Skip to comments.Leftist Judge orders ACORN funding restored
Posted on 03/10/2010 11:28:03 PM PST by Prospero
If you thought you sent representatives and senators to Washington, D.C., to exercise the constitutionally mandated power of the purse youre wrong.
Silly you. You wasted all that time in civics class learning a whole bunch of outdated claptrap about separation of powers and the lawmaking process for nothing.
The spending power belongs to federal judges now, regardless of what that quaint little document called the U.S. Constitution says.
Thats what ACORNs favorite federal judge, Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York ruled Wednesday.
In December Gershon, a Bill Clinton appointee, helped ACORN out by offering the Obama administration political cover by issuing a temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN. She found that depriving ACORN of taxpayer dollars was an unconstitutional bill of attainder that singled out ACORN for punishment without trial. Its a nonsensical argument unless you believe that cutting off funding funding that no one has a right to for an organized crime syndicate is somehow a punishment.
To give credit where its due, the Obama administration did the right thing and appealed the December ruling.
Gershon showed a similar contempt for the legislative branch previously. In 1999 she ruled then-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani had no right to cut off city funding of the Brooklyn Museum of Art when it displayed dead animals and a painting of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung. Gershons not exactly courageous, by the way. She managed to get out of taking accused Al Qaeda terrorist Najibullah Zazis case when a courthouse computer randomly assigned it to her.
If this ruling remains undisturbed it will mean every parasitic leftist group in the country will have due process rights in the appropriations process. Congress will not be able to cut any group off for any reason. The rights of tax eaters will become paramount to the rights of taxpayers.
The ruling should be music to the ears of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a huge fan of ACORN who has given thousands of dollars over the years to the ACORN network. The thoroughly corrupt Nadler urged ACORNs lawyer to sue the government, arguing that a ban on funding constituted a bill of attainder. Within weeks, ACORN took his advice.
The ruling could also appears to mean that ACORN and other leftist activist groups are eligible for up to $3.99 billion in federal funding included in President Obamas $3.83 trillion fiscal 2011 budget blueprint.
The $3.99 billion comes from a congressional slush fund known as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) $48.5 billion fiscal 2011 budget. CDBG grants, which are awarded to states and localities, flow indirectly to ACORN and similar groups that compete at the state and local level for grants.
FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
Following this pinhead’s logic, Congress may not end (or even lower) federal spending for any entity, anywhere, because that constitutes a “bill of attainder.”
Thanks, Bill, for leaving this turd floating in the American judicial system.
What exactly do you have to do to get cut off from federal funding? What egregious crime must one commit, what heinous act? Is it even possible?
Your own tax dollars are being used to destroy your way of life, and support the Democrat Party.
How did we get to this point?
By nominating RINO's.
Bummer chickened out, because he himself as head of the executive branch of government had the authority to un-name ACORN from Federal funding, that branch having named ACORN for it in the first place.
How did pockets of this Great Country get so stupid?
Does she know it’s not nice to tamper with the Constitution?
Perhaps we should change a few of the ways these judges are selected.
I thought Nina Gershon was a bimbo Clinton was boinking, not an old hag he put on the court.
I love it when judges create spending legislation ath the federal level.
"As for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you and will keep My statutes and My ordinances, then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, 'You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'
"But if you or your sons indeed turn away from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them, and the house which I have consecrated for My name, I will cast out of My sight So Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
"And this house will become a heap of ruins; everyone who passes by will be astonished and hiss and say, 'Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?'
"And they will say, 'Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and adopted other gods and worshiped them and served them, therefore the LORD has brought all this adversity on them.'"
- 1 Kings 9:1-9
What exactly do you have to do to get cut off from federal funding? What egregious crime must one commit, what heinous act?
Pray in public.
Sounds like something right out of Atlas Shrugged.
Well there is an election coming up in November that the left needs their services for....you know to counter act the people revolt.
I couldn't find that bit about redistributing my tax money to special interest groups to work against me in my copy of the Constitution, anyway.
Even more specifically, under her theory you could not eliminate funding for an earmark if the earmark became controversial. Suppose there was funding for the Lawrence Welk Museum (there once was). Suppose it became a public issue (which it did). Then suppose Congress stripped the funding because it had become controversial to fund the museum. Under her logic, that would be a "bill of attainder" and thus illegal.
Makes me wonder what they are “teaching” in law schools these days. Obama himself was a law professor, but didn’t know what he was talking about when he accused the SCOTUS of overturning a century old legal precedent in the state of the union address.
