Richard Cebull Should Resign Or Be Impeached By Congress; Misuse Of Office & Racist Behavior In Workplace

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Federal Judge Richard Cebull (9th Circuit), a Federal Judge Appointed by George W. Bush in 2001, has Publicly Apologized for sending out an extremely Racist E-mail about Pres. Obama via his Official Judicial E-mail Account.

The E-mail suggests Pres. Obama was Conceived after his Mother had Sex with a Dog.

OMG!
That is so Disgusting!

Such Disrespectful Behavior from a Federal Judge!
A Publicly Apology from Richard Cebull is NOT good enough.

As a Federal Judge Appointed by a U.S. President & Confirmed by Congress, Richard Cebull is expected to Serve & Conduct himself in a Professional, Respectful Manner before the Public.

This is especially so whenever referring to a Sitting U.S. President.

How in the World can Richard Cebull be expected to continue Serving in his role as a Federal Judge and be expected to Treat Everyone Fairly, if he has expressed to the Entire United States via a Racist E-mail that he has a Problem with a BLACK, Elected President?

No a Public Apology isn't good enough!

Judge Richard Cebull Needs to Voluntarily Resign or Congress Should Impeach Him!
Period!






Richard Cebull says he sent Racist Obama e-mail


Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull apologized Wednesday for sending a racist email about President Obama from his office to a few friends.

"To say it's inappropriate and stupid is an extreme understatement," Cebull said Wednesday afternoon in his courthouse chambers in Billings.

"There is no doubt it's racist. It wasn't forwarded for that purpose," Cebull said. "If anything, it was political."

The judge admitted he forwarded the racially charged email he received to seven friends, including his brother, on Feb. 20 from his office computer.

The email eventually was forwarded to the Great Falls Tribune, which published it Wednesday. The Tribune said the email text read as follows:

"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this.

Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

"A little boy said to his mother, 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'
His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack!

From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"

Cebull took responsibility, calling it "a hard lesson to learn. I apologize."

The judge said he is not a racist although he acknowledged people will think that because of the email.

"And I don't blame them. The fact is that isn't how I've conducted myself as a federal judge. Never has anybody asserted I was racist," he said.

Cebull was nominated to the bench by former President George W. Bush and confirmed in 2001. He has been Montana's chief judge since 2008. Prior to becoming a district judge, Cebull served as a U.S. magistrate judge in Great Falls and had been in private practice.

Cebull said he does not remember who sent him the email and said he had deleted it before Wednesday. The judge also said he did not write the introduction.

The judge said he was at a loss to explain why he forwarded the message.

Friends send him emails of a political nature, he said.

"It was a private communication. I didn't intend for it to go public," he said.
As a judge, Cebull said, he can't express in public political preferences but was naive to not consider the public consequences of his actions.

The judge has said he is not an Obama supporter.

Cebull said he has emailed the other federal judges in Montana apologizing for his conduct. He said he will never forward or send another email from his office that isn't business related.


View Larger Map


Sources: Billings Gazette, CNN, Current TV, MSNBC, Washington Post, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Upheld By U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Keeps Ban On Gays From Openly Serving In The Military


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that a controversial law prohibiting homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces can remain in place while the government appeals a Federal Judge's decision striking down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act.

A gay rights group asked the high court to overturn a stay order from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals keeping the law in effect while that court reviews the case. The petition from the Log Cabin Republicans was presented to Justice Anthony Kennedy who is responsible for handling emergency requests out of the Ninth Circuit.

Kennedy's order simply said, "the application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 1, 2010, presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied." The order also noted that Justice Elena Kagan, who until this summer was Solicitor General, didn't take part in the case.

In September, Judge Virginia Phillips said the law was unconstitutional because it infringes on the fundamental rights of gay service members and concluded that the policy does not improve military readiness or unit cohesion. More than 13,000 people have been forced out since the law took effect in 1993.

Judge Phillips then ordered that the military immediately stop enforcing the law but her ruling was enjoined by the Ninth Circuit on November 1. Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court affirms the Ninth Circuit's decision to maintain the status quo while the government appeals the initial judgment invalidating the law.

The Obama Administration has defended the law in every court proceeding even though it has publically voiced its opposition to it and its desire to have Congress repeal the measure. It's unclear what impact the recent election results will have on that pursuit.







