JEFF SESSIONS IS SWORN IN AS USDOJ; CONGRATS TO A FAIR MAN

JEFF SESSIONS IS SWORN IN AS NEW USDOJ:

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RIGHT MAN FOR THIS POST.

HE ISN'T RACIST & WILL BE FAIR TO BLACK PEOPLE.

SESSIONS WILL ALSO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION RELATED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT.


Sources: Fox News, White House, YouTube

***** Sessions Sworn In as Attorney General as Trump Signs 3 Executive Orders

Vice President Mike Pence swore in Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general at the White House Thursday.

Just prior to the ceremony, President Donald Trump announced three executive orders designed to restore safety in America.

"These executive actions continue to deliver on my campaign promises," the president said.

The orders instruct the Department of Justice to go after criminal cartels, to form a taskforce to reduce violent crime in the country and to implement a plan to stop crimes targeting law enforcement officials.

"It's a shame what's been happening to our truly great law enforcement officers. That's gonna stop as of today," Trump said.

The Senate voted on Wednesday evening to confirmSen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as attorney general.

Despite bitter and outspoken resistance from Senate Democrats - particularly in the last 24 hours - Sessions was elected as the nation's 84th attorney general along a near-party line vote.

Sessions became just the fifth Cabinet nominee approved by the Senate, joining Trump's choices for Defense, Homeland Security, Education and State.

On "The First 100 Days" tonight, Charles Krauthammer said that Sessions' confirmation was never in doubt.

"Everybody has known that Sessions was going to be confirmed. What we saw over the last 24 hours or so was kabuki theater," Krauthammer said. "The Democrats are completely powerless."

He said the Democratic opposition to Sessions was "all for show," as they tried to placate their base, which is still furious about the party's devastating defeat in the election.

GIULIANI WON'T BE TRUMP'S ATTORNEY GENERAL (CHRISTIE, SANTORUM, SESSIONS??)

GIULIANI WON'T BE TRUMP'S ATTORNEY GENERAL:

WILL IT BE CHRISTIE, SANTORUM OR SESSIONS??


Sources: Fox News, CNN, YouTube


****** Rudy Giuliani out of contention for Cabinet


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has removed his name from consideration for a position in President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet, the transition team announced Friday.

Giuliani, who is currently a vice chairman on the presidential transition team, had been rumored to be in consideration for secretary of state.

"My desire to be in the Cabinet was great but it wasn't that great and he had a lot of terrific candidates and I thought I could play a better role being on the outside and continuing to be his close friend and adviser," Giuliani told Fox News' Neil Cavuto.

Trump met with Giuliani on Nov. 29., when the matter was discussed. He confirmed to Fox News that he had only been interested in being secretary of state.

"Honestly, the other positions I didn't have an interest in, so that really was the only one I had any real interest in," he told Cavuto.

Giuliani said he now intends to continue his work in the private sector. He also warned against the selection of Mitt Romney for the position, saying the former Massachusetts governor had "gone over the line" in previous criticisms he made about Trump.

"I will support [Trump's] decision, but my advice would be that Mitt went a little too far. You can make friends and make up but I would not see him as a candidate for the Cabinet," Giuliani told Cavuto.

Trump praised Giuliani in a statement, calling him “an extraordinarily talented and patriotic American.”

"He is and continues to be a close personal friend, and as appropriate, I will call upon him for advice and can see an important place for him in the administration at a later date."

Reince Priebus, tapped to be Trump’s chief of staff, said that Giuliani was “was vetted by our team for any possible conflicts and passed with flying colors."

ELIZABETH WARREN OR JULIAN CASTRO WILL BE HILLARY'S 2016 RUNNING MATE (CHRISTIE)

ELIZABETH WARREN OR JULIAN CASTRO WILL BE HILLARY'S 2016 RUNNING MATE:

DONALD TRUMP SHOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER CHRIS CHRISTIE.

Sources:  Vox, Chicago Tribune, NJ.com, YouTube 

****** Hillary Clinton’s VP shortlist has leaked. Here are the pros and cons of each

On last Thursday, the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler and Colleen McCain Nelson broke the news that Hillary Clinton is vetting Elizabeth Warren for the vice presidency — but not vetting Bernie Sanders. In the process, they provided a shortlist of candidates that Clinton is considering:

Beyond the Massachusetts senator, other prospective candidates include Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio, several Democrats said.

