A federal judge ordered the Tangipahoa Parish School Board this week to hire qualified black applicants for administrative positions until 40 percent of these positions are held by black educators, court records show.

Blacks make up only 29% of Tangipahoa Parish’s population.

Lemelle has imposed his racial preferences from the bench before:

Last year, Lemelle ordered the School Board to hire a black coach who had been passed over for a job opening at Amite High School.

Say a candidate for an administrative job in the schools of Lemelle’s fiefdom has no qualifications whatsoever other than the one that matters, black skin. The superintendent can refuse to recommend him, but…

If the superintendent does not recommend a black applicant for a position, he must submit written reasons to a committee made up of the chief desegregation plan implementation officer, director of personnel and minority recruitment officer.

This committee then may interview the rejected applicant and decide whether to recommend that person to the School Board anyway.

The objective of course is “diversity” — that is, naked anti-Caucasian racism.

On a tip from Andrea. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A sampling of those from Jay’s post from last night: Smack Down of Obama Administration on KSM Trial Decision

And guess who celebrates this as some sort of victory for “justice?”

It’s no secret that the greatest threats to America on the international stage can depend on the ACLU’s extended hand of friendship. The ACLU, as the most dangerous threat to this country from within, has long been writhing around passionately with every enemy of this country like mating slugs at the end of a mucus thread. That the ACLU cheers this latest attack on American national security is no surprise. After all, they are up to their ear holes in making sure KSM and Da Boyz get sprung, although the MSM seems to be ignoring the ACLU role. Jay wrote last year at PJM about the execrable “John Adams Project” that undoubtedly played a lead role in securing three hots and a cot for KSM while he awaits his circus trial:

The ACLU has launched an initiative called the “John Adams Project.”…What is it? In a nutshell, the ACLU has assembled a “Dream Team” of attorneys with an $8.5 million budget to defend terrorists currently held at Guantanamo. Who’s the primary object of the ACLU’s affection? Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The ACLU, true to form, impugns the professionalism and competence of men and women of infinitely more honor than their accusers by referring to tribunals as “kangaroo courts.” But could the ACLU really be so scandalized that this mass murderer will stand before a military tribunal? Could the ACLU truly be standing up for his “fundamental rights?”

What is the true purpose of a multi-million-dollar campaign to get KSM off the hook?

The ACLU explains: “The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed’s defense, Romero said, because he appears to be “the government’s top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.”

So that’s it. The ACLU wants to set KSM and 300 other terrorists free or at least make it impossible for the tribunals to serve their function. Because KSM is the worst of the worst, because he is the terrorist in custody most responsible for 9/11, the ACLU is his champion.
This PR stunt can only serve to undermine American credibility by creating the illusion – sure to be propagated by the mass media – that mass killers are somehow being denied “justice.” Think our enemies don’t appreciate the ACLU’s efforts on their behalf – on both legal and the PR fronts? Clearly, this will leave America more vulnerable to attack.

So is it really any surprise that the ACLU would be reaching around to pat itself on the back yesterday?

NEW YORK – In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions. However, the administration will also announce that it will continue to use the illegitimate military commissions system to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, including the defendant accused in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks and other military commissions defendants. The Guantánamo military commissions proceedings have been plagued from the start with legal challenges and international condemnation due to their disregard for basic due process rights.

“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.”

This just didn’t seem to smell right, so I ran it through Babel Fish (translating from ACLUgandan to English) and here’s what came out:

BIZARRO CITY – In a major legal and propaganda victory for al Qaeda, the Obama administration will announce today that the five demented killers represented by the John Alan Muhammad Memorial Project who were responsible for the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans will await acquittal in federal court by Leftists in New York rather than standing before the incompetent troglodytes who “serve” our country in the Armed Forces…The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint conspiracy with the National Association of Criminals Disguised as Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals who’ve blessed us with the glorious 9/11 holiday. The Guantánamo military commissions are staffed by drooling fools in odd uniforms with weird oak leaves, eagles and stars on their shoulders and collars and who are despised by our international comrades.
“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for al Qaeda and is sure to threaten our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve, but we think should be applied to international terrorists, who until now have never in history been granted the constitutional rights that were once reserved for American citizens. It would have been an enormous blow to ACLU self-esteem and fundraising if we had tried these murderous thugs in a process that actually would have resulted in justice being done,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some terrorists using those idiots with really short haircuts. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves willing to advance the ACLU agenda — truth, justice and national security be damned. This has us just tickled pink.”

