Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
254 days ago.
by luvthesouth
Kendall78
#1

Forgetting history, a sin of the Republic

I was reading about the difficulty of Pres. Obama's pick getting the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division top position. His name is Debo Adegbile and the main criticism is that as a lawyer he defended a cop killer. Did Congress forget that everyone is entitled to a defense?

 
 

Member Comments

stickhauler

Again, NOBODY objected to him being a lawyer for the dude, the issue was they felt confirming a nominee that tried to claim racism in the jury makeup, would likely inject racism into most any case that came along if one was Black. This BS is becoming insane, we've already got an AG that decided to not punish the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in 2008. Want to bet he'd have thrown the book at White Conservatives who did the same? The defendants had already been found guilty of the crime, and were awaiting sentencing when Holder simply put them on probation, with the reminder they couldn't do it again until the 2012 election.

Posted 261 days ago.

stickhauler

I'd invite you to peruse the Wall Street Journal article of 24 February 2014 titled "Toomey and Williams The Justice Nominee and The Cop Killer." Mumia Abu-Jamal confessed to killing the cop, they also had eyewitnesses who testified that he said he hoped the cop died. This piece of slime has used his actions to become a celebrity, and his defense team have made a mockery of the Justice System. Nobody objected to Adegbile's defense of the killer, they objected to his judgement in continuing to assist the killer in the appeal process that has become a travesty at best, and outright disgusting to say the least. Do we really need a person so quick to play the "he got screwed cause he's Black" card in charge of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ? I say no!

Posted 262 days ago.

stickhauler

Defending a person accused of a crime is one thing. What he did was claim the guy's defense was rejected because of a racially biased jury. Big difference. Unless you subscribe to the belief that a person, tried and convicted of a crime, can then claim they were unjustly convicted by a prejudiced jury, instead of on the basis of the evidence offered.

Would you claim that a White person was wrongly convicted on the basis of jury makeup? Or, would you give the jury the benefit of doubt that they weighed the evidence offered, and found them guilty? I'd prefer to believe reasonable people don't convict criminals simply because they're a certain color.

Posted 262 days ago.

NasCarNut

19 hours and no answer, I'll keep checking back ;)

Posted 263 days ago.

Kendall78

"but to defend them because you support and agree with their crime or ideology is another."

Perhaps I missed it but where did the guy ever say it was ok that his client killed a cop?

Posted 264 days ago.

luvthesouth

BobBarker, that scenario wasn't the case.

Posted 264 days ago.

luvthesouth

defending someone because it is your job is one thing, but to defend them because you support and agree with their crime or ideology is another. this, in and of itself, should be consdered when someone is being nominated for a position of power.

Posted 264 days ago.

stickhauler

Simplifying his involvement with the case as "defending a cop killer" is being more than a little misleading. He signed off on an amicus brief on the killer's appeal, claiming jury selection was racially biased. Is that a defense? Or, as we see here on nearly a daily basis, an "excuse" used all too often to get controversy raging?

This wasn't a single party act, the leftist media is losing their collective minds, what little they have after defending this clown show in charge, that DEMOCRATS would are oppose any thing Obama wants. I see they successfully ignored his own party members opposing Obamacare. Or, they think enough time has passed that nobody remembers?

Posted 264 days ago.

stickhauler

Simplifying his involvement with the case as "defending a cop killer" is being more than a little misleading. He signed off on an amicus brief on the killer's appeal, claiming jury selection was racially biased. Is that a defense? Or, as we see here on nearly a daily basis, an "excuse" used all too often to get controversy raging?

This wasn't a single party act, the leftist media is losing their collective minds, what little they have after defending this clown show in charge, that DEMOCRATS would are oppose any thing Obama wants. I see they successfully ignored his own party members opposing Obamacare. Or, they think enough time has passed that nobody remembers?

Posted 264 days ago.

moderation

This is a characteristic of the 'right of center' syndrome.

Posted 266 days ago.

Bigfoot

Facts man...its the facts. They tend to get in the way of party dogma. Also seeing as how that little game started back in 09 to make Obama a one term president is still being played...well it doesn't take much digging to see the motivation behind anything Obama is doing being met with resistance.

Posted 266 days ago.

Kendall78

Here is the part about forgetting history. What would today's politicians say about the lawyer that defended the British troops that mercilessly committed the Boston Day Massacre? They would probably treat him like Mr. Adegbile.

But what's funny is they actually would call the lawyer a great American...why? Because he was John Adams who would go on to be this nation's 2nd President. He believed that everyone deserved the right to a good defense, yet they are punishing Adegbile for doing just that.

Posted 266 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or