Now, this isn’t necessarily an exhaustive list, and Meckler and Nelson note that the vetting is still in early stages, using publicly available information rather than asking candidates to submit tax returns and the like.

Nonetheless, this list is the best information we've gotten about who Clinton is considering, and it includes some names that haven’t popped up in prior media speculation. All of these candidates have obvious strengths that have put them on this list, but of course, they each have their weaknesses as well. 

1) Elizabeth Warren

The case for picking her: Vox’s Andrew Prokop ably summarized the pros and cons of picking Warren here, but suffice it to say she’s one of the most famous and popular Democratic politicians in the country, with a huge social media following and passionate fans among the Democratic base.

She’s proven to be an excellent anti–Donald Trump attack dog already this cycle, and her anti–Wall Street credentials and populist approach to economic issues would help shore up Sanders supporters who might be skeptical of Clinton’s ties to the financial sector. She would attract considerable media coverage, preventing Trump from dominating the news cycle, and her reputation for fighting against corruption and corporate influence helps rebut Trump’s "Crooked Hillary" attack line.

Picking Warren would be massively important as a step for women’s political representation. Some have speculated that Clinton could easily appoint an all-woman Cabinet — Secretary of State Wendy Sherman (or Susan Rice or Samantha Power), Secretary of Treasury Lael Brainard, Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, etc. — and having a female running mate would be a great start.

Finally, Warren’s research as a law professor gave her considerable insight into the working of the administrative state, especially as it relates to the economic conditions of middle-class families. That could translate into a skill at exploiting the federal bureaucracy for progressive ends, a skill that is more useful when in the executive branch than the Senate.

The case against picking her: Let’s start with the fact that Warren has accused Clinton of flip-flopping on bankruptcy legislation due to donations and pressure from the financial industry:

Warren was not planning on becoming a politician at this point, which helps explain her candor, but all the same it would be jarring for Clinton to pick someone who's accused her of being bought and paid for — and it's not a stretch to imagine Clinton would find it hard to work with someone who at least once thought so little of her.

Even if Clinton doesn’t find that disqualifying, Warren's independent profile suggests she might try to maintain an individual identity and avoid hewing too closely to Clinton’s message. That could prove aggravating to the would-be president, especially if Warren uses her command of the press to try to push the administration leftward.

An all-woman ticket would be a statement, but it also might be too much for the American people to handle, and the 2008 race suggested that Clinton is pretty small-c conservative about that kind of thing. Her VP shortlist then was then-Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH), then-Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), former Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA), and Joe Biden: all boring, safe white dudes.

Clinton could also be wary of pissing off financial sector donors, and it bears mentioning that rich people all over America hate Elizabeth Warren and regard her as a dangerous economically illiterate charlatan. "The prospect of a Warren vice presidency could well drive the 1 percent straight into Trump’s arms, help the billionaire solve his fundraising problems, and make for a closer race in the end," Prokop notes.

Last but not least, Massachusetts has a Republican governor, meaning that electing Warren would give Republicans an extra Senate seat for at least a little bit. There'd be a special election shortly thereafter, thanks to a 2004 change in the law meant to limit then-Gov. Mitt Romney’s ability to replace John Kerry should he have won the presidency, but Democrats should not be overly confident about their ability to win Senate special elections in the state after what happened in 2010.

Kagan Grilled On Blocking Military Recruiters & DADT

Republican Senators Bring Up Kagan's Record On Blocking Military Recruiters


Senate Republicans and Solicitor General Elena Kagan are facing off over whether her objection to the military's ban on openly gay soldiers and her decision to restrict recruiters at Harvard Law School disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

Just minutes into Kagan's confirmation hearing Monday, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions charged she had "kicked the military out of the recruiting office" at Harvard, "in violation of federal law."

"Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas," Sessions said. "I can't take this issue lightly."

The recruitment matter is one of the few points on her resume that Republicans have been able to use against her. Her policies and writings on the issue call up broader themes of patriotism and equal rights, both emotional topics at a time when the nation is at war and both parties are gearing up for the midterm elections. In some measure, the November balloting will be a referendum on her patron, President Barack Obama.

At the very heart of Kagan's decision at Harvard is an even more sensitive topic — her opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on openly gay soldiers.

Republicans contend that Harvard was the wrong venue for Kagan's "personal political grievance" and that briefly restricting the recruiters on campus broke the law. They conclude with questions about whether Kagan is anti-military and unfit to make impartial decisions on the high court.

Republicans have a tough case to make.


Sources: CNN, Yahoo News, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Won't Rule Out SCOTUS Nominee Filibuster

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

Republicans Cautious On U.S. Supreme Court Filibuster But Won't Rule It Out


With no SCOTUS nominee to scrutinize, Republicans were on the defensive Sunday over the possible use of a filibuster against President Barack Obama’s upcoming Supreme Court pick – saying they wouldn’t go nuclear unless they really, really had to.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, didn't rule out using the filibuster during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press," saying he would require Democrats to muster 60 votes only if the White House tapped someone like Goodwin Liu, a liberal nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Will there be "a big fight?" host David Gregory asked?

"The answer to that is in the president's hands," said Sessions. "If we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best... then we are going to have a big fight about that because the American people don't want that."

Sessions added that "every power should be utilized to protect the Constitution" if Obama chose a nominee "outside the mainstream."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), who laid down a marker on Friday for a quick nomination and confirmation, kept his foot on the accelerator, telling Gregory he wanted "a nomination very soon so we can wrap it up this summer."

Other Republicans kept open the possibility of a filibuster, but played down the likelihood the White House would actually nominate anyone so objectionable to conservatives.

Obama’s aides have narrowed their short list down to about ten names. None of the names known to be under consideration appear to be as controversial as Liu – and an administration official told POLITICO on Friday that the goal was to tap someone who was “confirmable.”

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a key conservative on the committee, said the four most mentioned potential Obama seemed acceptable on the surface and wouldn't likely be filibustered.

Jake Tapper, host of ABC’s "This Week," asked Kyl what he thought of potential nominees Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, Merrick Garland and Janet Napolitano, who have all been listed in press accounts as potential successors to Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement on Friday.

"They are all nominally qualified," said Kyl, who voted against Sonia Sotomayor for the high court last year.





"The question, I think, to present is, 'Do candidates like this approach judging on the basis of each case presenting its unique facts of law... rather than with a judge coming to the bench with an ideological position?' ‘’

"It is unlikely that there will be a filibuster unless it’s an extraordinary circumstance," Kyl said, adding that "President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice [Samuel] Alito."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), appearing with Kyl, said he was sure Obama would pick someone in the "mainstream" – dismissing the likelihood of a filibuster as “tiny” -- but emphasized the need to counterbalance an increasingly conservative high court.

Schumer, who opposed the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested Roberts misled senators by claiming he would respect existing precedent.

"In my view at least, Justice Roberts has tried to move the court very far to the right, much farther than we envisioned," said Schumer, adding that Stevens, who dissented bitterly in several recent cases, agreed.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, speaking earlier on CNN, predicted that Obama would pick a "liberal" and suggested a nomination fight could energize the party’s conservative base.

A few minutes into a discussion about the court pick, "Meet the Press" host Gregory made a startling admission.

Garland, a federal judge reportedly being considered by Obama, performed the wedding ceremony for Gregory and wife Beth Wilkinson, a prominent corporate lawyer who once worked as a prosecutor under Garland’s supervision.

Wilkinson, Gregory said during his questioning of Sessions, "worked for [Garland] at the Justice Department. He also performed our wedding ceremony."

Wilkinson became an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1991, serving under Garland as part of the team that prosecuted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. She later served as Fannie Mae's executive vice president and is now a white collar criminal defense attorney in the Washington office of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.


Sources: Politico, Meet The Press, MSNBC

Jihadist Rehab Program Linked To More Al-Qaida Attacks

Jihadi Rehab Tied To Terror


The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is pushing Attorney General Eric Holder to explore links between a Jihadist Rehabilitation Program in Saudi Arabia and Yemeni extremists linked to the failed Christmas Day terror plot.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on Tuesday re-released a letter he sent last month to Holder demanding that the Department of Justice suspend a program that sends select Guantanamo detainees to Saudi Arabia to shed their extremist tendencies.

The program has not been successful, Sessions contends, and his letter alleges that 11 of Saudi Arabia’s 85 most-wanted terrorists are “graduates of the Saudi program.”

Sessions also asserts links between the rehabilitation program and Yemeni terrorism. The graduates of the program, according to Sessions, include Said Ali al Shihri, now the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish, Al Qaeda’s current theological leader on the Arabian Peninsula.