Why Obama Pushed To Reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

A Federal Appeals Court has, at the urging of the White House, granted a temporary stay on an Oct. 12 order by a district court judge to stop enforcing "don't ask, don't tell," which bars openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Many observers are surprised to see the Obama administration, which has opposed the policy and sought its repeal through Congress, lobbying the appeals court to keep the ban in place.

The stay is temporary and is designed to maintain the status quo until the appeal court can formally review the policy. The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that it would begin allowing openly gay recruits; the New York Times reports that this court stay "almost certainly means the government will go back to enforcing" don't ask, don't tell. Here's what people are saying about this development and what it means for the controversial policy.


Obama Explains the Move.

The Associated Press's Lisa Leff reports, "President Barack Obama said last week that the Clinton-era law 'will end on my watch' but added that 'It has to be done in a way that is orderly, because we are involved in a war right now.'

He said he supports repeal of the policy, but only after careful review and an act of Congress. ... Government lawyers argue that striking down the policy and ordering the Pentagon to immediately allow openly gay service members could harm troop morale and unit cohesion when the military is fighting two wars."

The Department of Justice issues a statement:

“Proper implementation of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s’ repeal cannot occur overnight,” the Justice Department filing says, indicating that the amount of time needed to end the policy is the subject of a Pentagon working group review due out on December 1.

“An abrupt, court-ordered end to the statute would pretermit (sic) the Working Group’s efforts to ensure that the military completes development of the necessary policies and regulations for a successful and orderly implementation of any repeal of § 654. The significant impairment of the Department’s efforts to devise an orderly end to the statute would cause irreparable harm,” the Justice Department wrote.


Legal Complications if DADT Repealed Too Quickly.

The New York Times' Sabrina Tavernise and John Schwartz write, "Military officers have argued that if the change is made too quickly, it will place the military on a collision course with federal statutes. Families and spouses of soldiers have access to benefits like housing, health care and education through marriage, which the federal government does not recognize for same-sex couples."

Now Obama Owns a Policy He Opposes.

The American Prospect's Adam Serwer warned before the White House secured its sought-after stay, "if the administration successfully appeals Judge Phillips's decision, it will find itself obligated to enforce a policy the president himself says he opposes and that he says undermines national security, a policy with no empirical, legal, or moral basis.

The administration will have effectively instituted its own Proposition 8, retroactively denying rights to individuals who already have them. That will be significantly harder to explain or justify than simply maintaining the status quo. After having promised to repeal DADT, Obama would be responsible for its ongoing survival."


Obama Is Losing Control.

Liberal blogger Joe Sudbay fumes, "Well, DADT is the law of the land again -- at least for now. This has gotten absurd. The White House has lost control of this situation and it looks bad. I hope whoever concocted the Obama administration's strategy on DADT (and those who enabled it, meaning HRC and Winnie Stachelberg at CAP) grasp the magnitude of how screwed up this is. The people who are suffering here are the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Atlantic Wire, CNN, Democracy Now, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Upheld By Appellate Court: 9th Circuit

Appellate Panel Says "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Should Stay During Appeal


A Federal Appeals Court sided with the U.S. Government Monday, allowing the U.S. Military to maintain its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy during an appeal of a lower court ruling that the law barring openly Gay and Lesbian Soldiers is Unconstitutional.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals means that the policy remains in place while the government appeals a federal judge's ruling against it. One of the three judges on the panel dissented against parts of Monday's decision.

In response to the panel's ruling, the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay rights group that filed the lawsuit against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, can now appeal it to the full 9th Circuit appellate court and or make an emergency application directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dan Woods, an attorney with White & Case who represents the Log Cabin Republicans, said the appeal would continue and he raised the possibility of seeking emergency relief from the nation's highest court.

"We will continue to fight on for the constitutional rights of these Americans and look forward to a favorable decision on the merits of the appeal," Woods said in a statement. "Meanwhile, we will discuss the court's order with our client to determine whether we will ask for a review of the order by the U.S. Supreme Court."

In Monday's ruling, the judges said they had to weigh the harm of continuing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against the potential harm in forcing the military to drop the policy before it is ready.

"We conclude that the government's colorable allegations that the lack of an orderly transition in policy will produce immediate harm and precipitous injury are convincing," the ruling said. "Colorable" means the court believes the allegations have a reasonable chance of being found valid.

