Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Civil Rights Appointee Wins Appeal
NewsMax.com ^ | 5/9/2002 | Jeff Johnson,

Posted on 05/09/2002 5:11:47 PM PDT by Minn

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that President Bush's nominee to a disputed seat on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is the legitimate holder of that seat.

At issue is whether Victoria Wilson, who was appointed by then-President Bill Clinton to complete the term of Judge A. Leon Higginbotham on Jan. 13, 2000, or Peter Kirsanow, who was appointed by President Bush to a new six-year term, was the legitimate holder of the position.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, a Justice Department attorney told the three-judge panel that Congress did not intend to eliminate staggered terms when it rewrote the law authorizing the commission in 1994.

"There is nothing in the legislative history to indicate that they attributed any significance to the rewriting, and there is affirmative evidence that they thought they weren't changing anything," said DOJ lawyer Greg Katsas.

The court agreed, reversing U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's Feb. 4 opinion in favor of Wilson.

"Congress did not disrupt the staggering of terms of Commission members created in the 1983 Act," Judge David B. Sentelle wrote in the court's unanimous opinion. "Because we agree with appellants that Wilson's term had expired, we reverse the District Court."

"We hold that Wilson was appointed by President Clinton only to fill the unexpired term of Judge Higginbotham, as her commission indicates, and her service as a Commissioner terminated on November 29, 2001," Sentelle continued in the opinion.

"As a result, Kirsanow, having been validly appointed to a vacant seat on the Commission on December 6, 2001, for a term expiring November 29, 2007, and having taken the oath of office, is a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights," he added.

Kirsanow tells CNSNews.com that he is "pleased, but not surprised."

"Obviously, I'm very happy," he said, "and I'm grateful for the president's confidence and the administration's unqualified support."

Kirsanow says the ruling does not surprise him, in part, because of the "outstanding job" done by Justice Department attorneys presenting the case.

"My attorneys and the Justice Department have been saying from the outset that the law is pretty clear in this matter and that it supports our position," he explained.

Mary Frances Berry in Trouble

Sentelle also noted in the opinion that the actions taken by commission Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry and Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso to intervene on behalf of Wilson may have been contrary to law, as was claimed by the Justice Department.

"The United States [government] objected that neither the Commission nor its officers in their official capacity have the right to appear in litigation without the permission of the Attorney General, which they had not obtained," he observed.

Sentelle referenced 28 United States Code 516, which states, "Except as otherwise authorized by law, the conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, or is interested, and securing evidence therefore, is reserved to officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General."

Kessler permitted the intervention in the original case. However, the appeals court did not rule on the issue, Sentelle wrote, because the government did not raise it as part of the appeal.

In fact, the Justice Department acknowledged that the involvement of Berry and Reynoso had, "no practical effect upon the issues presented, since Wilson herself is entitled to defend against the government's complaint."

Calls to the USCCR's office requesting comment on the decision had not been returned prior to the publication of this story.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: berry; hag; hidiousoldbag; idiot; povertypimp; racehustler; scum; trash; wretch
You gotta like this news.
1 posted on 05/09/2002 5:11:48 PM PDT by Minn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Minn
I'm so happy about this! Big Bump!
2 posted on 05/09/2002 5:15:29 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minn
You betcha it is good news, but will MF Berry go along with it? Can't see the Supremes agreeing to hear, but I bet she will try.
3 posted on 05/09/2002 5:49:15 PM PDT by katze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minn
Agreed. It is good news but should have happened 6 months ago.
4 posted on 05/09/2002 5:54:30 PM PDT by What Is Ain't
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katze
Bunch of lawless SOB's now will stop at nothing to make this guys life misersable.

Who would want to work with these apparatchiks?

5 posted on 05/09/2002 5:55:09 PM PDT by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Who would want to work with these apparatchiks?

I would. I would love it. I would make sure I carried a big bag of monkey wrenches with me for throwing into gears.
6 posted on 05/09/2002 6:05:26 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
This ruling should tell the other members that Berry just lost some power. Sure would be a hoot if the old cow got mad enough to quit.
7 posted on 05/09/2002 6:08:54 PM PDT by katze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Arkinsaw
Can I watch? :)
9 posted on 05/09/2002 6:14:14 PM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

RadioFR on NOW!

"Unspun" with AnnaZ and Mercuria!

Tonights guests...RON PAUL, GARY ALDRICH, SHEMANE NUGENT and JEFF HEAD!

ON NOW!

Click HERE to listen while you FReep!


10 posted on 05/09/2002 6:14:35 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katze
"Sure would be a hoot if the old cow got mad enough to quit."

It would be wonderful, but she will NEVER quit. It's a gold-plated, government-boondoggle-job, cash cow that she doesn't have to do any work for, and she'll hang on as long as possible no matter what.

11 posted on 05/09/2002 6:19:51 PM PDT by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Irene Adler
As I understand it, this now swings the commission back towards a conservative majority. I may be wrong. I thought the whole Berry ploy was to keep the commission under a liberal majority; which was why all the legal grandstanding was used. It was always about her power (which amounted to unsupervised, unaccountable misappropriation of funds and perks.) She just got a huge slap in the face. Her lawyers told her it was coming. She's not stupid. She bought her fellow liberal six more months of fat government paychecks. She'll stall as long as she can before convening the next commission meeting and suck her teeth every time the new guy has anything to say. She ain't goin' nowhere. She's gettin' paid. She'll keep throwing monkey wrenches into the meetings as long as she can because this is low on the public radar screen. She has now been relegated to a disruptor. The ultimate outcome of the meetings will still be the same;...nothing.
12 posted on 05/09/2002 6:49:21 PM PDT by Benjamin Dover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Minn
You're right, I LOVE this news!

The U.S. Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that President Bush's nominee to a disputed seat on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is the legitimate holder of that seat.

Freepers knew the US Court of Appeals would overule Mary Francis Berry the quack, and its unanimous!

Sentelle also noted in the opinion that the actions taken by commission Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry and Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso to intervene on behalf of Wilson may have been contrary to law, as was claimed by the Justice Department.

I love this part the most, right from the Appeals Court!. Berry is out of control, she has made the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights a total joke carrying out her own personal agenda using illegal tactics. She must be discharged immediately.

The court agreed, reversing U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's Feb. 4 opinion in favor of Wilson.

Another liberal Clinton appointee who totally disregards legal history in pursuing her own agenda. Overruled, Gladys, overruled!

13 posted on 05/09/2002 7:00:07 PM PDT by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: all
Previous Mad Mary Francis Berry Threads:

Baseball has been berry, berry good to me.
      Posted by VinnyTex
On Aug 15 2001 8:16 AM with 1 comment


Opinion Journal ^ | PETE DU PONT
OUTSIDE THE BOXStraw Berry The Civil Rights Commission publishes a bogus report--then suppresses a minority viewpoint. BY PETE DU PONT Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT The U.S. Civil Rights Commission is engaging in unbelievable demagoguery. The commission issued a draft report on "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election" that has been shown by dissenting members to be intellectually sloppy and politically biased. And so the commission has tucked the dissenters' statement away as an appendix, available on its Web site, but on the flimsiest of legalistic grounds is refusing to publish it as a formal ...
     
 
Embarrassing Berry
      Posted by VinnyTex
On Dec 10 2001 9:20 AM with 16 comments


The Wall Street Journal ^
WSJ.com December 10, 2001 Review & Outlook Embarrassing Berry Will some adult Democrats please inform Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, that last year's election is over and George W. Bush is President? Maybe then she will do her job and seat Peter Kirsanow, Mr. Bush's choice for the Commission's vacant slot. Instead, Mr. Kirsanow had to suffer the ignominy of trying to participate in the Commission's proceedings Friday while Ms. Berry blithely pretended he didn't exist. A "member of the audience" may not address the Commission, she intoned, when Republican Commissioner Jennifer Braceras asked ...
     
 
MAD MARY BERRY
      Posted by kattracks
On Dec 8 2001 1:17 PM with 58 comments


New York Post ^ | 12/08/01
December 8, 2001 -- The national embarrassment known as Mary Frances Berry, chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, has outdone herself. Yesterday, Cleveland labor lawyer Peter Kirsanow was sworn in to replace commission member Victoria Wilson. But Berry refuses to recognize Kirsanow; she won't even let any other commission member refer to him as "commissioner." Wilson was named last year explicitly to fill the remainder of Judge Leon Higginbotham's six-year term. (He died in 1998.) That term ended Nov. 29. But Berry insists that Wilson's term doesn't expire until 2006. She has no legal basis for any of ...
     
