Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (9569)	1/29/2001 1:51:12 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

(Supreme)Court decision still rankles law professors By Dave Zweifel January 24, 2001 Many of the nation’s law professors are wondering how to justify the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Florida election recount to their law students. Some 585 of them are so dismayed that they spent big bucks on a full-page advertisement in the New York Times the other day. Among the 585 were 14 from the University of Wisconsin. "We are professors of law at 115 American law schools," their ad began. "But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Florida law, the five justices were acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges. "It is not the job of a federal court to stop votes from being counted," they continued. "By stopping the recount in the middle, the five justices acted to suppress the facts. Justice SCALIA argued that the justices had to interfere even before the Supreme Court heard the Bush team’s arguments because the recount might cast a cloud upon what (Bush) claims to be the legitimacy of his election. "In their words, the conservative justices moved to avoid the ‘threat’ that Americans might learn that in the recount, Gore got more votes than Bush. This is presumably ‘irreparable’ harm because if the recount proceeded and the truth once became known, it would never again be possible to completely obscure the facts. "But it is not the job of the courts to polish the image of legitimacy of the Bush presidency by preventing disturbing facts from being confirmed. Suppressing the facts to make the Bush government seem more legitimate is the job of propagandists, not judges." The law professors’ ad concludes: "By taking power from the voters, the Supreme Court has tarnished its own legitimacy. As teachers whose lives have been dedicated to the rule of law, we protest." Excerpt from the captimes captimes.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (9569)	1/29/2001 4:40:41 PM
From: Slugger	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

Assassinating Ashcroft WASHINGTON -- The coolly crafted character assassination of John Ashcroft by the left-wing coalition attacking his nomination as attorney general has gone largely unanswered by passive Republican senators who are supposed to defend him. This has resulted in open season on a distinguished public servant's reputation, with editorial writers and columnists piling on. Unless there is a break in solid support for former Sen. Ashcroft from his erstwhile Republican colleagues, he will be confirmed. But the realistic Democratic goal is to inhibit both Ashcroft's performance at the Justice Department and President Bush's selection of federal judges. Repeatedly interrupted in mid-sentence by Democratic senators during the Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings, Ashcroft could hardly defend himself. Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch was conciliatory rather than aggressive, and the committee's other Republicans generally have imitated his lead. The assault on Ashcroft persists after the completion of hearings, last week beginning a new line of attack by insinuating homophobia. A health care official at Georgetown University named Paul Offner suddenly surfaced, claiming that then Missouri Gov. Ashcroft asked him about his sexual orientation to begin a 1985 job interview. Two Ashcroft aides present at the meeting deny it. Furthermore, breathless reports about Offner's accusation omit his background as a generous Democratic contributor, a Democratic staffer, a member of the Clinton transition team and a member of Hillary Clinton's health care task force. James Hormel, U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, appeared last week to speculate that yes, Offner's story sounded right (though, of course, he had no way of knowing one way or another). But the diplomat's real purpose in Washington was to add credence to the calumny of Ashcroft as an anti-gay bigot who blocked Hormel's Senate confirmation because he is a homosexual. Again, the news accounts omitted that Ashcroft was not alone and not even a leader in stopping Senate confirmation of Hormel, who finally took up his post in the overwhelmingly Catholic country on a recess appointment. Nor has it been mentioned that the Catholic League opposed Hormel "because of the nominee's refusal to disassociate himself from an anti-Catholic group." The homophobic smear adds to the basic assault mapped out the first week of January in a secret meeting. Included were representatives of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the AFL-CIO, among other groups, plus aides of Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California (who at that point had not announced her opposition to Ashcroft). They determined that Ashcroft would be painted as a racist. As planned, hearings concentrated on Ashcroft's Missouri role as state attorney general and later governor to thwart "desegregation." Ashcroft was stopped from giving a full explanation by interrupting Democratic senators. He was 12 years old when the Supreme Court ended legal segregation in Missouri. What happened in that state duplicated events elsewhere. White flight to the suburbs resegregated schools, and the solution of forced busing by activist judges proved unworkable. The "voluntary desegregation" in St. Louis repeatedly referred to by Ashcroft's tormentors was in reality an effort to stave off judicial mandates by means of excessive state expenditures for schools. As state attorney general, Ashcroft was trying to stop a raid on the state treasury. So was Ashcroft's Democratic rival, then State Treasurer Mel Carnahan. This was played out in state after state during the nationwide forced busing fiasco. The heart of the anti-Ashcroft campaign is his leadership in defeating Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White's Senate confirmation as a federal judge. In the hearings, Ashcroft was painted as defaming an African-American for political purposes. But the unanimous Senate Republican vote against White becomes credible by careful reading of his 1998 dissent against capital punishment for a mass murderer, which he called "a very hard case." Furthermore, White's record of favoring lenient treatment for murderers is documented in subsequent cases, justifying Ashcroft's position. When White made an unprecedented appearance before the Judiciary Committee seeking retribution against Ashcroft, Chairman Hatch was effusive in praising the judge's rise from poverty and negligent in defending the nominee. Like Robert Bork, John Tower and other unfortunates, John Ashcroft is confronting at first hand the ferocity of Democrats and the passivity of Republicans. townhall.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (9569)	2/5/2001 1:01:46 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

DeLay PACs Hired His Daughter as Consultant "Karl Gallant, who heads RMIC and has recently been running a series of television ads aimed at bolstering support for the nomination of Attorney General-designate John D. Ashcroft, said he retained Ferro to help arrange a Houston fund raiser at which her father (Senator Delay)was the featured speaker". By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 31, 2001 ; Page A07 Political action committees affiliated with House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Tex). paid his daughter, Dani Ferro, nearly $60,000 in consulting fees during the second half of last year, according to recently released financial disclosure reports. The reports showed payments to Ferro from her father's leadership political action committee -- Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC) -- and an independent group affiliated with him, the Republican Majority Issues Committee (RMIC). DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham, received nearly the identical amount from ARMPAC during that same period. The expenditures were reported under the requirements of a new law requiring disclosure of the operations of what are known as 527 groups Until last year, these groups, which engage in political activities, did not have to report their income or spending. Ferro has run her father's reelection campaigns for several years, but only recently set up her own consulting business, Coastal Consulting. It is unclear whether Coastal Consulting has any clients who are not linked to DeLay. Ferro is also working as a consultant for her father's campaign committee. Ferro was on vacation this week and was not available to comment. Karl Gallant, who heads RMIC and has recently been running a series of television ads aimed at bolstering support for the nomination of Attorney General-designate John D. Ashcroft, said he retained Ferro to help arrange a Houston fund raiser at which her father was the featured speaker. "I know her and I trust her," Gallant said, adding that Ferro "helped plug me into donors. If Tom can help me fundraise, Dani sure can." © 2001 The Washington Post washingtonpost.com