As diabolical as this latest move by the Obamanable Administration is, even more demented is the symbolism of trying Mohammed mere steps away from the site of the greatest act of evil — an act of war, not the street crime the Obamanable Administration is treating it like — ever committed against America on our own soil. Miles, or even blocks, away from the husbands, wives, children, mothers and fathers who were left behind to mourn because of the act of terrorism directed by the very man who has now been extended all the protections of the American constitutional system by virtue of nothing but robbing so many innocent AMERICANS of the same, forever.

Say KSM goes free…the blood of all those innocents murdered, on 9/11 and by those aspiring future Islamist killers emboldened by our manifest lack of will and strength, will be splattered and smeared all over the walls of ACLU headquarters.

Update by Lobo: Just a point I want to get covered, but not enough for a post of its own.

The military commissions are obviously constitutional because Congress instituted them and that power is vested in them.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Congress set up the Commissions for the express purpose of trying enemy combatants. I can not find any vested power in the Executive branch to order ECs tried in federal courts.

I do find it amusingly ironic that for 8 years, liberals screeched about the US going into foreign countries and forcing “democracy” on it and now their leader is ordering foreign enemies be brought into a country they hate, filled with people they want to kill, and force a democracy they despise, on them.

You might want to check out a point that Levin made. (I couldn’t get to it from Google search and could backout)

he said something to the effect that the combatants weren’t “mirandized” and that will create a technicality right from the get go. I’d be willing to bet that Obama is counting on that one!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A Phoenix ordinance banning charity dining halls in residential neighborhoods withstood a challenge by a north-central Phoenix church.

Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran, serving as a hearing officer, ruled Monday that feeding the homeless at a place of worship can be banned by city ordinance. The decision affects all Phoenix churches with underlying residential zoning.

Over the summer, city officials maintained that CrossRoads United Methodist Church, 7901 N. Central Ave., violated Phoenix zoning code by feeding the poor and homeless on its property, a use that can only occur in commercial or industrial zones. City officials said the decision is effective immediately.

Amazing, eh? Rather then say “thank you for helping these people out,” and perhaps changing the ordinance, Phoenix decided the best thing to do was be typical government weenies. There was a time when most charity and help came from churches and individuals. People with compassion. Now said charity can only come from certain legal restrictions. Bet it makes the homeless feel great. Where is the ACLU when you need them to stand up for the rights of citizens and the downtrodden?

Oh, there they are. They’re suing government leaders, including Charlie Crist, in Florida due to the pathetic state of the government run schools. Visibly absent from the suit are the teacher’s unions.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The ruling by the court in Strasbourg, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls — a common sight that is part of every Italian’s life — could disturb children who were not Christians.

That is, Muslim colonists might not like that Italy has been a Christian country since Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.

Even some commies are aghast:

Paola Binetti, a Catholic in the opposition Democratic Party, the successor of what was once the West’s largest communist party, said: “In Italy, the crucifix is a specific sign of our tradition.”

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini concurs:

The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves.

This of course is exactly why progressive Eurocrats want crucifixes banned. The objective is not just to suppress Christianity, which is hardly even defended anymore; it is to eradicate Western civilization. That’s why no effective measures are taken to save Europe from the ongoing Muslim demographic conquest — and why amnesty will soon open the door to massive Third World colonization of the USA.

On a tip from mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The news for Republicans and conservatives was pretty good with most of the elections yesterday, with a landslide for the Virginia GOP and a great win in New Jersey. Conservatives and Republicans did well in other parts of the country, too. One of those other areas was in Maine where the voters rejected a gay marriage proposal.

Voters in Maine repealed a state law that allowed gay marriage, becoming the 31st state to reject gay marriage via popular vote.