 
Berry Bad Behavior
      Posted by Pokey78
On Dec 15 2001 10:59 PM with 25 comments


The Weekly Standard ^ | 12/24/2001 | David Tell, for the editors
LAST WEEK the White House made a down payment on President Bush's promise that due-process protections would be extended even to the most fanatic current enemies of U.S. policy. No, we don't mean the Justice Department's December 11 indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "twentieth man" in the New York and Washington terrorist plots. We have in mind, instead, a move announced the day before: the administration's decision to forgo a military tribunal in favor of regular federal district court proceedings against Mary Frances Berry. Ms. Berry has lately holed herself up at 624 Ninth Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C., ...
     
 
Clinton Lie Berry
      Posted by True Grit
On Mar 7 2001 5:47 PM with 10 comments


U.S. News & World Report ^ | March12, 01 | Pat Ouphant
     
 
There's something about Mary [Frances Berry]
      Posted by dittomom
On Jan 16 2001 6:14 AM with 18 comments


Salon.com ^ | Oct. 12, 1999 | Judith Coburn
Oct. 12, 1999 | BERKELEY, Calif. -- You might expect that the biggest enemies of progressive Berkeley radio station KPFA-FM would be right-wingers in Congress, who for 50 years have railed against the left-wing Pacifica network of community-based, listener-supported "free-speech" radio stations. But the radio network that survived McCarthyism, and more recently attempts by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., to cut its public funding, is facing the greatest threat to its existence yet, at the hands of its own leadership. And its primary antagonist is not a right winger, but Mary Frances Berry, the black scholar and civil rights activist who ...
     
 
Time to replace Berry
      Posted by syriacus
On Dec 8 2001 6:05 AM with 54 comments


UPI InfoSpace ^ | Dec. 6 | PETER ROFF
Commentary: Time to replace Berry By PETER ROFF, UPI National Political Analyst WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 (UPI) -- Even in America, demagogues can, on occasion, seize the reins of power. Once in their hands, it is often difficult to get back. Well aware of the European experience in such matters, where heredity and pedigree mattered more than ability, the Founding Fathers crafted a system that granted power to legislators and administrators on a temporary basis, forcing them to acknowledge that their behavior while in office was subject to review by America's sovereign political power, the people. Mary Frances Berry, the chairman ...
     
 
Marion Berry Quotes
      Posted by (Unknown)
On May 9 10:04 PM with 1 comment

     
 
Mary Francis Berry on C-SPAN Now!!!!!!
      Posted by leadpenny
On Dec 8 2001 2:05 AM with 63 comments


C-SPAN
Civil Right Commission
     
 
George Will: The Uncivil Commissioner (M.F. Berry)
      Posted by Pokey78
On Dec 16 2001 9:40 AM with 68 comments


Washington Post ^ | 12/16/2001 | George F. Will
Some whales have vestigial legs because their prehistoric ancestors were land mammals. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a vestigial leg on whale-like Washington. The commission has no serious function, other than to illustrate how far things have evolved. Its head is a black woman, Mary Frances Berry, who, like many antebellum plantation owners and today's civil rights lobby, believes blacks cannot cope with life in predominantly white America, that they are comprehensively victimized and must be perpetual wards of paternalistic government. Click here for the entire column.
     
 
SEAN HANNITY TO DISCUSS BERRY AND CRC
      Posted by Elkiejg
On Dec 8 2001 0:16 AM with 131 comments


Talk radio | 12/7/01
I'm listening to Sean Hannity right now in Orlando FL - 3 to 6. He just announced he will be "thoroughly" discussing the actions of Mary F. Berry and have a panel during the second hour of his radio show. Sorry - don't have link.
     
 
Bad News for Mary Frances Berry
      Posted by classygreeneyedblonde
On Dec 19 2001 4:19 AM with 59 comments


newsmax ^ | dec 18th
Readers have been begging for an update about the refusal of Mary Frances Berry, the infamously partisan Democrat who runs the so-called U.S. Commission on Civil Rights with an iron fist, to seat Bush appointee Peter Kirsanow. So here's the latest. The Democrat-dominated panel's action probably won't withstand a court challenge, congressional researchers have now said. The whole mess started when Bill Clinton named Victoria Wilson to complete the term of the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. Even Slick Willie himself "noted in the appointment certificate that Wilson's term would expire when Higginbotham's would have, on Nov. 29, 2001," ...
     
 
Bad News for Mary Frances Berry
      Posted by JeanS
On Dec 19 2001 9:12 PM with 20 comments


NewsMax.com ^ | 12/18/01 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Readers have been begging for an update about the refusal of Mary Frances Berry, the infamously partisan Democrat who runs the so-called U.S. Commission on Civil Rights with an iron fist, to seat Bush appointee Peter Kirsanow. So here's the latest. The Democrat-dominated panel's action probably won't withstand a court challenge, congressional researchers have now said. The whole mess started when Bill Clinton named Victoria Wilson to complete the term of the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. Even Slick Willie himself "noted in the appointment certificate that Wilson's term would expire when Higginbotham's would have, on Nov. 29, 2001," ...
     
 
Berry lawyer to work for free
      Posted by Pokey78
On Jan 4 11:19 AM with 38 comments


Washington Times ^ | 01/04/2002 | Steve Miller
Mary Frances Berry has enlisted a prestigious New York law firm in an effort to keep a disputed commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. To join the legal action, Miss Berry has violated a commission statute that forbids the use of free assistance.      In a filing in U.S. District Court, Miss Berry and Commissioner Cruz Reynoso, and "on behalf of [the] United States Commission on Civil Rights," join defendant Victoria Wilson in an effort to maintain Miss Wilson's spot on the commission.    &nbsp commissioners have engaged the exclusive law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which has ...
     
 
Berry Receives Ultimatum From Congress
      Posted by tdadams
On Jan 10 5:25 PM with 42 comments


NewsMax.com ^ | January 10, 2002 | wire report
WASHINGTON - A House committee issued an ultimatum Wednesday in its running battle with the dictatorial chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Fail to seat President Bush's nominee to the panel and you could be removed, the committee told Mary Frances Berry. Use taxpayer money to hire a lawyer and you could face criminal penalties, it warned. "Your actions in this instance, which have impeded and continue to impede the proper functioning of the commission, may be sufficient to justify your removal from the commission for malfeasance in office," wrote Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, chairman of the subcommittee on ...
     
 
Wearing Out Their Welcome (re: Mary Frances Berry)
      Posted by Stand Watch Listen
On Jan 15 9:57 PM with 28 comments


INSIGHT magazine ^ | January 14, 2002 | Christopher Jolma
Media Credit: Michael Kleinfeld/UPI Berry has used her position as chairwoman to keep Bush´s appointee off of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. It has been said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. So it is with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Certainly there is nothing civil about it. Last year was a contentious one for the commission, and 2002 is shaping up to be just as controversial. The current dispute concerns Victoria Wilson's term of service, which was to expire Nov. 29 at the completion of what would have been the tenure of ...
     
 
Berry Seeks Higher Averts Fee
      Posted by Mom_Grandmother
On Apr 3 3:49 AM with 10 comments


News.telegraph.co.uk ^ | 4/2/02 | Mom_Grandmother
>Berry Seeks Higher Adverts Fee by Hugh Davie, Entertainment Correspondent The American film star Halle Berry is reported to be asking for a higher fee for her Revlon advertisemnets after winning an Academy Award for best actress in the film Monster's Ball. Ron Perelman, the costumes films chief, is said to be resisting her demand. They are said to have talked at Sir Elton John's Oscar party, Mr. Perleman, congratulated her, saying how happy he was that she modeled for his company. The actress replied: "Of course, you'll have to pay me more." According to the New York Post, Mr....
     
 
Diagnosis: Washingtonitis: Marion Berry comes down with it
      Posted by eleven
On Jun 23 1999 2:28 PM


Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. | Wednesday, June 23, 1999 | Unsigned Editorial
WHAT GETS into congressmen after they've been in Washington a while?    Washingtonitis, of course.    Its first symptom is a little harmless display of ego on occasion, maybe in the Congressional Record. We should have known the congressman from the First District was coming down with this malady as soon as he started puffing family and friends in the Record. No great harm done. Nobody reads that stuff anyway, except maybe the folks who frame it, and lots of them may have wised up by now. The printing costs are probably minimal; it's not as if Marion Berry were ...
     
 
Halle Berry charged with misdemeanor
      Posted by jordan8
On Apr 2 2000 4:19 PM with 37 comments


CNN ^ | 4-1-00 | staff
April 1, 2000 LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- The Los Angeles District Attorney's office has filed a misdemeanor charge against Golden Globe-winning actress Halle Berry for leaving the scene of an accident. The charge stems from an auto crash in West Hollywood during the early morning hours of February 23. Authorities allege Berry was driving a rented Chevy Blazer when she ran a red light at an intersection and broadsided a Pontiac driven by Heta Raythatha, then fled the scene. An arraignment date has not yet been set. The maximum sentence for the charge is one year in county jail ...
     
