Nominated While Federalist
Dr Fuji Kamikase
A free ride, however, for senators on a mission to destroy
reputations and careers.
Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
May 14, 2001 9:10 a.m.
Several weeks ago, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) demanded
that President George Bush apologize to the Red Printer-Friendly
Chinese for nearly killing 24 of our servicemen and servicewoman,
for subsequently imprisoning them against their will, and
stealing our airplane and most of its state secrets. The Chinese
Communists threaten our ally, Taiwan, and even threaten our
country by perfecting the distance and accuracy of their nuclear
missiles — thanks in part to the generosity of the Clinton
administration. Still, none of this bothers Feinstein. Indeed, in
the face of this, not to mention Red China's abysmal human-rights
record — which has been condemned by two of the most cherished
liberal institutions, i.e., our own State Department and Amnesty
International — Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, has made a
small fortune investing millions of dollars with the mainland
communists.
Given this background, it's difficult to stomach Feinstein's
criticism of California Congressman Chris Cox, who she contends
is too conservative to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Of course, Cox is a mainstream conservative. There's nothing
extreme or odd about the man. He's an outstanding lawyer who once
served in the White House Counsel's Office under President Ronald
Reagan.
So, what exactly does Feinstein find so offensive about Cox? Is
it his strict adherence to the original intent of the framers who
authored the United States Constitution, such as James Madison?
Is it his respect for liberty and order, which sit at the core of
our republic? Is it his belief in judicial restraint and the
limits of judicial power? Is it his faith in the will of the
American people? Or was it his investigation into Red China's
attempts, some successful, in violating our national security?
Feinstein is far more accommodating of Red China's brutal regime
than of a conservative Republican who is both decent and
distinguished.
Then there's Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.). Somebody needs to tell
this man that he's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
not a participant in the Army-McCarthy hearings. Durbin speaks of
the Federalist Society and its 25,000 members as if he were
chasing Communists. But, then again, Durbin doesn't chase
Communists, just federalists.
Consider this exchange on May 9th between Durbin and Georgetown
Law Professor Viet Dinh. Keep in mind that Dinh immigrated to the
U.S. from Vietnam as a young child. He's a wonderful example of a
person living the American dream. President George Bush nominated
Dinh to be Asst. Attorney General for the Office of Policy
Development at the U.S. Department of Justice.
SEN. DURBIN: Thank you.
Professor Dinh, I'm glad that we had a chance to get together,
and I want a follow up on one aspect of our conversation
concerning the important job which you are seeking relative to
judicial appointments. And as I mentioned to you at our meeting —
and I'm sure it comes as no surprise — this is an item of great
interest.
As I said to you, many of us feel that the outcome of the
presidential election in November at least raised some question
as to whether the president has a mandate to make significant
changes in the judiciary that would have an impact on values and
decisions and precedents which have been in place for many
decades.
You are a member of the Federalist Society. We find it curious on
our side of the aisle that President Bush has said that he no
longer wants to rely on the American Bar Association to do a
background check on perspective judges. This was a tradition that
started in a radical era of American politics known as the
Eisenhower presidency when President Eisenhower thought it was
reasonable — and I do, too, incidentally — that the largest bar
association in America at least comment on the worthiness of
nominees for the federal bench.
Could you describe for us your involvement with the Federalist
Society and what you believe this group stands for?
MR. DINH: Senator, first of all, thank you very much for taking
the time out of your very busy schedule to meet with me the other
day. It was a very fruitful discussion. I very much appreciate
the courtesy.
I am a member of the Federalist Society, and I do not know, quite
frankly, what it all stands for. As you asked me during our
meeting whether I've read their statement of principles — no, I
have not. What I know — what it stands for me, why I joined the
society — when I first joined the faculty of Georgetown Law
Center is that it is a forum for discussion of law and public
policy from both sides. And a very number of a very prominent
debates have — and very fruitful debates — have been carried out
under the auspices of the Federalist Society throughout the law
schools and the bars of this nation. That's why I believe that it
serves a very useful function, not only in the discussion of law
and public policy in the public debate, but also in the
pedagogical mission of our law schools, as a number of others
organizations do.