As of USA Today’s report, with 87% of the votes tabulated, the opponents of gay marriage had 53% of the vote.

Nearly every state that puts this issue up to the voters finds the majority opposing gay marriage. In Maine’s case, the law was put in place by the state legislature and Tuesday’s vote was the first time the voters got a chance to put in their say on the matter.

Gay marriage is a loser when the people are allowed to speak. The only way that gay marriage supporters seem to be able to win the day is if they get activist judges that force the matter or state legislatures that create gay marriage by legislative fiat as opposed to being based on the will of the voters.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A few days ago, Hans Bader writing for Stop the ACLU reported on the hate crimes legislation Bill. This article is intended to be a further discussion of what is behind the language in the Bill. The question is, is double jeopardy a factor in this new legislative language?

The answer is kinda-sorta. It’s really more about The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine negating the double jeopardy clause in the 5th Amendment.

The government now does have the right to try hate crime suspects after they have been tried by the state, and even if already tried and found guilty by the state. This position is confirmed by a letter from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to members of the U.S. Senate. Read it at NationaReviewOnLine. So how does it happen a person can be tried twice for the same crime?

Here is a portion that I believe gives the DOJ the opportunity to retry a hate crime: (The text of the Bill is here).

(b) (1) IN GENERAL – No prosecution of any offense described in the subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that- (C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

(b) (2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

This gives the DOJ the right to try any case on behalf of a victim they feel has not received justice, while also eliminating “the badges…and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.”

A quick reading of the Bill might lead you to think it will simply “support” state’s with money, but it goes much deeper than the $5 million to be given to states in each of the years 2010 and 2011. If a state can “certify” the need for government assistance to “investigate or prosecute the hate crime,” then that state will get that assistance. But read about the”sham and cover” exception a few paragraphs below. We have to ask why this administration believes this legislation is necessary.

The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine expects those administering under the Doctrine to “limit” their actions. This from TheFreeLibrary:

The court did not, however, fully eliminate the double jeopardy prohibition from this context. The dual sovereignty doctrine continues to be limited by what is referred to as the “sham” exception, which was described by the Bartkus Court.

The sham exception provides that a prosecution by one sovereign cannot be used as a “sham and a cover” for another sovereign’s re-prosecution of the same defendant.

This doctrine would operate to prevent, on double jeopardy grounds, a prosecution brought by one sovereign with the encouragement and support of another sovereign that has already failed in its attempt to prosecute the same defendant.

The doctrine is founded on the rationale that the two sovereigns are acting as one. Unfortunately, this exception has been construed so narrowly as to make it difficult to be utilized successfully.

Apparently, this DOJ and Barack Obama believe that justice is not done often enough, and courts do not punish, often enough, those who commit hate crimes. So the question remains: is it possible for any violent crime to be classified as a “hate crime” when it is perpetrated against a Jewish or a white person?

[Emphasis by Lobo]

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Today, President Obama signed into law a bill that will dramatically expand the federal hate crimes law, enabling prosecutors to bring federal charges against people who were previously found innocent of hate crimes in state court. The hate-crimes provisions were added to a defense appropriations bill, which the President signed in a White House signing ceremony this afternoon at around 2:30 p.m.

The new law dramatically expands the reach of the existing federal hate-crimes law that was already on the books, by getting rid of the requirement that a hate crime affect federally-protected activities to be prosecuted in federal court. It also adds sexual orientation, gender, disability, and transgender characteristics to a law that was originally designed to protect racial minorities.

The hate-crimes bill was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for allowing the reprosecution in federal court of people found innocent in state court. The Commission called the new law a “menace to civil liberties” because it is an end-run around constitutional guarantees against double-jeopardy.

As explained earlier, the bill’s sponsors seek to use it to reprosecute people in federal court who have already been found innocent of hate crimes in state court, taking advantage of the “dual sovereignty” loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff and Wendy Kaminer thus object to the bill on double-jeopardy grounds. Backers of the bill, like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Commissioner Michael Yaki, supported the bill partly as a way of prosecuting all over again people who were either found not guilty, or who were convicted only of ordinary crimes, while being acquitted of hate-crimes (like the teenagers acquitted of hate crimes in the Shenandoah incident, and the California case of Joseph Silva and George Silva).