 
A Sour Berry (re: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights)
      Posted by Stand Watch Listen
On Dec 11 2001 6:28 PM with 85 comments


CNSNews.com ^ | December 11, 2001 | Linda Chavez
Mary Frances Berry, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is a bully. Her most recent escapade -- last Friday -- involved her refusal to seat Peter Kirsanow, the man appointed by President Bush to a commission seat that became vacant on Nov. 29. Berry told White House counsel Al Gonzales he'd better send federal marshals if he wanted Kirsanow to take his lawful place on the commission. But her outrageous behavior in this incident is nothing new. I've watched her in action for years, even before President Reagan appointed me staff director, the chief executive officer of ...
     
 
Can somebody sedate this woman? (Mary Frances Berry)
      Posted by SJackson
On Dec 12 2001 6:39 PM with 34 comments


Jewish World Review ^ | Dec. 12, 2001 | Linda Chavez
MARY FRANCES BERRY, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is a bully. Her most recent escapade -- last Friday -- involved her refusal to seat Peter Kirsanow, the man appointed by President Bush to a commission seat that became vacant on Nov. 29. Berry told White House counsel Al Gonzales he'd better send federal marshals if he wanted Kirsanow to take his lawful place on the commission. But her outrageous behavior in this incident is nothing new. I've watched her in action for years, even before President Reagan appointed me staff director, the chief executive officer of ...
     
 
ALL HAIL QUEEN MARY FRANCES BERRY!
      Posted by Croooow
On Dec 12 2001 8:05 PM with 7 comments


Nealz Nuze ^ | 12/12/01 | Neal Boortz
I recently told you about Mary Frances Berry refusing to acknowledge George Bush’s appointment to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in a blatant attempt to keep her dictatorial power over the panel. (http://www.boortz.com/dec7-01.htm) When the Bush appointee showed up for the meeting, Berry (who has contributed $19,000 to the Democratic Party in the past decade) made him sit in the audience and when he tried to talk she announced that the committee didn’t take comments from the audience. Well, now comes part deux. The six-year term of another Republican member of the commission, Russell Redenbaugh, was up yesterday. While ...
     
 
** BREAKING ** HALLE BERRY RETURNS OSCAR!!!!
      Posted by Registered
On Mar 26 1:50 AM with 119 comments


Registered ^ | 03.25.02 | Registered
     
 
Halle Berry Steals Oscar Show
      Posted by Sally II
On Mar 25 10:40 PM with 142 comments


Yahoo, Reuters ^ | March 25, 2002 | Jill Serjeant
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Halle Berry stole the show at Sunday's Oscars (news - web sites), becoming the first black woman to win a best actress Academy Award and accepting it with a weeping, emotion-filled speech that bought tears to the eyes of her worldwide audience. Berry, 33, a rising star but hardly a household name, won for her role as a woman overtaken by rage and frustration in the racially charged movie "Monster's Ball" that is considered her best performance in a 10-year career. Moments later she was joined in the record books by Denzel Washington as they became...
     
 
Berry Holds Bush At Bay, (The Tables May Have Turned)
      Posted by Mom_Grandmother
On Mar 3 6:30 PM with 31 comments


Kathy A. Gambrell, UP White House Reporter | 3/3/02 | Mom_Grandmother
This information is for the fellow freeper that wanted to know who it was that Mary Fancis Berry refused to unseat so that it could be occupied by Presidents Bush's appointee. ________________________________________ WASHINGTON,Jan.11 (UPI)--Civil rights Chairwoman Mary Francis Berry once again defied President George W. Bush, refusing to seat nominee on despite congressional threats that she could be fired or procecuted. In the second month of a running fight with the White House, Berry refused to seat Cleveland lawyer Peter Kirsanow on the commission. Bush chose Kirsanow to replace "Victoria Wilson" who was appointed last January by former President Clinton ...
     
 
Sewage Pump Named for Dave Berry
      Posted by Jay W
On Jan 24 1:21 AM with 14 comments


Associated Press | 01-23-02 | n/a
Sewage Pump Named for Dave Barry GRAND FORKS, N.D. (AP) - Shivering in subzero temperatures, columnist Dave Barry looked up at the newly christened Dave Barry Lift Station No. 16 and offered this advice: ``If anything ever goes wrong with this station, call the mayor.'' Grand Forks officials dedicated the sewage pump station Wednesday to Barry, who had poked fun at the city and its Minnesota neighbor, East Grand Forks, for referring to themselves as the ``Grand Cities.'' The column prompted a letter-writing campaign, capped by an offer from Grand Forks Mayor Mike Brown to name a lift station after ...
     
 
Mary Frances Berry: A relic who's time has come
      Posted by kattracks
On Dec 17 2001 3:23 PM with 8 comments


townhall.com ^ | 12/17/01 | George Will
WASHINGTON--Some whales have vestigial legs because their prehistoric ancestors were land mammals. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a vestigial leg on whale-like Washington. The commission has no serious function, other than to illustrate how far things have evolved. Its head is a black woman, Mary Frances Berry, who, like many antebellum plantation owners and today's civil rights lobby, believes blacks cannot cope with life in predominantly white America, that they are comprehensively victimized and must be perpetual wards of paternalistic government. Berry, 63, was appointed chairwoman of the commission in 1993 by President Clinton. She has been on ...
     
 
Mary Francis Berry; A relic whose time has come
      Posted by M.K. Borders
On Dec 18 2001 4:35 AM with 10 comments


Townhall .com ^ | 17 December, 2001 | George Will
December 17, 2001 Mary Frances Berry: A relic whose time has come WASHINGTON--Some whales have vestigial legs because their prehistoric ancestors were land mammals. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a vestigial leg on whale-like Washington. The commission has no serious function, other than to illustrate how far things have evolved. Its head is a black woman, Mary Frances Berry, who, like many antebellum plantation owners and today's civil rights lobby, believes blacks cannot cope with life in predominantly white America, that they are comprehensively victimized and must be perpetual wards of paternalistic government. Berry, 63, was appointed chairwoman ...
     
 
Mary Frances Berry and the tyranny of her leadership.
      Posted by Wrigley
On Dec 11 2001 2:37 AM with 41 comments


CSPAN ^ | 12/10/01
I finally found the video of the 12/7/01 Civil Rights Commission meeting. In a way, I wish I hadn't. I couldn't believe how rigid Berry's control over that meeting was. If she didn't agree with the points made, they were ruled out of order. The new commissioner was eaten up by Berry on these procedural rules. Here's the link. CRCM12/07/01
     
 
***The Incredible Lack Of Professionalism of Chairwoman Berry***
      Posted by The Wizard
On Jan 13 2001 7:42 PM with 24 comments


Stardate: 0101.13
Reading the tripe that this woman said in the Washington Post today demonstrates the level, very low, that she operates under...She fails to understand how Florida works although they tried to explain it to her, she practiced, as I myself witnessed, one upsmanship, (Secretary Harris explained, in answer to a question, what her responsibilities are and this little woman had to say that She controlled more money and people, (it was like a kid at school saying mine is bigger....so amateur)And then to make derogatory statements to the press, showing NO responsibility, only shallow partisanship, makes me wonder why anyone ...
     
 
Hillary's spokeswoman (Marsha Berry) calls it
      Posted by ironman
On Dec 4 1999 8:14 AM with 3 comments


Salon.com ^ | 12/3/99 | Joan Walsh
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's decision to cast off the confining costume of the first lady, don a Yankees cap and jump into the New York Senate race had a tangible impact this week, when communications director Marsha Berry resigned to take a job with the U.S. Export Import Bank. Berry's departure has not been announced, but sources close to her told Salon News she has been trying to leave the White House for many months. She waited until Clinton got her New York Senate campaign staff together, and when the hiring of campaign manager Bill de Blasio was announced ...
     
 
Freeper Must-See -- Mary Frances Berry on C-SPAN
      Posted by WL-law
On Dec 8 2001 8:01 PM with 23 comments


self | 12-08-01 | WL-law
Heads up to Freepers -- late last night I watched C-Span re-run Friday's meeting of Mary Frances Berry's Commission on Civil Rights. YOU MUST SEE THIS!! NO WORDS CAN ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE IT!!The confrontation between the Commission/Berry and the Bush administration has been weLl described in other articles, so I won't rehash it here (but I recommend visiting other threads on the subject "Berry").And here's the (outrageous) essence of the meeting: Miss Berry in effect (and explicitly, at times) argues that her commission's role as a 'watchdog' agency or 'overseer' inherently grants her independence and insulation from political interference, therefore creating ...
     
