Quantcast

Comments about ‘Senate defeats Obama in Justice nod’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, March 6 2014 9:50 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It's unfathomable that the administration would even nominate this guy (with his controversial background).

Obviously they thought it would make their base happy... I can't imagine anybody being happy he was nominated. I'm glad Democrats sent this message.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...stunning..."?

The summary uses the word stunning.

Nowhere in the body of the piece is the word stunning supported by any information.

Stunning simply reflects unsupported hyperbole.

What is stunning is The Republican Minority Leaders complete abdication of the rule of law.

All citizens of the United States of America are entitled to representation.

The slippery slope The Republican Minority Leader is embracing is stunning.

No matter how unsavory the accused...that person is entitled to counsel.

When 52 elected Representatives vote to exclude a nominee's appointment based on one case of representation...the vote speaks to something other than the nominee's fitness for office.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

So, now the question becomes, will there be a 2nd vote on this guy later? From what I understand Harry Reid pulled some manuever that leaves another vote open. And if there is a 2nd vote, what kind of arm twisting would it take to get some of these Democrat Senators to change. And, there is always the "recess appointment" option open to the President to sit this guy when the Senate is not in session. I understand Obama is really mad about this, and he might try for pay back. Would Obama do that when it might put some vulnerable Democrats Senators who are up for re-election this year in the position of having to vote again on this nominee? If Obama is smart he will just let this drop and be forgotten. But if he is mad enough he will continue the fight. Can't wait to see what happens.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

From the article...
"Debo P. Adegbile, was the litigation director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund when it represented Mumia Abu-Jamal who brutally murdered a Philadelphia police officer more than a decade ago".

This is the key problem I have with Obama's nominee. He very vocally supported a cop killer. That's a problem.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

There You Go Again

It wasn't just that Adegbile defended this cop killer. He was one of the campaigners on the streets protesting the conviction of Abu Jamal. Saying that he was being framed and was a political prisoner, and saying things like America was an unjust country and minorities don't get justice, white power structure ect. In other words, putting this guy in charge of every Americans civil liberties would be like putting Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in charge. There is way too much bias going on to begin with. Or maybe from your perspective, like putting a strongly anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, person in as a civil rights attorney. And if the Democrats had held ground, this guy would have been confirmed. So, ask why several Democrats did not vote for him.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Surprising, that the Senate has been in the news at all. It's the first time I've read they have done any thing.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

@m.g.scott

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Your comment...

"...It wasn't just that Adegbile defended this cop killer. He was one of the campaigners on the streets protesting the conviction of Abu Jamal. Saying that he was being framed and was a political prisoner, and saying things like America was an unjust country and minorities don't get justice, white power structure ect...."

Your opinion is not supported by any of the citations in the DN piece.

However, a quote from one of the sources listed in the DN piece read...

"...It's not as if there aren't other prominent figures in government who have had unpopular clients in the past. Representing a murderer in court didn't derail the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Roberts once devoted 25 pro bono hours to the case of John Errol Ferguson, who killed eight people and was one of the worst mass murderers in Florida's history..."

Yet Roberts is now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

No problem with Republican nominee John Roberts representing a mass murderer?

Big problem with President Obama's nominee?

I stand by my 10:54 a.m. comment.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

How is this an editorial piece? Does it then license the use of the word 'stunning'? There was an article in DN a few days ago about 'how to get an op-ed published' or something like that. I guess one way is to take a news story about something negative about the president and add hyperbole. Voila! Editorial.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

There You Go Again,
There's a difference between representing a client (lawyers often have to represent someone who's a cop killer or a mass murderer)... and personally supporting and vocally excusing what someone did (after they are convicted).

He was very supportive of this convicted cop-killer (not just as his lawyer, but supporting what he did, or at least thinking he shouldn't get prison time for killing a cop).

There's a big difference.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

@2 bits

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

"...personally supporting and vocally excusing what someone did (after they are convicted)...".

Please provide the source for this quote.

"...He was very supportive of this convicted cop-killer (not just as his lawyer, but supporting what he did, or at least thinking he shouldn't get prison time for killing a cop)...".

Please provide the source for your comment.

Without a viable source...such as those provided by the DN...your comments cannot be verified.

From the sources provided by the DN...

This crime was committed in 1981.

This convicted murderer has served 33 years of a life sentence.

The issue was not one of guilt or innocence.

"...Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said the organization did not become involved in the Abu-Jamal case until it filed a friend of the court brief on the removal of African-Americans from the jury in 2006. Mr. Adegbile's name did not appear on a brief until 2008, and the fund did not become directly involved in the Abu-Jamal defense until 2011...".

I stand by my 10:54 a.m. comment as well as my comment at 1:30 p.m..

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

He was active in the "Free Mumia" movement (not just as a lawyer).

This from wikipedia...

"Debo Patrick Adegbile (born 1966) is a lawyer best known for working for the the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, during which time the organization advocated on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal".