Such re-prosecutions can be an enormous waste of money, and grossly unfair to the people who are reprosecuted, driving them into bankruptcy to pay lawyers to represent them all over again when they have already been found innocent in state court after an expensive trial. When the government re-prosecutes someone, it gains an enormous tactical advantage over the defendant from using the prior prosecution as a test-run, even if the defendant is innocent — making a guilty verdict possible even if the defendant is in fact innocent.

The bill also raises serious constitutional federalism issues under the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision.

Passage of the bill was aided by lousy reporting, in which some journalists, like Reuters, depicted the bill as simply a harmless measure to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics covered by the federal hate-crimes law, ignoring its many other, far more important (and dangerous) changes to federal hate-crimes law.

Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.
But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

As law professor Gail Heriot notes, “Some have even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members–despite strong evidence of their innocence.” Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded (and DNA evidence showed), and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

The Obama administration has long supported the hate-crimes bill, which it used as a wedge issue in the 2008 election.

As law professors like Jonathan Turley and Eugene Volokh have noted, the Obama administration recently urged restrictions on hate speech at the United Nations, joining in calls to treat such speech, protected by the First Amendment under Supreme Court rulings, as a human-rights violation in violation of international human-rights treaties. In the U.S., college hate-speech codes have been used to discipline students for criticizing affirmative action, discussing the racial implications of the death penalty, and calling homosexuality immoral. In Canada and Britain, hate speech laws have been used to punish religious criticism of Scientology and homosexuality.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, an Arizona court found today that Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio can no longer require inmates seeking abortion care to prepay their transportation and security costs before they can obtain an abortion.

Earlier this year, as part of a partial settlement in an ACLU lawsuit involving the right of women prisoners to obtain timely, safe and legal abortions, Arpaio agreed to follow a 2005 court order prohibiting Maricopa County correctional facilities from requiring inmates to obtain a court order before an abortion. However, in the course of settlement negotiations, Arpaio decided inmates must prepay transportation and security costs associated with obtaining the procedure. In his ruling today, Judge Robert H. Oberbilling of the Superior Court of Arizona indicated that requiring inmates to prepay security and transportation costs could be more onerous than the court order Sheriff Arpaio previously required.

“We are so pleased that Sheriff Arpaio can no longer pull a bait and switch by requiring women prisoners to pay transportation and security costs before obtaining an abortion,” said Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project who argued the case today before the court. “Arpaio’s new prepayment requirement was yet another way for him to do an end run around the law and to interfere with a woman’s private decision about whether to end a pregnancy.”

In May 2004, on behalf of a woman inmate seeking an abortion, the ACLU challenged an unwritten Maricopa County Jail policy that required inmates to obtain a court order before officials would transport for abortion care. The Maricopa County Superior Court struck down the unwritten policy in August 2005, holding that it violated women’s reproductive rights and served “no legitimate penological purpose.” The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision; both the Arizona and the United States Supreme Courts refused to hear the case.

Sheriff Arpaio defied these rulings and continued to require women to obtain a court order before an abortion. As a result, in August 2008, the ACLU asked the court to hold Arpaio in contempt. In the course of settlement negotiations in that case, Arpaio shifted tactics and began insisting that inmates who seek abortions must pay upfront for transportation and security costs. Inmates requiring transportation for other medical care are not charged for transport either before or after receiving services.

“Sheriff Arpaio has reached the end of the line here. The courts have already confirmed that Arizona prison officials can not put up roadblocks to abortion care simply because they do not agree with the decision to end a pregnancy,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “It is time for Sheriff Arpaio to stop wasting taxpayer dollars to impose his own morality on women in his jails and to start upholding the law. Game over.”

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For years, leading plaintiffs’ lawyers have promised a legal assault on industrial America for contributing to global warming.

So far, the trial bar has had limited success. The hurdles to such suits are pretty obvious: How do you apportion fault and link particular plaintiffs’ injuries to the pollution emitted by a particular group of defendants?