 
Berry good protection for aging brains
      Posted by ckilmer
On Dec 29 1999 5:50 AM with 20 comments


science news online ^ | September 18, 1999 | J. Raloff
Science News Online (9/18/99): Berry good protection for aging brains The Weekly Newsmagazine of Science September 18, 1999 Vol. 156, No. 12 Berry good protection for aging brains By J. Raloff Anthocyanin pigments give blueberries intense color and antioxidant power. (North American Blueberry Council) It’s depressing to contemplate the memory loss and physical infirmity that so often accompany aging. Federal scientists, however, now report that the blues may constitute a palatable prescription for fighting the ravages of growing old—if, that is, those blues are berries. The body creates oxidants, chemically reactive molecular fragments, to eliminate old cells, infectious agents, ...
     
 
Mary Frances Berry: Professional Liar
      Posted by pabianice
On Jun 12 2001 11:22 PM with 16 comments


US News & World Report | 6/12/01 | John Leo
Boxing with ballots The legend of Florida's 'disenfranchised' black voters Dishonest commentary often uses the passive voice. If nobody pays attention to your group or lobby, it has been "marginalized." People no longer drink too much. They are "afflicted with alcoholism and alcohol-related diseases." Passive, blame-shifting language is all around us, a verbal smog. A current example is the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's report on the Florida presidential vote, filed last week. Once respected, the commission long ago degenerated into a hard-left hit group that specializes in trashing Republicans–Rudy Giuliani, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush. Its erratic and sarcastic chairwoman, ...
     
 
Embarrassing Berry - Incivility on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission ~ WSJ.
      Posted by Elle Bee
On Dec 10 2001 4:03 PM with 89 comments


The Wall Street Journal. editorial page | December 10, 2001 | The Wall Street Journal. Editorial Board
Embarrassing BerryIncivility on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Will some adult Democrats please inform Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, that last year's election is over and George W. Bush is President? Maybe then she will do her job and seat Peter Kirsanow, Mr. Bush's choice for the Commission's vacant slot. Instead, Mr. Kirsanow had to suffer the ignominy of trying to participate in the Commission's proceedings Friday while Ms. Berry blithely pretended he didn't exist. A "member of the audience" may not address the Commission, she intoned, when Republican Commissioner Jennifer Braceras asked that ...
     
 
Bush Asked (by M.F. Berry) to Drop Disputed Appointee
      Posted by Pokey78
On Jan 5 8:53 AM with 26 comments


The New York Times ^ | 01/04/2002
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Days before a federal judge is to take up the matter, the head of the Civil Rights Commission asked President Bush on Friday to drop his attempt to place a disputed appointee on the panel. Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry wrote a letter appealing to the president to drop attempts to appoint Peter Kirsanow, a conservative lawyer from Cleveland, to replace Victoria Wilson, an ally of Berry. Berry and four other commissioners on the eight-member civil rights panel contend Wilson was appointed to a six-year term in 2000. The Bush administration and the three Republican-appointed commissioners say Wilson's ...
     
 
***Racist Berry Commission Report Leaked? Yeah, Right***
      Posted by The Wizard
On Jun 6 2001 2:01 AM with 18 comments


Stadate: 0106.5
These people are so transparent.....they tried to steal the election and couldn't do it, now they want to blame everyone else they couldn't do it too.
     
 
Judge Rules With Rights Panel Chair Berry
      Posted by Skooz
On Feb 5 6:41 AM with 81 comments


Fox News ^ | Monday, February 04, 2002 | Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
WASHINGTON — In a legal blow to the Bush administration, a federal judge ruled Monday that the president's appointee has no place on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler said that under current statutes, commissioner Victoria Wilson is entitled to a full six years on the commission despite the fact that she was appointed to fill out a term that expired Nov. 29.The decision leaves Peter Kirsanow, appointed by President Bush to take Wilson's place, out in the cold."The text of the 1994 statute is clear," said Kessler, a Clinton appointee. "Commissioners will serve out six-year terms" regardless ...
     
 
Berry Urges Blacks to Continue Reparations Movement
      Posted by What Is Ain't
On Mar 22 8:30 PM with 25 comments


Savannah Morning News ^ | 03/22/02 | Hermione Malone
Reparations are part of the unfinished business of the civil rights movement, said Mary Frances Berry, guest lecturer in the first installment of Beach Institute's 2002 series on reparations. "In fact, no matter how we look at it, at this hour the civil rights movement was very successful," she said. "I know that in a place that Clarence Thomas came from it's kind of hard to say that. But, the civil rights movement was successful." After the laughter subsided, Berry spoke to the packed sanctuary Thursday night on how the nation has backslided in civil rights, the historical beginnings of...
     
 
Release the Berry Report (Hillary's dirty friends)
      Posted by chesty_puller
On Apr 14 2000 6:34 PM with 15 comments


NY Post ^ | 04/14/2000 | NY Post Editorial
RELEASE THE BERRY REPORT The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights - poised to issue a reportedly scathing assessment of Mayor Giuliani and the NYPD - was running for cover yesterday after it was revealed that its chairwoman, Mary Frances Berry, contributed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign. "People have a right to make campaign contributions to anyone they please," Berry said defensively. Of course they do. But they can't expect simultaneously to be taken seriously as policy critics. Actually, the report should be released, immediately. Its contents need to be analyzed in the full context of Mrs. Berry's ...
     
 
Appointee Would Likely Win in Court (Mary Frances Berry alert)
      Posted by Lance Romance
On Dec 19 2001 6:11 PM with 11 comments


Reuters | Tuesday December 18 7:09 PM ET | SONYA ROSS
Tuesday December 18 7:09 PM ET Appointee Would Likely Win in Court Appointee Would Likely Win in Court By SONYA ROSS, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' argument against seating a new commissioner named by President Bush probably wouldn't withstand a court challenge, congressional researchers say. At issue is a seat held by commissioner Victoria Wilson, who was appointed by President Clinton after the death of Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. Clinton noted in the appointment certificate that Wilson's term would expire when Higginbotham's would have, on Nov. 29, 2001. Earlier this month, Bush ...
     
 
Mary Frances Berry: Civil rights bully
      Posted by JohnHuang2
On Dec 11 2001 10:13 AM with 26 comments


TownHall.com ^ | Tuesday, December 11, 2001 | by Linda Chavez
TownHall.com: Conservative Columnists: Linda ChavezQUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEWtownhall.comLinda Chavez (back to story)December 11, 2001Mary Frances Berry: Civil rights bully Mary Frances Berry, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is a bully. Her most recent escapade -- last Friday -- involved her refusal to seat Peter Kirsanow, the man appointed by President Bush to a commission seat that became vacant on Nov. 29. Berry told White House counsel Al Gonzales he'd better send federal marshals if he wanted Kirsanow to take his lawful place on the commission. ...
     
 
Open Question: Was Mary Frances Berry a DNC delegate?
      Posted by Robert A. Cook, PE
On Dec 12 2001 7:55 PM with 12 comments


NA ^ | NA | Self
An open question for the group: We know Mary Frances Berry (violent, attacking even previous panel members like Chavez, bitterly racist, extremist head of the US Civil Rights Commission) is viciously partisian towards Democratic causes, Democratic issues and Democratic (racist) agendas. However, Berry is "officially" on the panel ONLY because she is an "independent" - thus (supposedly) the Commission does not have six democratics and 2 republicans (1 blind - thus unable to read the Commssion's report before it was issued - since Berry refused to print it in braille/have it read to that committee member!) before she issued last ...
     
 
***Mary Francis Berry: A Little Old Racist Lady who Needs to Get Thrown Out***
      Posted by The Wizard
On Dec 8 2001 1:51 AM with 25 comments


Stardate: 0112.7
This little racist witch acts like she matters in life somewhere......Flash: she doesn'tShe hurts other Blacks and is a disgrace to the commission she serves....And the old Grey hair lady Wilson doesn't have the class necessary to do the jobIf this bitch Wilson has any class she get up and get out
     
 
Embarassing Berry - Incivility on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission
      Posted by tank_sherman
On Dec 15 2001 12:28 PM with 22 comments


[Wall St. Journal Opinion] ^ | 12/15/2001 | Editorial Staff
Embarrassing Berry Incivility on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Saturday, December 15, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST Will some adult Democrats please inform Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, that last year's election is over and George W. Bush is President? Maybe then she will do her job and seat Peter Kirsanow, Mr. Bush's choice for the Commission's vacant slot. Instead, Mr. Kirsanow had to suffer the ignominy of trying to participate in the Commission's proceedings while Ms. Berry blithely pretended he didn't exist. A "member of the audience" may not address the Commission, she intoned, when ...
     