“The list of failed participants in the Saudi program reads like a “who’s who” of Al Qaeda terrorists on the Arabian peninsula,” Sessions wrote in the Dec. 9 letter.

“As the terror plot against Northwest Flight 253 makes painfully clear, sending GITMO detainees to the Saudi ‘rehabilitation’ program puts the lives of American citizens in needless jeopardy,” Sessions spokesman Stephen Miller said in a news release.

The botched Christmas Day terrorist attack is quickly taking over the January congressional agenda. About a half-dozen committees are girding for inquests into the attack, a handful of which will include public hearings.

The re-release of Sessions’s letter nearly a month after he sent it to Holder shows that Republicans are trying to be more aggressive in questioning the Obama administration's response to the terrorist plot. Programs such as the rehabilitation program, which Holder has supported in the past, could come under increased scrutiny in the congressional hearings.

Holder has not yet responded to the Dec. 9 letter urging the suspension of the program.



Sources: Politico, PBS, Youtube

Sen. Leahy Tells G.O.P. "Stop The Racial Politics"!

Huffington Post----

The two top officials on the Senate Judiciary Committee left niceties at the door when they held a joint appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday.

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) accused the Republican Party of playing "Racial Politics" with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, even declaring that the leaders of the GOP had called her a "bigot" and the "head of the KKK."

"I have no idea how many [Republican votes] she'll get in committee or on the floor," said Leahy. "But she will have Republican votes... She deserves it. Now, I understand [Sen.] Mitch McConnell and I've worked with Sen. McConnell on different things. But like the other leaders of the Republican Party, he came out very, very early against her and he doesn't want to change his mind.

You had one leader of the Republican Party call her the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Another leader of the Republican Party called her a bigot. To Sen. McConnell's credit, he has not used those things, but the leadership of the Republican Party came out against her long before we ever had the hearing, long before they had a chance to look at her record. I think that's unfair."

"I hope we don't go back to the day when we used to put African Americans up for confirmation and say yes, but you belong to the NAACP so we're really suspicious of you," Leahy added later, refering to Republican concerns about Sotomayor's involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. "Come on, stop the racial politics," he said.

Leahy later explained that he was referring to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich when he accused the GOP of labeling Sotomayor a bigot.

It was a fiery segment, during which Leahy talked over the protests of his colleague Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the committee's ranking Republican member. When the Alabama Republican finally got the chance to speak, he pleaded that Leahy had greatly distorted the tone and tenor of the hearings.

"Pat, I want to correct something," Sessions said. "No Republican leader said she was a bigot. You've overstated that. There's nothing wrong with us asking about her personal views about positions, legal positions that she took as a member of any organization. That's a normal thing to do. And I don't think that was unfair. She said that she thought she was fairly treated.

Other commentators, objective leaders, civil rights leaders have said that. We gave our absolute best to make sure this was a fair hearing, but it had to be vigorous. We had to ask about things that people cared about, her speeches, her prior pleadings that she did and some of her decisions, which are troubling. But Pat, you gave us a fair hearing. I appreciate that. A lot of people felt we were pretty tight on time, but you -- when the hearing came up, we had an opportunity. And I appreciate that."

Sources: Huffington Post, MSNBC, Reuters

Sotomayor Digs In Her Heels & Prepares For More Hot Seat Senate Grilling (Day 3)

MSNBC, Politico----

(U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor enters her third day of confirmation hearings. On the second day, she faced tough questions about her use of the term “wise Latina.” NBC’s Pete Williams reports. )

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Senator Lindsey Graham puts the pressure on Sotomayor regarding her personal views.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

WASHINGTON - Sonia Sotomayor is relying on her 17-year record as a federal judge to rebut criticism that she is concealing a liberal agenda that will show up if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor, the first Hispanic high court nominee, was set to return Wednesday to a cavernous Senate hearing room for another grueling day of questioning.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are using Sotomayor's confirmation hearing to raise doubts about her fairness, while Democrats are portraying the 55-year-old New Yorker as a model jurist.

Under questioning Tuesday, Sotomayor tried to take away one line of Republican attack when she distanced herself from the man who nominated her, President Barack Obama.

Asked whether she shared Obama's view — stated when he was a senator — that in some cases, the key determinant is "what is in the judge's heart," Sotomayor said she does not.

"I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does," she said. "Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law."

Pushing back on bias claims:

Time and again, she put her record on display to answer charges of bias.