Today, though, plaintiffs’ lawyers may be a gloating a bit, after a favorable ruling Friday from the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, which is regarded as one of the more conservative circuit courts in the country.  Here’s a link to the ruling.

The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity. (See photo of Bay St. Louis, Miss., after the storm.)

For a nice overview of the ruling, and its significance in the climate change battle, check out this blog post by J. Russell Jackson, a Skadden Arps partner who specializes in mass tort litigation. The post likens the Katrina plaintiffs’ claims, which set out a chain of causation, to the litigation equivalent of “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”

At first blush, this looks like just another meaningless and hysterical law suit, but, think about this for a moment. The plaintiffs are going to have to provide actual, factual, relevant, and meaningful evidence, and actually debate the merits of man made global warming in the public eye. The defense will be able to provide relevant, factual, and meaningful evidence, such as the “no warming in the last 10 years” information, all in the public eye. If the climahysteric plaintiffs lose, this could be a major slap in the face for the AGW movement.

Al Gore has been challenged to debate after debate after debate, yet, refuses to engage in one. The Washington Posts’ Andrew Freeman chickened out on a debate with Climate Depot’s Marc Morano. The US Chamber of Commerce called for a climate trial, and, rather than anyone taking them up on it, they were demonized. Lord Monckton has offered to debate any climate alarmist, and none will take him on. Perhaps this trial will shed some reality on the situation, and finally put to rest the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Until they bring it back up in a few years, of course.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Obama has gone out of his way to “diversify” the federal bench with his spate of nominations of various minorities chief of which was his successful seating of the “wise Latina,’ Sonia Sotomayor, on the Supreme Court. Obama’s nominees* for 10 district court openings include four African-Americans, three Asian-Americans, one Latino and four women. One of those nominees, San Francisco U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen, received a favorable vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington today.

So what sort of judge is Edward Chen? Well, for one, the left-wing American Bar Association rated Chen a “well qualified” nominee and many of his associates at the ACLU speak highly of him. As an ACLU lawyer, Chen was known for opposing English-only policies and for pushing discriminatory affirmative action ideals. He even came to the aid of gang members in one case. Chen was quite the ACLU activist between 1979 and 2001.

His ACLU history would suffice to make many wary of him, of course. But for a segment of America, working for the ACLU is not a disqualifier. So in order to judge Edward Chen one must look at his past. Discovering what Judge Chen thinks of the country upon which he apparently assumes to sit in judgment is a telling exercise. Sadly, it seems he has quite a low opinion of the nation that he will be serving.

One hint at Judge Chen’s feelings about our nation can be seen from his appearance at the 2005 graduation ceremony at the Hastings Public Interest Law Foundation. There, Chen wondered aloud if American patriotism was justified. Chen told the crowd of his, “feelings of ambivalence and cynicism when confronted with appeals to patriotism — sometimes I cannot help but feel that there are too much [sic] injustice and too many inequalities that prevent far too many Americans from enjoying the beauty extolled in that anthem.” Apparently, Chen feels that America is too racist to justify anyone feeling patriotism for her.

In fact, racism seems to be one of Chen’s major concerns and he sees it everywhere. Immediately after the attacks on 9, 11, 2001 Chen’s first thoughts were about racism but not that of the Arabs that sent over three thousand Americans to their deaths. No, as soon as Chen learned of the attacks of 9/11 Chen’s first worry was that white Americans were going to use their racism to justify racist attacks on Muslims and anyone else that got in their way.

Only ten days after 9/11 occurred, Chen remarked that he imagined that America would revert to the “irresistible forces of racism, nativism and scapegoating” of the past and begin systematic oppression of American Muslims. Later he likened America’s post 9/11 military and security policies to the climate that led up to Japanese internment during WWII. In fact, he seemed to imagine that “a thousand Americans” were being swept up and held in secret prisons right after 9/11.

In a speech given at the Operation Protect and Defend dinner on May 4, 2006, Judge Chen referred to “secret surveillance of Americans without a judicial warrant, secret no fly lists, [and] secret detention of nearly a thousand American residents held without charges.” Naturally, he offered no proof of this wholesale but secret detention of Americans.