"We also conclude that the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military -- if that is what is to happen -- strongly militates in favor of a stay," the ruling said.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told CNN in an e-mail message that the appellate panel's decision was "appropriate."

In their ruling, the judges also noted that legislation pending before Congress to repeal the policy would render the case before them moot.

The House has passed a repeal provision, and the Senate is expected to consider it as part of a broader defense authorization bill when it returns for a lame-duck session in mid-November.

President Barack Obama wants to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and reached an agreement with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen,the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a process that includes a military review of how to make a successful transition to openly gay and lesbian soldiers serving alongside straight colleagues. Obama, Gates and Mullen would then have to certify the repeal.

The case puts Obama's administration in an unusual position of supporting a repeal but filing court motions to prevent it from happening faster than planned. The legislation before Congress includes the process for repeal agreed to with Gates and Mullen.

In response to the court case, Gates recently raised the level at which gay and lesbian troops can be discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" by ordering that it only be done by the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

In a memo written to the heads of all the military services, Gates said his action was taken in direct response to the legal uncertainty surrounding "don't ask, don't tell" law and policy.

"Effective immediately and until further notice, no military member shall be separated ... without the personal approval of the secretary of the military department concerned, in coordination with the under secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness and the general counsel of the Defense Department. These functions may not be delegated," Gates wrote.


Sources: CNN, ForaTV, PBS News, Youtube

Virginia A. Phillips: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Judge Denies Stay

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": An End To Court Deference To The U.S. Military?



President Obama's battle over gays in the military escalated on Tuesday, as a federal judge refused to back down from her order to stop the enforcement of "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Pentagon for the first time ordered recruitment centers across the country to welcome potential recruits who are openly gay or lesbian. The Pentagon's guidance to recruiters was a remarkable development, ending — for the moment — a blanket ban on gays serving openly in the military, even as the Obama Administration scrambled to put the ban back in place.

The Pentagon's message to recruiters warned that while they were to welcome gay potential recruits, they must also notify those would-be soldiers, sailors and Marines that if the Obama Administration succeeds in putting Judge Virginia Phillips' decision on hold or, ultimately, has it reversed, their enlistments will be stopped. But Phillips has rebuffed the Obama Administration's efforts to delay her ruling long enough to appeal. And in doing so, she has tossed aside muscular arguments from top military officials who warn of dire consequences if her ruling stands.

Her easy dismissal of such arguments comes on the heels of a string of other gay-rights rulings that appear to have outpaced the will of voters and state lawmakers alike. It has prompted some legal scholars to argue that the case's importance goes well beyond the legality of "Don't ask, don't tell." They say it also triggers key questions about the proper role of the judiciary and whether courts are losing their reluctance to interfere in military policymaking, even in times of war.

Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court deferred again and again to the military when it came to setting important policy, even when those policies apparently conflicted with fundamental rights. For instance, the court upheld rules denying Jewish soldiers the right to wear a yarmulke; it allowed rules limiting the roles women can play in combat; and, infamously in the case of Korematsu v. United States, it deferred to the military's argument that Japanese Americans on the West Coast should be interred in camps during World War II.

"Part of what is interesting here is that while Judge Phillips' order formally puts 'Don't ask, don't tell' and its constitutionality front and center, right behind that issue are important questions about the deference shown by the judiciary to the military where a military policy has been duly enacted by the Congress and signed by a President into law," says Marc Spindelman of Ohio State University's law school. Those questions are likely being debated in the Justice Department as the Administration decides whether to make an immediate appeal of Phillips' decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or instead to simply seek more time to sort out its options by asking a special panel of higher-court judges to do what Phillips refused to do on Tuesday — stay her order until the matter can be resolved on appeal.

The President's decision about how to proceed will be made against a rising chorus of gay-rights groups and others who insist that he not appeal at all, a decision that would leave Phillips' order in place permanently and automatically make good on Obama's many promises to end discrimination against gays in the military. In the view of one leading constitutional scholar, the President's protestations that tradition requires him to defend the statute are unfounded. "It is entirely up to the President to decide whether or not to appeal," Dean Erwin Chereminsky of the University of California at Irving School of Law tells TIME. "The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and need not defend laws that he believes are unconstitutional. I think that if Obama wants an end to the policy, the simplest path is to not appeal the nationwide injunction."