 
Halle Berry hurt in blast during Bond film scene
      Posted by Pokey78
On Apr 10 5:39 AM with 64 comments


The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 04/10/2002 | Hugh Davies
THE Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry has been injured in Spain while filming her starring role in the new James Bond movie Die Another Day.Berry, 33, was being directed in a risky scene which involved her co-star Pierce Brosnan, playing Agent 007, shooting down a helicopter being flown by Rick Yune in the part of a North Korean assassin called Xao.Above Cadiz - being used to depict the Cuban capital Havana - stuntmen flew the helicopter in dangerous manoeuvres amid spectacular explosions. A piece of debris from a smoke grenade flew into Berry's left eye.The Hollywood star, who plays the unscrupulous...
     
 
***Dashole, Bryd, Jeffords, Leahy and Berry: Electing Republicans***
      Posted by The Wizard
On Dec 9 2001 5:43 PM with 10 comments


Stadate: 0112.8
Maybe I'm wishing on a star, but it seems to me the incredibly selfish behavior of these people will elect Republicans if the GOP just stands firmly behind the President, and has some guts....I don't know any democrats who stand behind these people....even democrats that used to support the liar in chief, don't want to be associated with these people.Dashole has delayed the economic stimulous package for America, but allowed a raise for senators.......He watches us remain dependent on foreign oil, and yet, like a little child, won't even let others VOTE on the energy bill because his position will ...
     
 
So what happened with Marion Frances Berry and her hissy fit over Bush's appointment?
      Posted by winin2000
On Dec 7 2001 1:19 AM with 6 comments


Myself | 12/06/01 | Myself
Whatever happened with that Stalinist windbag Berry and her promise not to allow the new appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to be seated today? This was smoking news last night and haven't heard a peep about it all day. Anyone have any news?
     
Top of Page

14 posted on 05/09/2002 7:14:59 PM PDT by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minn
WHOOPIE!!!!

Sentelle also noted in the opinion that the actions taken by commission Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry and Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso to intervene on behalf of Wilson may have been contrary to law, as was claimed by the Justice Department.

I hope that smug little tyrant gets charged.

15 posted on 05/09/2002 7:18:50 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: all
Heres a liberal reporters take on the Appeals Court ruling from USA Today:

Bush appointee gets spot on civil rights commission

This article is so biased. NO mention that Sentelle mentioned in the opinion that actions taken by commission Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry and Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso to intervene on behalf of Wilson may have been contrary to law.

16 posted on 05/09/2002 7:29:02 PM PDT by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
The little brownshirt is now going to eat some of her own dust!

Kirsanow's presence on the committee restores balance to a tainted group. This is the beginning of the end of Berry's misrule of the USCCR.

Of course, the most salutary result would be for the USCCR to be abolished, but we can always dream, can't we?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

17 posted on 05/09/2002 7:36:06 PM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All
Here is a copy of the Actual ruling:

United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Opinion/Ruling 02-5047a USA vs. Wilson, Victoria


United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit



Argued May 1, 2002                            Decided May 9, 2002
No. 02-5047
United States of America and
Peter N. Kirsanow, in his official capacity as Member,
United States Commission on Civil Rights,
Appellants
v.
Victoria Wilson, et al.,
Appellees
                               
                               
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 01cv02541)
                                
                               

Gregory G. Katsas, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard Jr., U.S.  Attorney, Douglas N. Letter, Jacob M. Lewis and Ara B. Gershengorn, Attorneys, U.S.
Department of Justice.


Leon Friedman and Theodore V. Wells Jr. argued the cause for appellees. With them on the brief were Julia Tarver, Geoffrey F. Aronow and Paul S. Mandell.
Before: Sentelle, Randolph and Tatel, Circuit Judges.


Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Sentelle.


Sentelle, Circuit Judge:  On January 13, 2000, President Clinton appointed appellee Victoria Wilson to the United States Commission on Civil Rights under a commission expressly stating that the appointment was “for the remainder of the term expiring November 29, 2001,” left vacant by the death in office of a prior member.  After November 29, 2001, President Bush, treating Wilson’s commission as having expired on that date, appointed appellant Peter Kirsanow to succeed her.  At the next meeting of the Commission, that body recognized Wilson as a continuing member on her assertion that she was entitled to a full six-year term on the Commission running from January 13, 2000, to January 12, 2006.  The United States and Kirsanow filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Wilson’s term had expired and that Kirsanow is now a member of the Commission.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson.  The United States and Kirsanow appealed.  Because we agree with appellants that Wilson’s term had expired, we reverse the District Court and remand with instructions for it to enter summary judgment for the appellants.


I. Background
The United States Commission on Civil Rights (“the Commission”) is charged with
investigating allegations of deprivation of voting rights on the basis of “color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.  1975a(a)(1). In addition the Commission is empowered to conduct studies and disseminate information relating to discrimination. Id.  1975a(a)(2). The Commission’s functions are purely investigatory and advisory   it has neither the power to enforce federal law, nor to promulgate any rules with the force of law.  See Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 441 (1960); cf. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 221 (2001).


The Commission was first created in 1957, and as originally established was composed of six members serving open-ended terms at the pleasure of the President. See Pub. L. No. 85-315  101(b), 71 Stat. 634 (1957). Congress reauthorized and reorganized the Commission in 1983 by expanding it from six to eight members, providing that not more than four of the members could at any one time be from the same party, dividing the appointment power between the President and Congress, establishing that the President could only remove members for neglect of duty or malfeasance, and staggering the terms of the Commissioners. Specifically, the 1983 Act stated that the “term of office of each member of the Commission shall be six years; except that (A) members first taking office shall serve as designated by the President, subject to [provisions staggering the initial appointments], and (B) any member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term for which his predecessor was appointed.” Pub. L. No. 98-183  2(b)(2), 97 Stat 1301 (1983) (“the 1983 Act”).  The staggering provisions created two groups of four commissioners each.  The first group would serve for three years, at which point their successors would be appointed to six-year terms.  The second group would serve for six years from the outset.  See id.  2(b)(3).  Under this structure, the terms of office would be regularly staggered with half of them expiring every three years.  The 1983 Act provided for the Commission to expire in 1989.  Nonetheless the Commission continued to operate via the process of annual appropriations until reauthorized.


In 1994 the Commission was formally reauthorized. Pub. L. No. 103-419, 108 Stat. 4338 (1994) (“the 1994 Act”).  This Act has been dubbed an effort to “more concisely rewrite[] the 1983 [Act].” H.R. Rep. No. 103-775, at 4, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3532, 3533 (1994). Like the 1983 Act, the 1994 Act provides that “[t]he term of office of each member of the Commission shall be 6 years.” 42 U.S.C.  1975©. However, instead of the initial staggering provisions that followed in the 1983 Act, the 1994 Act merely provided: “The term of each member of the Commission in the initial membership of the Commission shall expire on the date such term would have expired as of September 30, 1994.”  42 U.S.C.  1975©. The Act did not contain any language referring to filling vacancies. The 1994 Act did preserve the division of appointment power between the President and Congress, as well as the requirements for partisan balance, and the limitations on presidential removal of members. See 42 U.S.C.  1975(b), (e). The 1994 Act provided for the Commission to terminate on September 30, 1996, 42 U.S.C.  1975d, however, it has again continued to operate pursuant to annual appropriations.


On November 30, 1995, then-President Clinton appointed retired Judge A. Leon Higginbotham to a six-year term as a member of the Commission. His commission stated that his appointment was “for a term expiring November 29, 2001.”  He replaced Arthur A. Fletcher, whose term expired on November 29, 1995. On December 14, 1998, Judge Higginbotham died in office.  To fill this vacancy, President Clinton appointed appellee, Victoria Wilson, to the Commission on January 13, 2000.  Her commission expressly states that her appointment was “for the remainder of the term expiring November 29, 2001.”  Treating Wilson’s term as having expired on November 29, President Bush appointed appellant Peter Kirsanow on December 6, 2001, to succeed Wilson on the Commission.  Kirsanow was administered the oath of office by D.C. Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Ross; however, the Chair of the Commission, Mary Frances Berry, refused to recognize him or allow him to participate in Commission activities.  The Chair instead continued to recognize Wilson as a member of the Commission and allowed her to participate as such.


The United States and Kirsanow (collectively “appellants”) filed this action in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory relief against Wilson. The Commission, Mary Frances Berry (Chair), and Cruz Reynoso (Vice-Chair), moved to intervene. The United States objected that neither the Commission nor its officers in their official capacity have the right to appear in litigation without the permission of the Attorney General, which they had not obtained. See 28 U.S.C.  516 (“Except as otherwise authorized by law, the conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party . . . is reserved to officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General.”). The district court summarily permitted the intervention.  As the United States has not raised this issue on appeal, claiming “it has no practical effect upon the issues presented, since Wilson herself is entitled to defend against the government’s complaint,” we do not decide whether this intervention was permissible.  The parties filed dispositive motions and on February 4, 2002, the district court issued an oral ruling granting Wilson’s motion for summary judgment.