Pay special attention to... "Organized and Advocated on behalf of"...

That's not being his legal councel. It's "Advocating" and "Organizing" on behalf of a cop-killer. There's a difference.

Your layer will represent you in court. An advocate will promote your cause in public. That was his role (advocate and organizer of the "Free Mumia" movement)...

===

A person who advocates and organizes on behalf of a cop-killer... is not right for the position (IMO). And thankfully not the right person in the mind of many Democrats (fortunately because Obama thought he was a good nominee).

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@2bits
"I can't imagine anybody being happy he was nominated."

I haven't heard of a good reason why he shouldn't be nominated. Because he was an attorney for a cop-killer? John Adams was the lawyer for the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. It's a fundamental principle of this nation that those who stand accused of crimes should have a fair trial. So I don't see why this should be a disqualifier.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

There You Go.... and Schnee

2 bit made most of the relevent points, but to add. My understanding of this case is way beyond anything in the DN article. Reason, I watched FOX News and they showed this guy in his true colors, not the whitewashed (no pun intended) version the White House and others would have us believe. If you don't watch FOX, you miss a lot of really important information that is left out of much of mainstream news broadcasts. Now, like I said before. If someone was nominated to be a civil rights attorney for the whole country and had a record of being anti same sex marriage, anti abortion, anti union, pro school vouchers, ect. ect. AND, had actively campaigned for those positions, don't you think the Democrats and liberals would be fit to be tied? Of course they would. Well, welcome to our side and point of view. That's how we on the right see this guy. It goes way beyond who he defended in court.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

@ 2 bit

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments.

Your comment...

"...the organization advocated...".

Exactly.

Organizations are designed to be advocates.

"..."Advocating" and "Organizing" on behalf of a cop killer...".

Adegbile was an attorney for the NAACP Defense Fund.

There is no evidence from the Wiki reference that he was organizing and advocating anything.

He represented the defendant based upon an issue related to jury selection.

From the Wiki reference...

"...Adegbile currently is a senior counsel on the staff of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary...".

Why did you neglect to include that information in your 3:13 p.m. comment?

I stand by my comments at 10:54; 1:30 p.m. and 2:52 p.m..

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@m.g.scott
"If someone was nominated to be a civil rights attorney for the whole country and had a record of being anti same sex marriage, anti abortion, anti union, pro school vouchers, ect. ect. AND, had actively campaigned for those positions, don't you think the Democrats and liberals would be fit to be tied? Of course they would. Well, welcome to our side and point of view. That's how we on the right see this guy."

Considering how conservatives filibustered pretty much anyone Obama ever put up for nomination, conservative opposition based on record would actually be a refreshing change of pace.

the truth
Holladay, UT

Once again the left wants their side treated differently,

but as you can see...

You can exercise your free speech, in this case defending a cop killer,
Bit you are not free from the consequences of that speech, the senate turns down your confirmation.

As the extreme left is always reminding us, you have free speech but you are not free from the consequences of that speech

Yes extreme left it goes both ways, and it cuts both ways.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

So far, m.g. scott's comments seem the most accurate and relevent. I appreciate tame discussion, but the only cases I've seen in favor of this nominee thus far have been detractions or wordplay. For instance, a lawyer "advocates" on behalf of their client in court. To protest in his favor after they have been found guily of something heinous is an entirely different sense of the word "advocate".

And to repeat a previously stated point; If this were merely partisan, conservatives vs. liberals or Republicans vs. Democrats, the latter could've easily pushed it through with the majority bullying they've established. The fact is that they, representing their states, didn't.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

2 bits,
NOTHING is unfathomable with this misadministration.

Hutterite,
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I believe it is an editorial piece because it gives the reactions of other media sources, most of which are extremely liberal, like the huffpost, NYT, etc. I cannot call them news sources because of their clearly evident, extreme bias. And no, I do not watch FOX news or listen to talk radio. You may find that hard to believe, but it’s the truth.

Schnee,
I think your post came too soon after 2 bits’s post at 3:13, which I think clearly distinguishes John Adams’s actions from those of this nominee.

There you go.
No one so blind as he who will not see.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

" That was his role (advocate and organizer of the "Free Mumia" movement)..."

This is just blatantly false. I've just spent and hour and a half trying to find any evidence of this claim and there is none. Even the leader of the Republican movement Chuck Grassley who puts out a multiple point opposition statement never makes this claim. As best as I can see it simply comes from Ted Cruz and then propagated by Fox News.

Parse the word advocate all you want but there is no evidence to support the fact that it means any other legal work in this case. Work that was successful and supported by the Supreme Court.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

Obama's nominee demonstrated that he is a court room advocate, which is as it should be. But, he is also an activist outside of the court room which compromises his ability to be unbiased as a judge. He is better left to tasks that he can promote without the necessity of being objective.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments