highest courts in the land.
<h3>...Founded by televangelist Pat Robertson in 1990, the ACLJ has an annual budget of $35 million and employs about 130 people, including 37 lawyers, around the world, Sekulow said.</h3>
"They're a very, very significant player in constitutional law, particularly regarding the 1st Amendment," said Barry Lynn, executive director of the non-profit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who often has crossed swords with Sekulow....
Sekulow, he said, "had this very clever idea of using what might be called religious arguments in the past and transforming them into free-speech arguments. So children who want to engage in religious speech in a public school are engaging in a free-speech right, not a free-exercise-of-religion right."
...."Those are newer kinds of cases," said Sekulow, sitting in the ACLJ's headquarters, an elegant 19th Century blue brick townhouse across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court. "You really don't see the pro-life protests on the courthouse square or in front of the abortion clinic. Now it's more these kinds of cases. Nuanced. There's federal legislation involved in this. There's state legislation. There's state regulatory issues. It's Title VII. So it's much more nuanced."
At 51, Sekulow cuts a distinctive figure in the Christian legal fold, not just because he is a sharp legal strategist who eschews emotional or religious arguments but also because he is a Brooklyn-born Jewish convert to Christianity, or a "Messianic Jew," as he puts it. In fact, in the first of the 12 cases he has argued before the Supreme Court, he won a unanimous ruling in 1987 that members of Jews for Jesus had the constitutional right to distribute religious literature in Los Angeles airport terminals.
Moreover, in recent years Sekulow has achieved a significant measure of political influence; he is consulted by the Bush administration on the choice of judges.
<h3>Responsible for Roberts
"He is, I think, more responsible than any other person for John Roberts being chief justice," said Peter Irons, a constitutional scholar, civil liberties lawyer and author of the recently published "God On Trial: Dispatches From America's Religious Battlefields."</h3>
Sekulow said he was invited soon after President Bush took office to join what came to be called "the four horsemen." The group, which also included former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and former Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese, <h3>was formed "to be a kind of outside counsel on the judicial nomination issues, particularly the Supreme Court," Sekulow said. He also worked on the nomination to the Supreme Court of Samuel Alito, which the ACLU strongly opposed. Alito took the bench in 2006.</h3>
In many ways, the ACLJ represents the conservative mirror image of the American Civil Liberties Union, the 87-year-old non-profit group that many on the political and religious right love to hate for its rigorous insistence on the separation between church and state.
Although those words do not appear in the Constitution, that is the common interpretation of the 1st Amendment's clause banning government establishment of religion. Many conservative Christians take issue with that, including Bill Saunders, human-rights counsel at the Family Research Council, which promotes conservative family values and a Judeo-Christian view of the world.
"Free expression means the government should accommodate religious expression, not be hostile to it," said Saunders, who believes that groups like the ACLJ are needed to defend religious freedom.
<h3>Televangelist Robertson envisioned the ACLJ as a counterweight</h3> to what he, and many other Christian conservative leaders, describe as the ACLU's liberal, anti-faith stance and its threat to the presence of religion and the freedom to practice it in the public square.
"That is a grotesque -- word carefully chosen -- misrepresentation. When they say 'public square,' it's really 'government-sponsored,'" said Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief....
|
|
Note that James Bopp, Jr. is in "Mitt's corner", (see above...)
I posted about James Bopp, just last week:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...pp#post2337826
Quote:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17532.html
Was campaigning against voter fraud a Republican ploy?
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
* Posted on Sunday, July 1, 2007
........Rogers, a former general counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party and a candidate to replace Iglesias, is among a number of well-connected GOP partisans whose work with the legislative fund and a sister group played a significant role in the party's effort to retain control of Congress in the 2006 election.
That strategy, which presidential adviser Karl Rove alluded to in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougher ID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely to vote Democratic.
McClatchy Newspapers has found that this election strategy was active on at least three fronts:
* Tax-exempt groups such as the American Center and <h3>the Lawyers Association</h3> were deployed in battleground states to press for restrictive ID laws and oversee balloting.
* The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division turned traditional voting rights enforcement upside down with legal policies that narrowed rather than protected the rights of minorities.
* The White House and the Justice Department encouraged selected U.S. attorneys to bring voter fraud prosecutions, despite studies showing that election fraud isn't a widespread problem.
Nowhere was the breadth of these actions more obvious than at the American Center for Voting Rights and its legislative fund.
Public records show that the two nonprofits were active in at least nine states. They hired high-priced lawyers to write court briefs, issued news releases declaring key cities "hot spots" for voter fraud and hired lobbyists in Missouri and Pennsylvania to win support for photo ID laws. In each of those states, the center released polls that it claimed found that minorities prefer tougher ID laws.
Armed with $1.5 million in combined funding, the two nonprofits attracted some powerful volunteers and a cadre of high-priced lawyers.
Of the 15 individuals affiliated with the two groups, at least seven are members of <h3>the Republican National Lawyers Association</h3>, and half a dozen have worked for either one Bush election campaign or for <h3>the Republican National Committee.</h3>
Alex Vogel, a former RNC lawyer whose consulting firm was paid $75,000 for several months' service as the center’s executive director, said the funding came from private donors, not from the Republican Party.
One target of the American Center was the liberal-leaning voter registration group called Project Vote, a GOP nemesis that registered 1.5 million voters in 2004 and 2006. The center trumpeted allegations that Project Vote's main contractor, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), submitted phony registration forms to boost Democratic voting.
In a controversial move, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City announced indictments against four ACORN workers five days before the 2006 election, despite the fact that Justice Department policy discourages such action close to an election. Acorn officials had notified the federal officials when they noticed the doctored forms.
<h3>"Their job was to confuse the public about voter fraud and offer bogus solutions to the problem," said Michael Slater</h3>, the deputy director of Project Vote, "And like the Tobacco Institute, they relied on deception and faulty research to advance the interests of their clients."
Mark "Thor" Hearne, a St. Louis lawyer and former national counsel for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, is widely considered the driving force behind the organizations. Vogel described him as "clearly the one in charge."
<h3>Hearne, who also was a vice president and director of election operations for the Republican Lawyers Association</h3>, said he couldn't discuss the organizations because they're former clients.
But in an e-mail exchange, he defended the need for photo IDs. "Requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote as a safeguard against vote fraud and as a measure to increase public confidence in the fairness and honesty of our elections is not some Republican voter suppression effort," Hearne said.
Hearne called photo IDs "an important voice in election reform."
Hearne and Rogers appeared at separate hearings before the House Administration Committee last year in Ohio and New Mexico. They cited reports of thousands of dead people on voter registration rolls, fraudulent registrations and other election fraud schemes.
As proof, Hearne, offered a 28-page "investigative report" on Ohio events in the 2004 election, and then publicly sent a copy to the Justice Department, citing "substantial evidence to suggest potential criminal wrongdoing."
So far, no charges have been filed.
Earlier, in August 2005, the Legislative Fund issued a string of press releases naming five cities as the nation's top "hot spots" for voter fraud. Philadelphia was tagged as No. 1, followed by Milwaukee, Seattle, St. Louis and Cleveland.
With a push from the center's lobbyists, legislatures in Missouri and Pennsylvania passed photo ID laws last year. Missouri's law was thrown out by the state Supreme Court, and Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell vetoed the Pennsylvania bill.
In an interview with the federal Election Assistance Commission last year, two Pennsylvania officials said they knew of no instances of voter identity fraud or voter registration fraud in the state.
<h3>Amid the controversy, the American Center for Voting Rights shuttered its Internet site on St. Patrick's Day, and the two nonprofits appear to have vanished.
But their influence could linger.</h3>
One of the directors of the American Center, <h3>Cameron Quinn, who lists her membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association on her resume</h3>, was appointed last year as the voting counsel for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
The division <h2>is charged with policing elections and guarding against discrimination against minorities.</h2>
|
...and here's an example resume:
Quote:
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/Do...BoppResume.pdf
JAMES BOPP, JR., ESQ.
CIVIC ACTIVITIES
March 22, 2007
Page 7
Indiana Coordinator:
Citizen Review Committee, International Women’s Year
Indiana Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, July 16, 1977
National Conference, Houston, Texas, November 18, 1977
National Pro-family Coalition on the White House Conference on Families, 1980
Member:
National Institute of Family & Life Advocates, National Advisory Board, 1993 - Present
<h2>Council for National Policy</h2>
March 22, 2007
Page 9
Other Positions:
<h3>Republican National Lawyers Association
Board of Governors, 2002 - present</h3>
Advisory Council, 2004 - present
Republican Victory Committee, Chairman, 2000
National Republican Pro-life Committee, Inc.
Board of Directors, 1983 - 1991
Vice Chairman, 1984 - 1991
1984 National Republican Convention Committee
1980 National Republican Convention Committee
Presenter:
Republican National Lawyers Association, 2004 National Summer Election Law Seminar &
School, Milwaukee, Wisc., July 16-17, 2004
Indiana Republican State Committee, Congress of Counties, Indianapolis, IN, February 27, 2004
Indiana Chapter, Republican National Lawyers Association, Indianapolis, IN, February 19, 2004
Republican National Lawyers Association, National Summer Election School, Irvine, California,
August 8-9, 2003
Republican National Lawyers Association, 2003 National Conference, Washington, D.C., March
21, 2003
Republican National Lawyers Association, 2002 National Election Law School, San Antonio,
Texas, August 16-17, 2002
Republican National Committee, Midwest Leadership Conference, Springfield, Mo., September
11, 1993
Indiana Republican State Committee, Congress of Counties, Indianapolis, Indiana, February 10,
|
...and here is James Bopp ranting away in a column at townhall.com:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...ngold-thompson
townhall.com is owned by Salem Comm. The two top officers of Salem Comm. are CNP members
Quote:
Stuart Epperson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stuart W. Epperson is co-founder and chairman of Salem Communications, and a member of the conservative Council for National Policy ("CNP"). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Epperson
|
In our example, James Bopp is a CNP member and "Republican National Lawyers Association
Board of Governors, 2002 - present"....he is a Republican national committee official:
Quote:
GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: State Details - IN
Mr. James Bopp Jr. Present. National Committeeman, Indiana Republican State ... Republican National Convention, 2000; RNC Standing Committee on Rules, 1997- ...
www.gop.com/States/LinkRedirect.aspx?state=IN
|
James Bopp, until recently was also general counsel of the NRLC:
Quote:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...%3D48509&cid=0
National Right to Life Committee Defends Brownback's Talks With ...
Kaiser network.org, DC - Oct 30, 2007
The letter was sent after James Bopp -- general counsel for NRLC and a prominent legal advocate for conservative antiabortion groups -- criticized Brownback
|
|
The point????? The point is that it is impossible to tell where the christian fundamentalist propaganda machine ends, and the republican party begins.
James Bopp is on the board of governors of the republican lawyers assoc. that McClatchey News reported was behind an elaborate plot to disinform about voter fraud in order to take the DOJ civil rights enforcement division out of the business of protecting minority voting rights.
Bopp is also a member of the secretive CNP, the group that candidate GW Bush gave a secret speech to, in the same series of Oct., 1999 meetings.....
Last edited by host; 11-13-2007 at 01:51 AM..
|