Sotomayor backed away from perhaps the most damaging words that had been brought up since Obama nominated her seven weeks ago — a comment she made on several occasions suggesting that a "wise Latina" judge would usually reach better conclusions than a white man. She called the remark "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat."

"It was bad because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge," Sotomayor said.

Republicans were not satisfied with her answers.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he could end up voting for Sotomayor but wants to make sure she is the judge with what he called a moderately liberal record, not a liberal activist.

"That's what we're trying to figure out — who are we getting here?" he said.

Democrats clearly enjoyed being on the other side of the confirmation process, defending a Democratic nominee.

"When we asked questions of the white male nominees of a Republican president, we were basically trying to ... make sure that they would go far enough in understanding the plight of minorities, because clearly that was not in their DNA," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said.

"The questions being asked of you from the other side primarily are along the lines of, will you go too far in siding with minorities?" Durbin said.

Republicans focused on one case to make that point, the appeals court ruling that she joined dismissing the claim of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who alleged racial discrimination over the city's decision to scrap a promotions exam after too few minorities did well.

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling late last month.

Sotomayor's response was simple and oft-repeated: "We were following precedent."

When the committee finishes its first round of questioning, it will go into the customary closed session to discuss the FBI report on Sotomayor and other personal matters.

The 19 senators can then take up to an additional 20 minutes each to question Sotomayor, although Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee chairman, advised his colleagues Tuesday that they don't need to use their entire allotment.

Leahy has voiced confidence that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and with some Republican support.

Sources: MSNBC, Politico, LA Times, Media Matters

Sen. Jeff Sessions On Sotomayor: "Empathy Has No Place In Our Courts"

Charlotte Observer, Huffington Post----

The U.S. Senate is holding a confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. As the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have pledged that this hearing will be fair and respectful – but also thorough and rigorous.

If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will have the power to define the meaning of our Constitution for the entire nation. This is an awesome responsibility – determining the rights and freedoms for every man, woman and child in America.

This is our one chance to get it right. It is essentially a lifetime appointment.

That's why we must have a national discussion about the role of a judge and what kind of justice belongs on our nation's highest court.

We must look to what has made our legal system the envy of the world. At its heart is the Constitution. While the courts of many countries run roughshod over people's rights, American courts are tightly bound to the words of the Constitution and must defend the rights of every single American – regardless of a judge's personal feelings.

Courthouses across our country feature the image of a woman with a blindfold weighing the scales of justice. She wears the blindfold so that she can judge her cases without bias or favoritism. This ideal is emblazoned on the Supreme Court building with the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” Equal justice is the foundation of our remarkable legal system and the bulwark of our shared freedoms.

But President Obama and Judge Sotomayor have expressed a very different view of judging. This view says that justice should not be based only on the law and the Constitution, but that it should take a judge's personal and political feelings into account.

President Obama says that when “constitutional text will not be directly on point,” the critical ingredient for a judge is the “depth and breadth of one's empathy,” as well as “their broader vision of what America should be.” But when a judge shows empathy toward one party, do they not show prejudice against the other?

Judge Sotomayor has stated her belief that impartiality may not be possible in “all or even most cases,” that “personal experiences affect the facts judges choose to see,” and that judges “must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt… continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

But if you or I step into a courtroom, shouldn't we be able to do so with confidence that we will get a fair day in court no matter the background, experience, or politics of us or the judge?

We should keep this in mind as we consider the one-paragraph ruling of Sotomayor and two other appeals court judges in the New Haven Firefighter case. Eighteen firefightersstudied for months to pass the city's promotion exam. They did. But the city junked the results because the outcome didn't meet the appropriate racial quota. Sotomayor sided with the city and even denied the firefighters a trial. The Supreme Court rejected the ruling.

For years, Judge Sotomayor was a leader at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while it fought aggressively to pursue racial quotas for city hiring. Is Judge Sotomayor's ruling against the firefighters an example of her failure to set aside her biases and rule impartially?