But so far, Obama has insisted that he will appeal, in the hope that Congress, not the courts, will decide whether gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military.



So what's the next step? Chances are, the Administration won't appeal the full ruling — not yet. Instead, the Justice Department will likely ask judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review Phillips' refusal to stay her order. That's a procedural matter that will be handled by a special rotating panel of three judges. Two of the judges serving this month — Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and Senior Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott — were put on the bench by Ronald Reagan; the third, Circuit Judge William Fletcher, was nominated by Bill Clinton.

"Everything always comes down to which judges are deciding," says Vikram Amar, associate dean for academic affairs at the University of California at Davis School of Law. "Especially in this case, where the legal standards are not so self-executing, it really does depends on who you draw. Any of the conservatives on the Ninth Circuit are going to be more likely to give the military deference." No matter what happens with the stay, Amar says it's likely the Ninth Circuit will speed up review of Obama's promised appeal, probably setting oral arguments within a few months, just as it did with the Prop 8 gay-marriage case that is currently being appealed within the circuit.

Meanwhile, if Phillips' order stays in effect, things could get awkward for both the military and Obama. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruitment Command at Fort Knox in Kentucky, tells TIME that recruits who are open about their sexual orientation won't be turned away while the judge's order is in effect. "We continue to not ask what one's sexual orientation is," Smith says. "And if an applicant tells us they are gay or lesbian or bisexual, we are going to say O.K. and process their applications like any other applicant."

Obama has repeatedly insisted that "Don't ask, don't tell" is ripe for repeal. Now supporters are asking why, if the President is truly serious about a repeal, his Defense Secretary is issuing warnings that Phillips' ruling could have dire consequences for the military.

Chereminsky, for one, calls the Administration's response hypocritical. "I think it is stunningly hypocritical for the President to say [the policy] should be ended and for the Secretary of Defense to say that ending it would harm national security," he says. "It is strange that Secretary Gates now says that ending 'Don't ask, don't tell' will harm the military. The government presented no such evidence in court. Second, there is no reason why this is inherently more [appropriate] for Congress than the courts. Federal courts decide issues of rights — such as here, the First Amendment — all the time."

Whatever strategy the White House ultimately adopts in the case, Phillips' ruling, and her insistence on Tuesday that it be respected despite the military's objections, has added gasoline on a fire over gay rights that Obama has tried to keep to a low burn since his election. As the parade of gays and lesbians entering recruitment centers looking for enlistment papers swells in the coming days, that blaze will only get bigger — and probably harder to extinguish.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, TIME, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Awkward "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Legal Dilemma

Obama Requests Emergency Stay Of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Order

Finding itself in a strange legal position, the Obama Administration filed an emergency request Wednesday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the military from allowing openly gay troops from serving.

In effect, the administration wants to continue barring gays from the military even though it ultimately favors repealing the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

"They are in a very bizarre position, frankly of their own making," said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

In court documents filed in San Francisco, California, the administration argued that don't ask, don't tell should remain intact for now.

The administration argued that changing it abruptly "risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute."

Toobin said the administration would like Congress to deal with the issue on a political level and doesn't want the courts to take it on unilaterally.

The administration had already filed a motion Tuesday asking U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips to stay her order last month that banned the enforcement of the policy.

When Phillips denied the request, government lawyers took their case to the 9th Circuit.

If the 9th Circuit overturns Phillips' ruling and Congress does not take any action, then don't ask, don't tell could be back.

"And the Obama administration would be responsible for that," Toobin said.

The Log Cabin Republicans, plaintiffs in the case that Phillips ruled on, said Wednesday that the group remained fully committed to defending this worldwide injunction because it is what is best for all service members.

"It respects their fundamental constitutional rights," said Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the group. "We'll continue to defend this ruling all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary."

The group was expecting the 9th Circuit to consider the request for a stay in the next five days. By the time there is a court ruling, don't ask, don't tell would have been suspended for almost two weeks.

The Pentagon has already begun advising recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The guidance from the personnel and readiness office was sent to recruiting commands Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.

Berle said so far, there have not been any incidents of consequence the administration feared would occur.

"The armed forces continues to move along and succeed because it is the greatest military in the world," Berle said.

Dan Choi, an infantry officer who was discharged under the don't ask, don't tell policy, turned in paperwork Wednesday to re-enlist in the Army. He said the Obama administration ought not to lift a finger to defend discrimination.