Chen also saw racism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, as well. Chen charged that the reason that New Orleans had so much trouble after the storms passed was because the inhabitants of the Crescent City were black. “Institutionalized racism” caused the federal government’s supposedly slow response to the crisis there, Chen said. At the Diversity Celebration of the California State Bar Convention in 2005, Chen asked the audience, “Would the response have been different had the majority of victims been white and middle class rather than poor and black? Would the response have been quicker had it been Kennebunkport instead of New Orleans?”

Racism again came to vex Chen’s overactive imagination in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings perpetrated by an Asian man. Chen’s fevered imagination dreamed up images of Asian men being discriminated against all across the country because of the actions of one mentally unstable nut. In comments before the Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education Conference, Chen worried that Asians would be the “subject of a racial backlash, victimized” by hate crime.

It is apparent that Edward Chen does not find much to celebrate about the United States. The whole country is so filled with “injustice” and “inequalities” that only a crusading judge can right the wrongs.

Now, what of his judicial standards? What sort of philosophy does Chen employ on the bench? Is it a strict standard of reading at law, or is he one of those sorts of judicial activists that uses the law to spread his own particular philosophy of social justice? Sadly, it appears to be the later. At least one can be excused to think this from a 2003 article Chen wrote entitled “The Judiciary, Diversity, and Justice For All” published in the California Law Review.

“…diversity enhances the quality of decision-making. . . . judges have to make determinations that draw not so much upon legal acumen, but on an understanding of people and of human experiences. Such experiences inform assumptions that affect legal decisions. At trial and in evidentiary hearings, judges have to assess the credibility of witnesses. A witness’ testimony may seem more credible if it is consistent with the judge’s knowledge or experience, and, conversely, less credible if it remains outside the judge’s experience. . . . Simply put, a judge’s life experiences affect the willingness to credit testimony or understand the human impact of legal rules upon which the judge must decide. These determinations require a judge to draw upon something that is not found in the case reports that line the walls of our chambers. Rather judges draw upon the breadth and depth of their own life experience, upon the knowledge and understanding of people, and of human nature. And inevitably, one’s ethnic and racial background contributes to those life experiences.”

Of course, this attitude seems to register well with Obama’s views of “judicial empathy.” In this view the law is heavily influenced by the judge’s “feelings” and those feelings are at least as important as the written law. This also matches well with Sotomayor’s ideas that her status as a Latina made her more qualified than an old white man to be a judge. For Obama’s judges, experiences and feelings trump the Constitution and the law and these experiences and feelings should be used as a basis to adjudicate the cases that come before them.

In Chen’s case we can see that the main influence on his judicial philosophy is an inordinate fear of racism. He sees it under his bed, in his closet, in the faces of everyone he meets. With this penchant in mind, can Chen honestly, dispassionately, and seriously serve effectively as a federal judge? One cannot help but wonder if his preoccupation with envisioning racism in every situation makes Judge Chen ill-suited for the federal bench where a dispassionate mien is required. It is easy to see that his constant resorting to charges of racism will likely color every decision he delivers.

Judge Chen will bring “diversity” to the bench as President Obama wants certainly. But will he also bring divisiveness and a desire to get even with all the racism he sees where ever he looks? His record hints that he just might.

*The 10 nominees mentioned above are as follows:

Two African-American circuit nominees, highly regarded sitting district judges Andre Davis and Joseph Greenaway, earned well-qualified American Bar Association ratings, the organization’s highest ranking. The third, well-respected Rhode Island Superior Court Associate Justice O. Rogeriee Thompson, was nominated last week and has yet to receive an ABA ranking. The four Asian-American nominees would increase by 36% the number of Asian-American judges. They include Southern District of New York Judge Denny Chin, who would be the first Asian-American judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit; California Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, who would be the first Vietnamese-American district judge; and Magistrate Judge Edward Chen, who would be the first Asian-American member of the Northern District of California. Both Nguyen and Chen earned well-qualified ABA ratings, while the ABA has not yet ranked Chin.

(Cross posted at RedCounty.com.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post