Apparently, they are making it up as they go.
Click on the link above to DOWNLOAD the file
If you click on this link below, it will open in a window to play instead
Original Air Date: 3/10/2010 9:00 PM
ACORN slated to get nearly $4 billion in Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget
To add to the list of outrageous earmarks in Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget, ACORN, the embezzlement-prone, voter-registration-fraud-plagued, leftist community organizing group, is slated to receive nearly $4 billion from a taxpayer-funded slush fund.
The money will come from the Community Development Block Grant, one of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s longest-running programs. The HUD Web site cryptically defines the grant’s purpose as providing “communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs,” not a reassuring description given the group’s recent past history of aiding the community through gratuitous missappropriation of funds.
Has Congress already forgotten the Sept. 2009 ban it passed on ACORN and ACORN-afiliate funding? Or the video that led to the ban, footage showing ACORN employees urging individuals they thought were a prostitute and her pimp to set up a brothel and advising the pair on evading taxpaying? It would have had a hard time doing so, cosidering that ACORN is currently suing the federal government for the attempted ban.
what is being done to stop this?
I won’t get a good nights sleep until November.
Just hope we do not awake to a nighmare come November....Words cannot express how widespread the corruption is in our United States OF America.....Lord help us all, literally.....
We need to block ACORN funding somehow.
It’s troubling when you listen and watch all the clips of Obama that reveal who he is long before he was elected.....It was out there and the majority of voters (with the help of ACORN of course) voted him in anyway.....We have at the very least a Muslim sympathiser who is corrupt beyond words, and was tied at the hip with Acorn (even though he lied in his public denial) as president, it’s not very likely Acorn will disappear....We have on video how corrupt they are and it’s business as usual...
It wasn’t reported in the news. They are in on the deal.
I am hoping for everyone to take to the streets soon. We need to feed the roots of the tree of freedom with a little blood. Nuff said.
ACORN disbanded before the verdict by this communist judge. Doesn’t the new entity have to requalify for these funds? ACORN is no more.
“Obama himself was a law professor”
Obama has NEVER in his life been a law professor. He lied!
He taught constitutional law at U of Chicago 1992-2004, but like I said he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
He was NOT a professor. He was an “instructor”. That is a far cry from a professor. Obama lied once again. U of Chicago provost stated this in the Chicago newspapers.
Wouldn’t usurping the authority of congress be an impeachable (and perhaps seditious) act?
Someone should check this judge’s bank account to see if some recent, large deposits were made.
By the way, Robert Reich went on tv for over 2 years, claiming to be a “professor” at Harvard. Harvard sent him a “cease & desist” letter, promising to fire him if he stated this again.
She is an old hag he put on the court BECAUSE she was a bimbo he was boinking
OK, point taken. Kind of like the guy on Seinfeld who insisted on being called “maestro” because he conducted the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Orchestra.
Still, shocking that he was president of harvard law review and teaching constitutional law.
This is a better link:
Your link merely brings up a rolling page of articles, sure to miss this article shortly.
v The Harvard Law Review was handed to him due to heavy political unrest on campus vis a vis black professorships. Right place, right time. Obama wins the lottery!
She looks like Gilbert Gottfried.
According to her reasoning, apparently, it isn’t possible. I didn’t read her opinion, but if she’s saying that cutting off funding to a specific group is a bill of attainder, then there is no crime or act one can commit. Congress cannot pass any bill of attainder for any crime - Article I, Sec. 9 provides for no exceptions.
If Congress was trying to take back money that was already given to ACORN or to increase taxes on ACORN specifically, which is what they were trying to do to the AIG executives, I would actually agree with her. If the government wants to take anyone’s money because they committed a crime or breached a contract, then that’s what the courts are for.
However, Congress did nothing of the sort here. They cut off ACORN from money which hadn’t even been appropriated yet, which ACORN has absolutely no property interest in. The idea that this is a bill of attainder is absurd. Whether someone ought to receive federal money is not a justiciable issue for the courts.
Be a Republican, a Conservative, or support either of those causes.
Pelosi’s and Obama’s slip out, as planned.
You have to know that Pelosi and Reid told the Dims that this was going to happen when they voted to strip ACORN of its funding, thus allowing very strong ACORN supporters to vote for it.
Pay your taxes.
The people over at ACORN working against everything you believe in sure need the money. :)