The district court concluded that “the 1994 Amendments Act . . . does not mandate regularly staggered terms. Rather, its plain language clearly requires that all Commissioners serve six-year terms, regardless of whether, as in this case, their predecessors completed their terms.”  Thus, under the district court’s reading of the statute, Wilson would be entitled to serve a full six years, until January 12, 2006. The district court first found that the language of 42 U.S.C.  1975© “is perfectly clear. It contains no exceptions, qualifications, not for delayed appointments and not for  appointments to fill unexpired terms.”  Second, the court noted that a staggering provision had been proposed, but not adopted by Congress in the 1994 Act. Third, the district court relied on the removal of the staggering and vacancy provisions from the 1983 Act, holding that “when Congress affirmatively deletes language which had been included in pre-existing legislation, then Congress means what it said.”


Finally, the court rejected appellants’ argument that failure to maintain staggering would
undermine “the bipartisan nature of the Commission as well as its integrity and credibility.”  The court found “nothing to suggest that the absence of such a requirement would frustrate Congress’ purpose.”  Although acknowledging that its ruling would eliminate “uniformly staggered terms,” the court opined that its decision would not result in the “complete elimination of all staggering.”  Even so, the court reasoned that the “staggered term requirement was only one amongst a large constellation of protections that were introduced by the 1983 Act” and “[a]ll of these protections, except staggered terms, remain expressly included in the 1994 Act.”  The district court concluded  that “[i]f Congress believes that the regularly staggered terms should be among these protections, then, of course, it is free to make its intention explicit by including express language in the statute.” The United States and Kirsanow filed this appeal.


II. Analysis
This case involves a pure legal question of statutory interpretation. Our review of statutory interpretation by a district court is de novo. See, e.g., Butler v. West, 164 F.3d 634, 639 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
A. We begin our analysis with the language of the statute. See, e.g., Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., 534 U.S. 438, 122 S. Ct. 941, 950 (2002). “Our first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous heaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case. Our inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and ‘the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.’” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997) (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240 (1989)). In determining the “plainness or ambiguity of statutory language” we refer to “the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Id. at 341 (citing Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 477 (1992); McCarthy v.
Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 139 (1991)).


The disputed provision, 42 U.S.C.  1975© provides: “The term of office of each member of the Commission shall be 6 years. The term of each member of the Commission in the initial membership of the Commission shall expire on the date such term would have expired as of September 30, 1994.” Appellants contend, contrary to the district court’s holding, that the language of the first sentence of  1975© is ambiguous, as the expression “term of office” is subject to at least two plausible interpretations.  Appellants concede that one very plausible interpretation of  1975© is that advocated by Wilson and adopted by the district court: Each individual member of the Commission, however appointed, whenever appointed, is entitled to serve a six-year period of time   i.e., the term runs with the person.  Under this interpretation, each member of the commission would receive a six-year term running from the date of her appointment. However, appellants argue that another plausible reading of  1975© is that the first sentence establishes six-year terms of office, beginning and ending on fixed dates, irrespective of whether and when individuals are appointed to fill them. Under this reading, each member of the Commission must be assigned to a fixed, six-year ‘slot’ of time   i.e., the term runs with the calendar.  We agree with appellants that the ambiguity in the first sentence of  1975© permits either of the readings suggested. 

As Attorney General Brewster explained more than a century ago, “[t]here are two kinds of official terms.” Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 17 Op. Att’y Gen. 476, 476 (1882).  One kind of “term” refers to a period of personal service.  In that case, “the term is appurtenant to the person.” Id.  Another kind of “term” refers to a fixed slot of time to which individual appointees are assigned. There, “the person is appurtenant to the term.” Id. at 479.  In other words, a “term of office” can either run with the person or with the calendar. As an example of the latter, Article II of the Constitution provides that the President shall hold office during a “Term of four Years.” U.S. Const. Art. II,  1, cl.1. Even before enactment of the Twentieth Amendment, which established specific dates for the end of the President’s term, it was understood that presidential terms ran four years with the calendar, not four years with the person, regardless of whether an individual assumed office after his predecessor failed to serve out a full term. Thus, contrary to appellees’ position, it is not clear that the expression “term of office . . . shall be 6 years” found in  1975© is unambiguous.Indeed, far from it.  The very appointment of Wilson by President Clinton to serve only the remainder of Judge Higginbotham’s term demonstrates the ambiguity in the statutory provision calling for six-year “term[s] of office.”  The district court erred in holding that  1975© unambiguously requires that all Commissioners be appointed for six years, regardless of whether their predecessors completed their terms. This error undermines the district court’s judgment, because the remainder of its analysis rests on that erroneous premise as its point of departure.


B. Finding that the expression “term of office” in 42 U.S.C.  1975© is ambiguous, we are left to resolve that ambiguity. In resolving the ambiguity, we consider the broader context of  1975© and the structure of the 1994 Act as a whole, as well as the contextual background against which Congress was legislating, including relevant practices of the Executive Branch which presumably informed Congress’s decision, prior legislative acts, and historical events. Finally, we explore the policy ramifications of the suggested interpretations of  1975©. Each of these considerations leads us to the conclusion that, in enacting the 1994 Act, Congress did not disrupt the staggering of terms of Commission members created in the 1983 Act. Therefore we hold that Wilson was appointed by President Clinton only to fill the unexpired term of Judge Higginbotham, as her commission indicates, and her service as a Commissioner terminated on November 29, 2001. As a result, Kirsanow, having been validly appointed to a vacant seat on the Commission on December 6, 2001, for a term expiring November 29, 2007, and having taken the oath of office, is a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.


1. Appellants argue that in order to properly interpret 42 U.S.C.  1975© we must construe both of its two sentences together, rather than as separate and unrelated. Taken together, appellants contend that it is evident that the 1994 Act retained “fixed slots of time to which individual members of the Commission are ‘appurtenant.’”  The second sentence of 42 U.S.C.  1975© provides that the “term of each member of the Commission in the initial membership of the Commission shall expire on the date such term would have expired as of September 30, 1994,” under the 1983 Act. The “initial membership” of the Commission is defined as “the members of the United  States Commission on Civil Rights on September 30, 1994,” in other words, the members then serving on the Commission pursuant to the 1983 Act. 42 U.S.C.  1975(b). Appellants argue that in maintaining the staggering of “initial terms” of the Commission, as inherently provided for by the second sentence of  1975©, the 1994 Act perpetuated a self-replicating system of staggered terms. New terms begin based on when the old, staggered terms end. Thus the structure created by Congress in 1983 and preserved in 1994 would automatically endure.


Appellees would have us read the two sentences of  1975© as unrelated. According to
appellees, the first sentence alone sets the term of office for six years, and the second sentence simply addresses the transitional issue of the terms of the “initial membership” of the Commission, allowing the existing members of the Commission to finish the terms to which they had been appointed.  However, as discussed in Part II.A, supra, read alone, the first sentence of  1975© is ambiguous. It is susceptible to an interpretation that each member appointed to the Commission receives six years from her date of appointment, regardless of whether her predecessor left office early, and regardless of whether there was a delay in her appointment. This is the interpretation urged by the intervenors.  This interpretation would not only grant Wilson a full six-year term, it would effectively extend the terms of others on the Commission.  Yet, an equally plausible interpretation is that terms of the Commissioners run for six years with the calendar. Rather than counting from the date of appointment, the six years of members’ term are counted from the expiration of their predecessors’ term. This is the common practice of the Executive Branch in making appointments to staggered boards and commissions. See, e.g., Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, Memorandum for the Executive Clerk, “Term of a Member of the Mississippi River Commission,” at 1 (May 27, 1999) (observing that “to preserve the staggering required by statute, each member may serve only until the passage of the specified number of years calculated from the expiration of his predecessor’s term, even if the member’s confirmation and appointment take place after that prior term has expired”).  Thus, despite any delay in appointment, a Commissioner’s term would expire six years from the day her predecessor’s expired.  Both are six year terms   the question is which Congress intended here.


Reading the first sentence of  1975©  together with the second sentence, the latter provides an “anchor”   fixed times for terms of Commissioners to expire, based on the “term[s] of each member of the Commission in the initial membership of the Commission.” It is “a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989)).
Thus, it is a more faithful construction of  1975© to read it as a whole, rather than as containing two unrelated parts. It is the “classic judicial task” of construing related statutory provisions “to ‘make sense’ in combination.” United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 453 (1988). The second sentence does indeed address the transitional issue of the terms of the “initial membership,” but in doing so, it also creates a pattern of staggered appointments. Staggered terms must run with the calendar, rather than with the person, to preserve staggering. Thus, taken with the history and background against which Congress was legislating, discussed infra, it simply makes more sense to read  1975© as creating terms of office running with the calendar from the date of expiration of a predecessor’s term.  That being the case, any appointment to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term, such as Ms. Wilson’s appointment, must only be for the duration of that unexpired term. For it to be otherwise would disrupt the fixed and staggered six-year terms that run with the calendar.