"They should walk their talk," Choi told CNN after re-enlisting.

The Obama administration has said it needs more time to work with the Pentagon to repeal the policy, blasted by critics as blatantly discriminatory.

"This president has made a commitment, and it's not a question of whether that program, whether that policy will change, but when," Obama adviser David Axelrod told CNN. "We're at the end of a process with the Pentagon to make that transition, and we're going to see it through."


Sources: CNN

U.S. Military Recruiters Accept Gay Applicants: Obama Appeals

U.S. Military Recruiters Told To Accept Gay Applicants, As Gov't Appeals Court Decision


U.S. Defense Department said Tuesday that it is accepting openly gay recruits, but is warning applicants they might not be allowed to stick around for long.

Following last week's court ruling that struck down a 1993 law banning gays from serving openly, the military has suspended enforcement of the rule known as "don't ask, don't tell." The Justice Department is appealing the decision and has asked the courts for a temporary stay on the ruling.

The Defense Department said it would comply with the law and had frozen any discharge cases. But at least one case was reported of a man being turned away from an Army recruiting office in Austin, Texas.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith on Tuesday confirmed that recruiters had been given top-level guidance to accept applicants who say they are gay.

Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" could be reversed at any point, if the ruling is appealed or the court grants a stay, she said.

The uncertain status of the law has caused much confusion within an institution that has historically discriminated against gays. Before the 1993 law, the Defense Department banned gays entirely and declared them incompatible with military service.

Douglas Smith, spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command based at Fort Knox, Ky., said even before the ruling recruiters did not ask applicants about their sexual orientation. The difference now is that recruiters will process those who say they are gay.

"If they were to self admit that they are gay and want to enlist, we will process them for enlistment, but will tell them that the legal situation could change," Smith said.

He said the enlistment process takes time and recruiters have been told to inform those who are openly gay that they could be declared ineligible if the law is upheld on appeal.

"U.S. Army Recruiting Command is going to follow the law, whatever the law is at the time," he said.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips, who had ordered the military to stop enforcing "don't ask, don't tell," was expected to deny the administration's request to delay her order. That would send the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

After Phillips' ruling last week, Omar Lopez — discharged from the Navy in 2006 after admitting his gay status to his military doctor — walked into an Army recruiting office in Austin and asked if he could re-enlist. He said he was up front, even showing the recruiters his Navy discharge papers.

"They just said, 'I can't let you re-enlist because we haven't got anything down from the chain of command,'" Lopez, 29, told the AP in a telephone interview. "They were courteous and apologetic, but they couldn't help me."

Smith was unable to confirm the account. She said guidance on gay applicants had been issued to recruiting commands on Oct. 15.


Sources: Chicago Tribune, CNN

Goodwin Liu Wants To Change U.S. Constitution, New 9th Circuit Appointee

Obama's 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt To Changes In The World


Even his critics describe him as "brilliant," but President Obama's newly minted judicial nominee -- law professor Goodwin Liu -- will not have an easy time getting to the 9th Circuit bench.

At age 39, Liu has compiled an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, top grades at both Stanford University and Yale Law School and now law professor University of California, Berkeley.

Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That's prompting opponents to argue that Liu is "too far outside the mainstream" to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

"He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day," said the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, echoed those concerns.

"Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views ... using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they're doing."

Liu opponents point to a number of his writings, including a book he co-authored in 2009 called "Keeping Faith with the Constitution," in which the authors opine about their concept of judicial interpretation.

"Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change ... as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."

That theme -- that the Constitution's text and principles must be adapted to changes in the world -- repeats throughout the book and raises eyebrows among conservatives.

Others who know Liu point to what he's accomplished, starting as the son of Taiwanese immigrants who didn't speak much English.

"He embodies the American dream," said Doug Kendall, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC).

Kendall's group does not make a decision about whether to officially support nominees until their confirmation process has concluded, but he is impressed by what he knows of Liu so far.

Kendall said he believes Liu's critics are wrongly portraying him as extreme.

"If you look at Liu's scholarship, he rejects both the conservative idea that judges should strictly construe the Constitution and the liberal idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing document," he said.

Liu is no stranger to Capitol Hill. He testified against the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito during Alito's 2006 confirmation hearings.