I do hope that, given my rather voluminous paper trail of
publications and public speeches, that my candidacy and what I
think will be judged upon those statements and publications
rather than — not on any one particular membership.
SEN. DURBIN: I recall your answer and you've repeated it here for
the sake of the committee. And I find it interesting that if you
are looking for a forum for debate, the Federalist Society is a
comfortable forum, but apparently the ACLU is not, for a
discussion. You've never joined an organization like the ACLU,
have you?
MR. DINH: No, I have not, Senator, because I do not join
organizations that — with the exception of the American Bar
Association through my group membership as a faculty member of
the Georgetown Law faculty — that take public positions and adopt
policy statements. And to my knowledge, the Federalist Society
does not take public positions, adopt policy statements, file
amicus briefs or the like. It is simply a forum for discussion,
as I am also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which
is a forum for public discussion on foreign policy issues in
which I am also interested.
SEN. DURBIN: So it is your belief that the Federalist Society
does not have a philosophy — a stated philosophy when it comes
to, for example, the future course of the Supreme Court?
MR. DINH: No, I do not think it does have a stated philosophy, to
my knowledge. It may very well have. I just simply do not know. I
know that the society has a very diverse membership of people who
think very equivocally about these issues, and I know that I've
gotten many, many — into many, many disagreements with members of
the Federalist society on these kinds of issues. So I do not
think that a official policy would be possible even if desirable.
SEN. DURBIN: Where would you put the Federalist Society on the
political spectrum?
MR. DINH: You know, I simply do not know. I know that there are
press reports that have attempted to put it in a political
spectrum with respect to other organizations. I myself have — in
my personal and professional life, have been very hesitant to
characterize anybody or any group according to labels, simply
because I eschew such labels myself. So I — it would not be
appropriate for me to do so for others.
SEN. DURBIN: And you are not familiar — or are you familiar,
rather, with the term, "the court in exile — the Constitution in
exile?"
MR. DINH: No, sir, I am not.
SEN. DURBIN: Okay.
Well, let me say that what I've read — and I'm not an expert nor
am I member of the Federalist Society — they do have a very
conservative philosophy. I don't think they are a debating
society. I think they have an agenda. And it troubles some of us
to believe that the American Bar Association, which has been
characterized as liberal by the conservatives and conservative by
the liberals over the course of its history, is being cast aside
by the White House now when it comes to the judicial process. And
instead we find that many people who are associated with the
Federalist Society are now seeking prominent positions in the
administration of justice. I don't think it's a coincidence. I
think it is a conscious decision to move us toward a path that,
frankly, many of us think needs to be questioned, and at least
publicized.
I sincerely hope that — if you are indeed confirmed, that you do
not become an agent of any political agenda. You have an
extraordinary personal family history. It is just exceptional,
and I think all of us are in awe of what you and your family has
achieved in overcoming great odds. I think that you can make a
great contribution to public service and I hope that you will.
But I hope that it doesn't become an effort for a political
clearinghouse for only those who happened to hew to that line to
be considered as possible nominees to the federal bench. I think
we do need diversity and moderation and the kind of excellence
and integrity which both parties should seek to make part of
their nomination process.
Luckily, Dinh didn't give up the Federalist Society's secret
handshake during this sickening grilling by Durbin. But even
Durbin's not the most despicable of character assassins on the
Senate Judiciary Committee. That honor, at least for this week,
goes to the committee's Ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy.
Leahy honed his skills as a leading liberal hit man during the
confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork
and Clarence Thomas. These hearings were two of the most
deplorable events in the history of the U.S. Senate, and Leahy
was at the center of both of them.
Today, Leahy's taking aim at Theodore Olson's back. Olson, of
course, is among the most brilliant and honorable lawyers in the
country. Just ask Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and trial
lawyer David Boies, both of whom suffered the worst defeats of
their careers as a result of Olson's representation of George
Bush before the U.S. Supreme Court. And it's precisely for this
reason that Leahy seeks to derail President Bush's nomination of
Olson to be Solicitor General. There has never been a more
qualified nominee for this position.