At oral argument, we raised with counsel for appellees the question of the effect of their proffered interpretation, as adopted by the District Court, on the terms of those members who, like Berry and Reynoso, were appointed to succeed commissioners who had served their full terms, when the successor did not take office until the lapse of some period of time after the termination of the prior commissioner’s service.  Counsel argued for a two-track application of the statute, contending that when an appointee’s predecessor had served out her full term, but there was a delay in the nomination of the new appointee, that new appointee could permissibly serve less than a full six years, because such a discrepancy was only minor. However, when the appointee is replacing a predecessor who had failed to serve out a full term, such as here, the new appointee should serve a new, full six years from the date of her appointment. This anomalous result further undermines appellee’s interpretation of the statute.  We have difficulty believing that Congress sub silentio created two different tracks with full six-year terms for those commissioners who succeeded appointees who by reason of death or resignation did not serve out their full terms, but truncated terms for those who succeeded members who served for six years but whose vacancy was not immediately filled by presidential appointment.  Nothing in section 1975© gives any indication that the phrase “the term of office of each member of the Commission” has two different meanings for two distinct classes of commissioner not otherwise recognized in the statute.  The lack of such differentiation and appellee’s concession that “delayed appointees” serve terms shortened by the interval between the expiration of their predecessors’ term and the date of their appointment further supports our interpretation that, read together, the two sentences of  1975© create fixed six-year terms that run with the calendar.
Our interpretation is consistent with widely held traditional understandings of statutes
defining terms of office.  The second edition of American Jurisprudence notes that “[w]here both the duration of the term of an office and the time of its commencement or termination are fixed by a constitution or statute, a person elected or appointed  to fill a vacancy in such office holds for the unexpired portion of the term . . . .” 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees  148 (1997).


The controversy before us involves just such a term of office.  The first sentence of  1975© fixes the duration of the term: six years.  The second sentence of  1975© fixes the time of termination:  the terms of the initial members expire at dates determinable from preexisting law.  It is thus unsurprising that President Clinton issued a commission appointing appellee Wilson “for the remainder of the term expiring November 29, 2001.”  Reading  1975© as a whole, we conclude that it creates fixed six-year terms of office that run with the calendar, rather than with the person. Thus, having been appointed to fulfill the remainder of Judge Higginbotham’s term, expiring November 29, 2001, Wilson’s time on the Commission is up.


2. Our interpretation of  1975© is further confirmed by background considerations such as relevant practices of the Executive Branch. Congress is presumed to preserve, not abrogate, the background understandings against which it legislates. See, e.g., Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 163 (1997); Norfolk Redev. & Hous. Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 464 U.S. 30, 35 (1983).  “[L]ongstanding practices” of the Executive Branch can “place[] a ‘gloss’ on Congress’s action in enacting” a particular provision. Ass’n of Civilian Technicians v. FLRA, 269 F.3d 1119, 1122 (D.C.  Cir. 2001). Here the consistent treatment of appointments by the Executive Branch provides such a “gloss.”
Neither the 1983 Act nor the 1994 Act explicitly addressed delays in appointments of members after a predecessor’s term had expired. Yet, it appears that every presidential appointee to the Commission since 1983 has been appointed to a term of office expiring six years from the date her predecessor’s term expired. Even after the passage of the 1994 Act, with the changes appellees claim it made to the “terms of office,” President Clinton appointed no less than four members to the commission for terms of less than six years.  Three of these were delayed appointments, and the fourth is Victoria Wilson. Congress has reappropriated funds for the Commission, effectively reauthorizing it, each year since it was supposed to terminate in 1996, and yet it has not once suggested that the Executive Branch’s implementation of the law was incorrect. It is not that the President’s “interpretation” of 42 U.S.C.  1975© is due deference, as suggested by appellants, but rather that the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the law through its implementation colors the background against which Congress was legislating. Congress is presumed to be aware of established practices and authoritative interpretations of the coordinate branches. E.g.  National Lead Co. v.  United States, 252 U.S. 140, 147 (1920) (“Congress is presumed to have legislated with knowledge of such an established usage of an executive department of the government.”); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978); In re North, 50 F.3d 42, 45 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Special Division). Here the Executive Branch’s consistent practice provides a presumptive default.


Similarly, the practice of appointing members to the Commission on Civil Rights is but an example of what has been the unbroken position of the Attorney General and the Justice Department on executive appointments. As noted in an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on May 27, 1999, Term of a Member of the Mississippi River Commission:  Ordinarily, when a statute provides for an appointee to serve a term of years, the specified time of service begins with the appointment. Case of Chief Constructor Easby, 16 Op. Att’y Gen. 656 (1880). A different rule generally applies to commissions whose members have staggered terms. There, to preserve the staggering required by statute, each member may serve only until the passage of the specified number of years calculated from the expiration of his predecessor’s term, even if the member’s confirmation and appointment take place after that prior term has expired.
(Emphasis added.)  This latter rule has been consistently applied to executive appointments to the Commission on Civil Rights both in its previous incarnation under the 1983 Act and as constituted under the 1994 Act. Appointments have run six years from the date of the expiration of a predecessor’s term   not from the date of appointment.  It is of course possible that the consistent practice of Presidents Clinton and Bush in appointing members of the Commission has been consistently wrong.  However, we do not agree with appellee’s interpretation compelling that conclusion.  Rather, we hold that Presidents Clinton and Bush have it right.  That is, the 1983 Act clearly intended to create staggering.  The 1994 Act preserved this structure by providing for six-year terms with the terms of the initial commissioners expiring according to their commissions under the 1983 Act. 


Furthermore, the consistent practice of the Executive Branch with respect to the filling of
midterm vacancies on other bodies with staggered term members has been to fill those vacancies  for the duration of the unexpired term, preserving the staggering of terms.  That this practice has been longstanding is illustrated by a dispute in the 19th century remarkably similar to the case at bar. In 1882, the Attorney General was asked by the President for his opinion of the term of office of a Commissioner of the District of Columbia who had been appointed after his predecessor failed to serve out a full term. See Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 17 Op. Att’y Gen. 476, 476 (1882).  The governing statute provided for staggering with respect to the initial appointment of the two Commissioners, but was silent about both subsequent appointments and the filling of vacancies.  Nonetheless, the Attorney General concluded that a Commissioner appointed to fill a vacancy could serve only for the remainder of his predecessor’s unexpired term. As noted in Part II.A, supra, the Attorney General distinguished between terms running with the person and terms running with the calendar.  He concluded that there must be “some apt expression of . . . intent” to create the latter kind of term, and found such an “apt expression” from the initial staggering of terms. Id. at 477.


Were it to be otherwise, the staggering of the Commission would deteriorate, and frustrate Congress’s purpose in establishing staggering in the first place. See id. at 477-78. He concluded that “[t]he fact that no express provision is made for filling vacancies which might arise by death or resignation is not significant.” Id. at 478.  In appointing Victoria Wilson for the remainder of Judge Higginbotham’s term of office, President Clinton was following an established Executive Branch practice which was known to Congress. Had Congress intended to disrupt the staggering of members in its 1994 reauthorization of the Commission on Civil Rights, it could have affirmatively indicated that was its intent.


Appellee Wilson argues that if we held that each member of the Commission receives a six- year term of office running from the date of their appointment, her appointment, though reflected in her commission as “for the remainder of the term expiring November 29, 2001,” would be effective as a six-year appointment expiring on January 12, 2006. In support of this proposition appellees cite Quackenbush v. United States, 177 U.S. 20, 27 (1900), which notes in passing that “the terms of [a] commission cannot change the effect of the appointment as defined by . . . statute.” That may be. But arguably Wilson may not have been validly appointed in the first instance.  It seems intuitive, as a matter of separation of powers, that the language of a nomination, confirmation, and commission cannot alter a statutory term, since it is given to Congress “under its legislative
power” to “establish[] . . . offices, the determination of their functions and jurisdiction, the prescribing of reasonable and relevant qualifications and rules of eligibility of appointees, and the fixing of the term for which they are to be appointed and their compensation   all except as otherwise provided by the Constitution.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 129 (1926) (Taft, C.J.) (emphasis added). Indeed, this appears to be the position of the Department of Justice. See, e.g., Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, Memorandum for the Executive Clerk, “Term of a Member of the Mississippi River Commission,” at 2 (May 27, 1999); Case of Chief Constructor Easby, 16 Op. Att’y Gen. 656, 657 (1880).