Contrast the philosophy President Obama and Sotomayor have advocated with the plain words of the Judicial Oath:

“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Every day that Americans enjoy the extraordinary blessings of freedom, they do so in part because of the words and principles in that oath. Empathy-based rulings, no matter how well-intentioned, do not help society, but imperil the legal system that has been so essential to our liberties and so fundamental to our way of life.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


View Larger Map

Sources: Charlotte Observer, Huffington Post, LA Times, Politico, Google Maps

Is Sen. Jeff Sessions Jealous Or Empathetic Of Sotomayor? ...He Wasn't Confirmed But She Will Be

Talking Points Memo, MSNBC----


Blast From The Past: '80s News Coverage Of Sessions Controversy

As we reported earlier this week, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was spiked in 1986 from becoming a district court judge by the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. Sessions was known to be, at least, insensitive to minorities, and his nomination was considered too controversial to advance. Now that he's the ranking member on that very committee, it's news all over again. But it was a big deal then, too. Watch:




(Pres. Obama's SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor responds to Sen. Jeff Sessions' doubts about her being an impartial Supreme Court Justice.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It looks like Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will be, at least for a time, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. That's an interesting role for a man with Sessions'...history. In a 2002 New Republic article, Sarah Wildman detailed the Alabama senator's rise through the ranks of politics in Alabama and in Republican Washington.

Sessions first appeared on the scene in 1986 D.C. when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to serve on the U.S. District Court in Alabama. At the time, the Judiciary Committee was controlled by Republicans, but his appointment nonetheless went absolutely nowhere--a fact that may have had a thing or two to do with stories like this:

Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU ) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings....

Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.

The committee ultimately voted 10-8 against reporting his nomination on to the floor. In a perverse form of poetic justice, Sessions will soon be that committee's most powerful Republican. And in that position, he'll no doubt be leading the charge (such as it is) against whomever President Obama nominates to the Supreme Court--or any court, really. Having been given the Robert Bork treatment in the past, it's hard to imagine Sessions treating Obama's picks all that genially.

As Wildman wrote, "it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself."

When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.

And after carefully reviewing Sessions' record, Republicans in Washington took appropriate measures to limit his influence gave him an extremely influential position in the Senate. It'll be...enlightening...to hear conservatives defend the move, or, better yet, excuse it on the grounds that the GOP's only giving these views special prominence for about a year and a half.

Sources: MSNBC, Talking Points Memo, LA Times, Zimbio

G.O.P. Senator Jeff Sessions Was Also Once Characterized As Racist By Congress

The New Republic----

"You will get a fair hearing."

Senator Jeff Sessions assuring SCOTUS nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor she will be treated fairly during her Confirmation Hearing. CNN reports on his past.




Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.

Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.

On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.


It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.

During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."

None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.

Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.

And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.



View Larger Map

Sources: The New Republic, Crooks and Liars, TPMtv, CNN, Day Life, Youtube, Google Maps

Sotomayor Explains "Wise Latina" Remarks, Gains Support From Leahy and Sessions

Politico--

Senate Democrats turned the usually staid meet and greet for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee into a full blown PR offensive Tuesday, defending Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record while offering her first public defense of her controversial comments about race.


Democrats are also pushing an accelerated timetable for her confirmation, and are trying to lay the groundwork for a vote before the long August recess, despite Republican complaints that such a schedule wouldn’t give them enough time to scour Sotomayor’s judicial record. Democrats may lay out a hearing schedule before the end of the week, Senate sources said.

The Democratic push – coming as Sotomayor had a whirlwind day of visits with 10 senators – is aimed at building momentum for her nomination, while pressuring Republicans not to slow or block her path to the Supreme Court.


Sotomayor told several Democratic senators, in private meetings in the Capitol, that her comment that a “wise Latina woman” could render a better judgment than a white male judge was part of a much broader speech and that ultimately she was committed to following the rule of law above anything else.


In defusing the controversy over the “wise Latina” comment, Democrats sought to put the spotlight back on Sotomayor’s extensive legal career, assure the public she was committed to following the law and is not an activist judge.


Typically senators are largely mum about their private conversations with high-profile nominees. But Democratic senators, after watching Sotomayor get ripped for the past week by conservative commentators, chose to reveal much more of their conversations from Tuesday’s closed door meetings.

“What she said was of course one’s life experience shapes who you are,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who Sotomayor cleared to give her first public response on the controversy. “But ultimately and completely … as a judge you follow the law.”


But Sotomayor did not concede that she used a “poor” choice of words, as Obama himself suggested Friday even as he said that her statements had been taken out of context.


Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, said she didn’t acknowledge using a poor choice of words but put in a context for him to understand better. She told him: “’basically it means that’s part of my life experience that I bring to my judgment.’ She said, ‘Maybe it means with this background I’m a better listener, I listen for better things. But ultimately, it’s not going to decide any case for me.’”

“What Judge Sotomayor was saying was, ‘this is part of who I am. … This will be one of the things that I use to understand the people who come before – the cases that come before – but she said in the end that it’s the law that will decide.”

And another Judiciary Committee member, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who lunched with the nominee along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said Sotomayor pointed out that her comments in the speech where she made this remark also referenced the fact that Brown v. Board of Education was decided by nine white males, and she argued that her speech should be considered in its broader context.

In her 2001 speech, Sotomayor also explained that the experiences of white men affect how they render their law and that she has worked to overcome personal biases and assumptions to issue fair rulings.

Durbin said Sotomayor told her that her “judgment is not to be trumped by gender and race.”

While Democrats seemed willing to repeat the highlights of their conversation with Sotomayor as part of the PR offensive, Republican senators withheld judgment and offered skeptical questions over her approach to the law.


Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he was "very impressed" with her knowledge, experience and energy level. But he added that questions remain about her approach she would take to the law – even as she told him she “ultimately and completely” would follow the law.

“Some of the writings she has made, some of the speeches that she has made are troubling,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who also met with the nominee Tuesday. “They’d be troubling to anybody who is fair.”


“I think we need to hold our fire until we examine all of these opinions and writings,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “I think what this could boil down to -- and we'll have to examine very carefully all of the evidence -- is what this judge's view of judging is. Is it the same as the president's, which I reject, or is it more in common with what past judges and justices have done in deciding the cases on the merits rather their own feelings?”

Escorted by a handful of aides, Sotomayor was armed with talking points for her Senate visits, including telling several of them that the law was “ultimately and completely” the guiding force in how she makes decisions from the bench – even if her background helps guide how she comes to a decision.

Leahy and Sessions are planning to hold a critical meeting Wednesday morning to discuss timing on considering the nominee.


Leahy said Tuesday that Sotomayor has been the subject of “vicious” attacks – including one by Tom Tancredo likening her involvement with La Raza to that of the Ku Klux Klan and Rush Limbaugh calling her a “racist” – and he wants her to come before the committee as early as July. He said it would be “irresponsible” to wait until September to hold hearings since she would not be able to respond to the attacks, but Sessions disagreed.


“I don't think it will be irresponsible,” Sessions responded. “I hope the chairman will keep an open mind on this.”

If no deal is reached, Democrats expect an announcement on the hearing schedule to be issued in the coming days, with July a likely target, sources said.

"It will not be a fair process if they do that," Hatch said, adding that "some might" vote against her if that happened.

“I know how difficult it is for somebody who is nominated, they can’t answer charges, they can’t speak out when they’re a nominee,” Leahy said.

Sources: Politico, Day Life

Senators Leahy & Sessions Reject G.O.P. Sotomayor "Reverse Racist" Claims.... Baloney!

This morning on Meet the Press David Gregory interviewed both Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Sessions (R-AL), asking to give their perspective on Judge Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" remarks.

Check out how they both responded. Their statements especially Senator Sessions' comments, may in fact surprise you.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): "Calling her a Racist; Reverse Racist. Do you think that's appropriate? Do you that's fair? Do you think she's a Racist? Do you think Conservatives should stop using those words (Reverse Racist; Racist)?"

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL): "I read her speech. I'm troubled by her speech. I would not use such loaded words (Racist; Reverse Racist). They would not be words I would use. I don't think that, that's an appropriate description of her (Sotomayor). I would prefer that they (Conservatives) not. We should not demagogue race. Its an important issue in our country. We need to handle it with the respect and care it deserves."


David Gregory: "Are you troubled by her (Sotomayor's) remarks?"

Senator Leahy (D-VT): "We'll have to talk to her about her remarks and we will during the hearing. I totally reject those kind of claims made by leaders of the Republican Party like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. To call her or equate her with the head of the KKK or call her a Bigot. This is Baloney!"

"Nothing in her background would indicate that she is a bigot or equivalent to the KKK or anything else."

"This is a woman who has a compelling story."

"It is about qualifications."

"It would be ridiculous to think that someone's life experience would not affect them."


(Senator Sessions explains why he would not label Judge Sotomayor as a Reverse Racist or Racist.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Senator Leahy calls use of the word "Racist" when describing Judge Sotomayor Baloney!)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sources: Meet the Press, MSNBC, Day Life, Wikipedia