In a 2005 report Liu co-authored prior to his testimony, he wrote that Alito's opinions "show a disturbing tendency to tolerate serious errors" and "reveal troubling perspectives on federalism, race, and due process of law."

His testimony didn't derail Alito but now Liu will face similar probing. Already, questions are being asked about whether the president's is putting the young nominee on the fast track to the high court.

Kendall said only time will tell whether Liu would be the right fit, but it's possible he could be in the running if he is confirmed to and serves well at the 9th Circuit. However, that is a possibility that "concerns" Liu's detractors, including Whelan.

"That's certainly an added factor that folks in the Senate need to take into account," he said.

Sources: Fox News, Youtube

Felony Inmates Allowed To Vote Per Federal Judges' Decision; Racial Justice

Federal Judges: Washington Felony Inmates Should Get Vote


In a decision that could give momentum to other efforts to expand voting to inmates, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that incarcerated Felons should be allowed to vote in Washington state.

There's a patchwork of laws across the nation concerning restoration of felons' voting rights, but only Maine and Vermont allow those behind bars to cast ballots.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane. That judge had ruled that Washington state's felon disenfranchisement law did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.

The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."

A spokeswoman said state Attorney General Rob McKenna is weighing the state's next step. Spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie said that they could either ask a larger group of judges from the 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. If appealed, it's likely that the state would seek a stay on inmate's ability to vote until the case is resolved.

While the ruling only currently covers Washington state, if it stands, Guthrie said it could be the basis for litigation in any area covered by the 9th Circuit — Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas.

Of the more than 18,000 felons currently in state custody who could get their right to vote back under this ruling, 37.1 percent are minorities. Of that group, blacks make up the largest percentage, at 19.2 percent.

The issues the ruling raises about racial bias in the justice system are not unique to Washington state, said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., group promoting sentencing reform.

"They are issues that permeate the justice system and are relevant in every state," he said.

Mauer said that an estimated 5.3 million people nationwide are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction.

Tuesday's court's ruling is "an embarrassment," said Trent England, a policy director at Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington state.

"It flies in the face of precedent," he said. "Not only is felon disenfranchisement constitutional but it's good policy. People who commit the most heinous crimes should be deprived of their voice in our system of government at least for a time."

The lawsuit was filed by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, formerly of Bellevue. He was serving a three-year sentence at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla for a series of felony-theft convictions when he sued the state in 1996.

Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities. That was a violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, the lawsuit said.

An attorney for Farrakhan equated disenfranchisement laws to poll taxes and literacy tests of the past.

"In this case, we have proved that the criminal justice system in this state is biased against African-Americans, and the impact has been a violation of their voting rights," said Larry Weiser, a law professor at Gonzaga University School of Law who is the lead attorney in the lawsuit.

The state contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the law was not intended to discriminate against minorities.

David Ammons, a spokesman for the state's head elections official, said that Secretary of State Sam Reed "supports minority rights, but believes it is a rational and reasonable sanction for society to demand that felons lose their voting rights while in prison or under community supervision."

Last year, lawmakers passed a law that allows convicted felons to reregister to vote once they're no longer on parole or probation. Previously, felons who were no longer in Washington state custody but owed court-ordered fines and restitution were not allowed to vote. Under the new law that took effect last July, voting rights could be revoked if a felon willingly fails to make regular payments on those financial obligations.

In her dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown wrote that the majority "has charted territory that none of our sister circuits has dared to explore," and notes that three other appellate courts — the 1st Circuit in a Massachusetts case, the 2nd Circuit in a New York case, and the 11th Circuit in a Florida case — "have all determined that vote denial challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws are not cognizable under the Voting Rights Act."

She wrote that since Washington state passed a law changing voting rights just last year, and after the 9th Circuit heard the Farrakhan case, the case should go back to district court.

"It is not our job to consider, in the first instance, the effect this new law has on plaintiffs' case and whether the totality of the circumstances analysis under ... the Voting Rights Act should be different now that plaintiffs' case remains viable only as to currently incarcerated felons," she wrote.

NOTE: The case is Farrakhan v. Gregoire.

The Sentencing Project: http://www.sentencingproject.org

Attorney General Rob McKenna: http://www.atg.wa.gov



View Larger Map

Sources: AP, Yahoo News, Northwest Cable, Google Maps