Leahy is up to his usual mud-ball tactics. With the help of a
small cabal of left-wing, agenda-driven writers, Leahy's trying
to resurrect a fictional conspiracy, the so-called "Arkansas
Project," promoted a few years ago by Bill Clinton's supporters
in an attempt to discredit then-Independent Counsel Kenneth
Starr. This topic is thoroughly addressed in David Limbaugh's
best-selling book, Absolute Power.
In short, the Arkansas Project was nothing more than an
investigation by The American Spectator magazine into certain of
Clinton's activities back in Arkansas. The conspiracy went
something like this: the Sarah Scaife Foundation contributed
money to The American Spectator, including the Arkansas Project;
the foundation also gave money to Pepperdine University, which at
some point offered a top job to Ken Starr; and David Hale,
Starr's key witness against Clinton in a trial related to the
Whitewater scandal, received payments through the Arkansas
Project to influence his testimony against Clinton.
Of course, the Scaife Foundation did contribute to The American
Spectator, as it contributed to many conservative organizations
(including Landmark Legal Foundation) and many non-ideological
causes as well. But the foundation did not give money to
Pepperdine to hire Starr. Those funds were pledged to Pepperdine
before the university had considered hiring anyone for the post
it eventually offered Starr. The allegation that Hale received
payments to influence his testimony was made by a lady who was
tarot-card reader and former girlfriend of Parker Dozhier — a
local researcher for the Arkansas project. Dozhier claimed that
his former girlfriend was a loyal Democrat who was angry with
him.
In any event, this entire preposterous story was investigated by
a special counsel, former Justice Department official Michael
Shaheen. Shaheen impaneled a grand jury, investigated for many
months, and found the charges unsubstantiated and untrue. There
was no wrongdoing and there was nothing to the trumped up
allegations.
What does Olson have to do with any of this? Well, David Brock, a
born-again Clinton apologist who is committed to tarnishing the
careers and reputations of his former colleagues at The American
Spectator, has apparently informed the Senate Judiciary Committee
that Olson had a more significant role in the Arkansas Project
than Olson has admitted. There's no dispute that Olson provided
legal input to The American Spectator from time-to-time. But
Brock claims that Olson may have actually talked about the
Arkansas Project at a dinner! This is supposed to prove Olson's
intimate knowledge of the project, which knowledge Olson has
denied to his Senate inquisitors. Moreover, The American
Spectator's founder, Bob Tyrrell, corroborates Olson's position.
Not so coincidentally, Brock, who, of late, has had great
difficultly convincing the public to buy his books, has written a
book this time claiming to expose, among other things, Olson's
true role in the Arkansas Project. Clinton defenders like Leahy
used to dismiss such allegations from would-be authors as
motivated by money. And Brock hopes to make lots and lots of
money from his soon-to-be published book, at Olson's expense.
Now comes Leahy, always at the ready to exploit personal
vendettas and gossip, and drag the Senate and outstanding people
like Bork, Thomas, and Olson into his sewer.
While Leahy sits in judgment of others, it's reasonable to ask
what kind of judgment Leahy has. As reported by Newsmax.com's
Carl Limbacher, in 1987 Leahy resigned from the Senate
Intelligence Committee after a six-month internal investigation
of his leaks of confidential committee information. Apparently
Leahy gave an NBC reporter access to confidential committee
information relating to the so-called Iran-Contra matter.
There has never been a full public airing of Leahy's conduct.
But, who cares, right? After all, Leahy's not a conservative,
he's not a member of the Federalist Society, and he never
attended a dinner at which the Arkansas Project may have been
discussed. There was a time, however, when the U.S. Senate would
censure a politician like Leahy. But, then again, we can't expect
much from a Senate that two years ago didn't even have the
courage to uphold the U.S. Constitution against a law-breaking
president.
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin051401.shtml
God Bless America
Fuji - NRA member
"As a candidate in 1992, Bill Clinton blasted Bush administration standards of
behavior and pledged to conduct "the most ethical administration in the history
of the Republic." - William Jefferson Clinton
rose...@rapidnet.com
a clue:
>Nominated While Federalist
>
>A free ride, however, for senators on a mission to destroy
>reputations and careers.
>
>Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
Mr Levin gets his money from Richard Scaife, who funneled millions into
destroying reputations and careers
Mr Levin also threatened to sue me, simply because I brought that to his
attention.
====================================================
Complaint by DANA RAFFANIELLO
The following is from the communcations act of 1996. Since Rapidnet has been
made aware of the abuses one of their users is engaging in, they can be held
responsible for the postings of the user in question. I have enclosed
mutiple posts from rose...@rapidnet.com indicating a pattern of vulgar
language and stalking activities on the net. This user of rapidnet.com has
had numerous complaints sent into rapidnet. So rapidnet is aware of what
this user does, and appears to support such behavior. For 90% of the posts
I make to the political gropups, rose...@rapidnet.com, engages in personal
attacks and libel. I have bought this to the attention of rapidnet, as well
as other newsgroup posters have complained to rapindnet, about this users
offensive and vulgar language, and personal attacks against people on the
news groups. .
Kurt Nicklas
>
>drfujik...@aol.comnocrap (Dr Fuji Kamikase) wrote as if right wingers had
>a clue:
>>Nominated While Federalist
>>
>>A free ride, however, for senators on a mission to destroy
>>reputations and careers.
>>
>>Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
>
>Mr Levin gets his money from Richard Scaife, who funneled millions into
>destroying reputations and careers
>
>Mr Levin also threatened to sue me, simply because I brought that to his
>attention.
That must have REALLY made you feel like a BIIIIIGGGG man, huh?
<snicker>
--
Kurt Nicklas
---
my Left Wing Hatespeech Page:
http://home.sprynet.com/~tiberias/leftwinghate.htm
rose...@rapidnet.com
>In article <3b00602e....@news.rapidnet.com>, rose...@rapidnet.com opined...
>>
>>drfujik...@aol.comnocrap (Dr Fuji Kamikase) wrote as if right wingers had
>>a clue:
>>>Nominated While Federalist
>>>
>>>A free ride, however, for senators on a mission to destroy
>>>reputations and careers.
>>>
>>>Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
>>
>>Mr Levin gets his money from Richard Scaife, who funneled millions into
>>destroying reputations and careers
>>
>>Mr Levin also threatened to sue me, simply because I brought that to his
>>attention.
>
>That must have REALLY made you feel like a BIIIIIGGGG man, huh?
Only when I told him to "stick it in his ass"
No different than I do you.
Kurt Nicklas
>
>tibe...@sprynet.com (Kurt Nicklas) wrote as if right wingers had a clue:
>>In article <3b00602e....@news.rapidnet.com>, rose...@rapidnet.com opined...
>>>
>>>drfujik...@aol.comnocrap (Dr Fuji Kamikase) wrote as if right wingers had
>>>a clue:
>>>>Nominated While Federalist
>>>>
>>>>A free ride, however, for senators on a mission to destroy
>>>>reputations and careers.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
>>>
>>>Mr Levin gets his money from Richard Scaife, who funneled millions into
>>>destroying reputations and careers
>>>
>>>Mr Levin also threatened to sue me, simply because I brought that to his
>>>attention.
>>
>>That must have REALLY made you feel like a BIIIIIGGGG man, huh?
>
>Only when I told him to "stick it in his ass"
I'll bet your ex-wife finally told you that too, huh?
Wayne Mann
wrote:
>In article <3b00602e....@news.rapidnet.com>, rose...@rapidnet.com opined...
>>
>>drfujik...@aol.comnocrap (Dr Fuji Kamikase) wrote as if right wingers had
>>a clue:
>>>Nominated While Federalist
>>>
>>>A free ride, however, for senators on a mission to destroy
>>>reputations and careers.
>>>
>>>Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
>>
>>Mr Levin gets his money from Richard Scaife, who funneled millions into
>>destroying reputations and careers
>>
>>Mr Levin also threatened to sue me, simply because I brought that to his
>>attention.
>
>That must have REALLY made you feel like a BIIIIIGGGG man, huh?
>
><snicker>
That would be a great tool for soliciting money, just have him
go ahead a sue Rosie and everyone will contribute. What fun that
would be as well. Maybe he could make Lulu a co-defendent?
\\/ayne //\ann
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
-- 10th Amendment to Constitution