Embarrassing Berry
Posted on 12/10/2001 3:03:17 AM PST by Elle Bee
Incivility 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 he be allowed to present his credentials.
We fully understand that Mr. Bush's election must have been a shock for Ms. Berry, who has spent the past 20 years diligently using this "bipartisan" body to advance the political and social agenda of the most partisan liberals. She has made the most of the 5-3 edge that Democrats currently hold on the eight-member panel. If civil rights veteran Mr. Kirsanow is allowed to replace Victoria Wilson, whose term expired November 29, that advantage would shift to 4-4, and Ms. Berry's activism would no longer go unchecked.
Ms. Berry's claim that Ms. Wilson is entitled to a new six-year term defies precedent and logic. Ms. Wilson was appointed by President Clinton to finish the term of Commissioner Leon Higginbotham, who died in 1998. The Clinton White House even stated this at the time of her appointment, though it didn't have to. The 1983 statute is clear: "Any member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term for which his predecessor was appointed."
In 1994, when the statute was last amended, this aspect wasn't changed in letter or spirit. Members of the Civil Rights Commission, like members of other federal commissions, serve staggered terms. The purpose is to protect the Commission's independence and integrity, which would be compromised if each Administration were permitted to clean house and bring in its own people. We know Ms. Berry is familiar with this rationale, because it's hers. Staggering was put into the 1983 statute at her urging for these very reasons.
But we guess Ms. Berry is having too good a time playing in her partisan sandbox to care much about a little matter like the law. In April 2000, smack in the middle of the Presidential election campaign, Ms. Berry issued a report attacking efforts to end race-based college admissions policies in Texas, Mr. Bush's home state, and Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother Jeb is Governor. The timing and the targets were pure coincidence, of course.
So, too, was her decision to investigate the New York City Police Department in the middle of the Rudolph Giuliani-Hillary Clinton Senate race. Al Sharpton was kind enough to inform the media at the time that her report, highly critical of the mayor and the police, was "exactly what we asked for." We're not sure which was more disturbing: Mr. Sharpton's knowing remark, which he voiced before the report was made public, or the revelation that Ms. Berry had donated to Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
The results of election 2000, however, were too much for the Chairman to bear. In August the Commission drafted an unsubstantiated report charging that black voters were discriminated against in Florida and that Mr. Bush's victory was due to "a pattern and practice of injustice."
The Civil Rights Commission was created to promote racial coexistence, but Ms. Berry has turned it into a partisan tool of racial division. Her decision to fight the White House in court over Mr. Kirsanow's appointment is nothing more than a last-ditch effort to stir up more racial animus. Mr. Bush would do the country a favor by dismissing her, but then Ms. Berry would travel the country claiming to be a racial martyr. This is one case in which Democrats should police their own.
.
It's not funny at all, it is a blatant lie and malfeasance by this dishonest piece of sh*t to get round the rule preventing poitical domination of the board by one party.
You mean like taking them for a walk ?...:-)
This reminds me of "Who hired Craig Livingstone?"
Nova University?
Be nice to see Condi Rice show up and kick her butt! (I know it's irrational, too much coffee this AM, sorry).No, it's not irrational. Brownshirts like Mary Frances Berry consider Condoleezza Rice to be a race traitor. Her kind will open up that big mouth of hers the minute Condi gets anywhere close to the Vice Presidency.
A conservative black female Republican in an executive position is something these people simply cannot tolerate. The whole thrust of their argument to black America is that the Republican Party is the Klan Party. When that is exposed as a lie, then they have nowhere else to go.
And if Berry does get out of line, Condi will slap her down so hard that Berry will live to curse her own mother for having given her birth.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Aunt Esther: Dear??? You called me dear? How sweet, Fred!
Fred: Yeah, I called you dear, you look like Bambis father.
But th(c) Terms
The term of office of each member of the Commission shall be 6 years e subsequent legislation is very clear too.
Folks, remember when we argued in Florida that SHALL means MUST. The new legislation dropped ths vacancy language from the 1983 text. Don't be lulled into thinking Berry has no case. She has the plain meaning of the text on her side. According to th plain reading no one can be appointed for less than 6 years irrespective of putting a limit on he term by the president.
Good point. If she argues that the new language of the statute only allows the appointees a term of 6 years then this is her last term. She or others cannot be reapointed if they served over 6 years under new law.
Second, since the law also requires that terms be staggered, and accepting Ms. Berry's interpretation would undermine that requirement, the courts will look at the legislative history to determine the intent of Congress. Unless they can find clear evidence that Congress intended to allow 6 years terms, regardless of when the people were appointed, Berry will lose. Otherwise, a president could have all the commission members resign a month before he leaves office, then re-appoint them all to a new 6-year term, preventing the next president from having any appointments to the commission at all...
vaudine
I understand that.
Second, since the law also requires that terms be staggered,
False. It does not see law below
and accepting Ms. Berry's interpretation would undermine that requirement,
No, she is reading it as written.
the courts will look at the legislative history to determine the intent of Congress.
Agreed partially. They will look to the clear reading of the statute. Other stattues and this one prior did have clear language as to what happends when filling a vacancy. This did not. It can be argued that it wasn't some sort of oversite. The fact that it was there previously and the left out it will be harder to argue that congressional intent was for stageered terms.
Unless they can find clear evidence that Congress intended to allow 6 years terms, regardless of when the people were appointed, Berry will lose.
i think the burden is reversed. Unless the courts can be shown clear evidence that congressional intent was other than what was clearly stated she is correct.
Otherwise, a president could have all the commission members resign a month before he leaves office, then re-appoint them all to a new 6-year term, preventing the next president from having any appointments to the commission at all...
Not entirely, first the appointments are spread over Pres, senate and congress. The president cannot reapoint all of them. Second, there is requirement of no more than 4 from each party.
A positive reason for making each persons term last 6 years is that it insures less turnover.
Sec. 1975. Establishment of Commission
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.