However, we are not considering an attempt by a President to intentionally circumvent a
statute. Nor is this a case of mere scrivener’s error.  Rather, it is clear that President Clinton intended to appoint Wilson to the remainder of a term and not to a full six-year term, a position he reasonably believed existed. Were we to read the statute as prohibiting appointments to the remainder of a term then either Wilson’s appointment must be to a six-year term, or alternatively, it was to a non-existent position   the remainder of a term   raising a question as to the validity of her appointment in the first instance. It could be seen as an attempt by the President to appoint Wilson to a position that did not exist. In that case Wilson would never have been a valid member of the Commission in the first instance. However, because we read the statute as preserving staggering and thus permitting the appointment of Wilson to the remainder of a term of office, that problem need not concern us. As a result, Wilson’s appointment by President Clinton was valid, but her term of office has subsequently expired.


3. In addition to Executive Branch practices implementing a statute, background considerations, or “context,” include related provisions in historically antecedent statutes. E.g. Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Rep., 525 U.S. 316, 339-40 (1999). We need not rely on legislative history, of which there is little of relevance, to determine that staggering of terms was an important feature of the 1983 Act   the plain text and the historical events surrounding the 1983 reauthorization of the Commission demonstrate that fact. Congress went to great lengths to put various structural features in place to preserve the independence, autonomy, and non-partisan nature of the Commission.
Clearly staggering was one of those features.  See Pub. L. No. 98-183  2(b)(2), (3), 97 Stat. 1301 (1983). The 1983 Act was enacted at a time when Congress was responding to President Reagan’s decision to remove and replace first two, then a total of five, members of the Commission. See Congressional Research Service, Tenure of Members of the Civil Rights Commission, Memorandum to House Subcommittee on the Constitution, at 2 3, 5 (Dec. 14, 2001). Thus it is evident that in staggering the membership (among other features), Congress was insulating the Commission from carte blanc replacement at any given time.  To suggest that Congress abolished this practical structural feature without any indication that it intended to   evidenced by the fact that the Clinton and Bush Administrations continued to treat the Commission as a body with staggered membership
presents a highly improbable scenario. There is no evidence in or external to the 1994 Act that Congress meant to disrupt the system it had meticulously put into motion.


Appellees suggest that we can deduce Congress’s intent to alter the terms of office created by the 1983 Act because the original version of the bill introduced in the House of Representatives to reauthorize the Commission provided that “the current staggering of terms shall continue in effect.”  H.R. 4999  2©, 103d Cong. (1994).  Appellees contend that the removal of this language demonstrates that Congress intended to disrupt the staggering created by the 1983 Act.  However, it is at least equally plausible that Congress considered such language simply unnecessary in light of the addition of the provision that the terms of “initial” members “shall expire on the date such term would have expired as of September 30, 1994.”  42 U.S.C.  1975©.  This language demonstrates that Congress intended to preserve the structure created under the 1983 Act.
Indeed, Congress used virtually the exact same language in defining the six-year term of
office in both the 1983 and 1994 Acts: “The term of office of each member of the Commission shall be 6 years.” 42 U.S.C.  1975©; Pub. L. No. 98-103  2(b)(2). If anything this suggests that “term of office” retains the same meaning as it did in 1983.  Since there is apparently no dispute that under the 1983 Act a “term of office” ran with the calendar, that same understanding would apply to the 1994 Act.


Appellees’ strongest argument that Congress intended to alter the structure of the Commission in adopting the 1994 Act is that it eliminated the provision providing that “any member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term for which his predecessor was appointed.” Pub. L. No. 98-103  2(b)(2)(B). This argument is not without force. As this Court has recognized: “Where the words of a later statute differ from those of a previous one on the same or related subject, the Congress must have intended them to have a different meaning.” Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439, 1444 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Further, there are numerous statutes creating boards and commissions that expressly provide for filling vacancies. However, here we have not a new agency, but a Commission that Congress had already established and was merely reauthorizing. In the process Congress removed provisions pertaining to the initial staggering of the Commission which also included the vacancy provision. What that leaves is not different words, as in Muscogee (Creek) Nation, but rather silence. And not just silence, but silence coupled with ambiguous terms, well-established practices of the Executive Branch, and the perpetuation of a staggered board in the 1994 Act by providing that the terms of “initial” members “shall expire on the date such term would have expired as of September 30, 1994,” under the 1983 Act.  Had Congress intended to change the established practice for appointing members of the Commission on Civil Rights, it could have affirmatively indicated its intent to do so. It did not. “Congress is unlikely to intend any radical departures from past practice without making a point of saying so.” Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 234 (1999). These contextual considerations lead us to the conclusion that the 1994 Act maintained the structure of the Commission as reauthorized in 1983, and thus Wilson was appointed to fill an unexpired term, rather than to a new term of her own.


4. Fnally, we observe that our interpretation, unlike that urged by appellees, avoids anomalous results. As noted above, the creation of staggered terms was one of several structural features adopted in the 1983 Act to establish the Commission as an independent, bipartisan entity, to insulate it from political influence, and to protect its integrity and credibility. The district court contended that its decision would not result in “the complete elimination of all staggering,” but acknowledged that its decision would result in the “absence of uniformly staggered terms.”  The district court further contended that “there is little, if any, substantive difference between those two.”  We disagree. There is a substantial difference in having predictable terms ensuring that membership will turn over in a periodic and foreseeable manner, and having unpredictable vacancies that permanently disorder member terms. Not the least difference is the diffusion of appointment authority across presidential administrations. Moreover, there is no apparent reason Congress would originally create fixed, staggered terms, as it did under the 1983 Act, only to have them become unpredictably de-staggered over time as some members of the Commission resign, retire, are removed, or die. 


Even more telling is the fact that the construction urged by appellees would invite the very sort of political manipulation leading to the reorganization of the Commission in 1983.  For example, de-staggering could arise from concerted resignations near the end of a President’s term, allowing an outgoing President to appoint several members of the Commission at once,  precluding his successor from appointing any members of the Commission. Such “absurd results” are strongly disfavored. Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575 (1982). Congress was attempting to insulate the Commission from this kind of carte blanc replacement at any given time.  Appellees
have no argument as to why these same policy considerations were no longer relevant in 1994 when Congress reauthorized the Commission. The absence of any policy justification for the construction urged by appellees provides yet an additional reason to conclude that Congress, when it established the “initial membership” of the Commission in the 1994 Act, see 42 U.S.C.  1975©, preserved the staggering it had set in motion in the 1983 Act, and did not intend for the benefits of that provision to be destroyed as some future appointees, either because of random events or strategic behavior inevitably failed to serve out their terms.


III. Conclusion
Since the founding of the republic presidential appointees and their commissions have been a source of litigation, if not consternation. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 154 (1803). Here Wilson’s commission corresponds to the terms of the statute pursuant to which she was appointed a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights   42 U.S.C.  1975. Part © of  1975 provides that the “term of office of each member of the Commission shall be 6 years.” The district court erred in holding that this provision unambiguously requires all Commissioners be appointed for six years, regardless of whether their predecessors completed their terms. Rather,  1975© is also susceptible to the entirely reasonable interpretation that it establishes fixed terms of
six years for members of the Commission   terms that run with the calendar   regardless of delay in appointment or the filling of mid-term vacancies. Having considered the two sentences of  1975© in conjunction, practices of the Executive Branch in making appointments to this Commission and other bodies, the prior legislation, and the policy ramifications of the suggested interpretations of  1975©, we hold that the latter interpretation is correct.  In enacting the 1994 Act, Congress did not disrupt the staggering of terms of Commission members created in the 1983 Act. Therefore, mid-term vacancies are to be filled only for the remainder of the unexpired term.
Wilson was properly appointed by President Clinton only for the remainder of the unexpired term of Judge Higginbotham, as her commission indicates, and her service as a Commissioner terminated on November 29, 2001. Kirsanow, having been validly appointed to a vacant seat on the Commission, and having taken the oath of office, is a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights “with all the powers, privileges, and emoluments thereunto of right appertaining and has been since December 6, 2001.  We reverse the district court and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for the United States and Kirsanow.

 

It is So ordered.


18 posted on 05/09/2002 8:07:11 PM PDT by Thanatos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thanatos
big bttt
19 posted on 05/09/2002 8:23:07 PM PDT by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Minn
You gotta wonder how Ms. Berry is feeling right now? And I don't care!
20 posted on 05/09/2002 9:38:09 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thanatos
Thanks for posting the ruling!
21 posted on 05/10/2002 5:20:21 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Minn
Yahoo!!!!!!!!
22 posted on 05/10/2002 3:09:24 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson