Gotta love this…..a Clinton appointed judge has ruled in favor (pdf) of ACORN in their suit to stop Congress from defunding them and in essence saying that once an organization gets payments from the federal government then Congress can no longer decide to stop those payments unless a court rules they are guilty of some law breaking.
On the same day that ACORN’s violation of Delaware state lobbying laws was revealed, a liberal, Clinton-appointed activist Judge has ruled to usurp the prerogatives and authority of the United States Congress. This left-wing activist Judge is setting a dangerous precedent that left-wing political organizations plagued by criminal accusations have a constitutional entitlement to taxpayer dollars. The Obama Administration should immediately move to appeal this injunction.
Just remember what Andrew Breitbart said:
Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?
Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
The activist judges can stop this trainwreck for only long.
See author page
So ACORN must be funded in perpetuity to steal elections for Democrats?
Registered at Flopping Aces.
Curt, MataHarley, Wordsmith, and all: thank you for the privilege, it’s a great site.
On the wordpress page when I try to logout:
“You are attempting to log out of Flopping Aces, please try again.”
All scripts enabled in FF3.5/Noscript/WindowsXP.
Also, I just noticed the 80+ emails in my inbox from FA.
Is there any way to make that “notify me” checkbox OFF by default? I try to turn it off, but it seems that I have to click it off for each and every comment I post. I Can’t find any user options or preferences pages. Halp! (plz)
Well now we know Clinton wasn’t just a bad liberal president, but helped start , by the grasfeliy act. The total collapse of the entire housing market that destroy the only real value or savings that we thought was the best investment or protection of our money. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd ran us down this destructive and very dangerous road, forcing banks to lend money to homeless or bankrupt no where credit worthy people, to be able to buy the house of there dreams. All the time knowing most all of these bad credit folks, weren’t going to pay the first payment. So fast forward, dump 10 million now foreclosed and empty houses on the weak market, most all the good home owners property value drops in half, or less. Doesn’t that look more like a plan to start the collapse of the entire US economy. No question that’s where we are at………
I hate to beat this dead horse again. There’s a push in graduate learning, adopt leftist, marxist, radical, socialist, anything anti American ideas, to accept this as their new cult, any other thinking must be wrong. No mater what this belief destroys. Look up Cloward and Piven, and Saul Alunski. This is the new brainwash ideas of asumulation. Overload the system with crises, debt, promises, and new rules and structure. Once our elected gov’t traitors collapse the system, they can shred our constitution, and how did Obama say it change our country. Do you here that sound, that’s our freedom slipping away…… We elected this person hoping he had our country’s best interest in mind. That’s what the good people of Germany voted for when they put Hitler in charge……….
Actually activist judges cannot constitutionally speaking tell Congress where and when they can or cannot send funding. This judge went over constitutional lines and outside the judge’s authority. This is an absurd ruling which brings into question this judge’s qualifications or rather lack thereof.
Anyone who cares anything about our country needs to read, American Thinker Barack Obama and the strategy of manufactured crisis. This will tell you what happened starting with Jimmy Carter, and Obama as lawyer representing Acorn to promote voter fraud, to get democrat votes, no matter what it takes. Illegal, convicted felons, dead people, motor voter, fraud on steriods. This is a matter of life and death for our country and freedom as we know it. The left wants socialism so bad, despite the result, they will do anything to achieve this goal….. This is what your dad and uncle fought to prevent happening in WW2….. Do you enjoy your freedom, we must stop these elected fools from destroying our great country.
Has anyone here actually READ THE DECISION? If so, please highlight a section and explain why he is wrong.
EVERYONE who thought about the issue pointed out the statute was flawed when it was passed. There were three problems (a) it was a punitive statute aimed at one “person”, ACORN, which made it constitutionally suspect as a “bill of attainder”; (b) it was a punitive statute aimed at one “person”, ACORN, which made it constitutionally suspect as an Equal Protection violation, or Due Process violation; (c) it was vaguely worded enough that just about every military contractor should be debarred under the statute, but if they weren’t, you had a separate Equal Protection issue.
And where did the judge start? With a Burger Court era Supreme Court decision that states “a bill of attainder is ‘a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.'” Nixon v. Admin of Gen. Services, 433 U.S. 425, 468 (1977). As soon as the Judge cited that 32 year old case, the wingnut position was sunk. Because that is exactly what the statute did — concluded ACORN was guilty of something without a trial, then punished it.
Now explain how it is “activist” for a sitting judge to cite a 32 year old U.S. Supreme Court definition in determining the answer to the question “is this a bill of attainder?”
Does anyone have a rational argument as to why this judge’s decision is incorrect, as a matter of law? Or did you just expect the judge to have as much pent up anger at ACORN as the Glenn Beck brigades have, then rule accordingly? I will be very surprised if I read anything intelligent responding to these questions. Because this site is so much about the right wing “heat” of emotion and not the “light” of knowledge and law.
The dumb statute singled out one organization which, as an entity, had not been convicted of anything to my knowledge. The statute not only required the government not to pay for services already rendered, but prohibited the completion of other contracts that were in process and prohibited them from competing for contracts in the future. THAT is why the statute was unconstitutional. And it is probably why Obama signed it without much fanfare . . . he knew it was a dead letter, so why fight the wingnuts about something that won’t matter anyway?
@ alice —
“Look up Cloward and Piven, and Saul Alunski. This is the new brainwash ideas of asumulation. Overload the system with crises, debt, promises, and new rules and structure. Once our elected gov’t traitors collapse the system, they can shred our constitution, and how did Obama say it change our country.”
Alice, dearie, you might have more credibility predicting the end of the world if you could string together a coherent sentence. Call your doctor and tell him to take you up a notch on the meds, then try again, love!
I guess there’s little differenct between giving the crooks at ACORN money and paying the crooks in congress. A sad state of affairs this country has fallen to.
Alice, you are completely right, and I’ll give you kudos for that.
B-Rob, your beloved Democrats have controlled the school system in this nation since about 1970, when they instituted the ill-named Department of Education. Blame them, not Alice. Maybe Alice is someone who was pushed through the system by the N.E.A. hacks that call themselves schoolteachers and school boards, and maybe Alice was living in the ghetto of thought that they created for her, either physically, mentally, or both, and maybe Alice has been reading lately, and that she is just now beginning her education. Maybe her eyes have just been opened, because someone who didn’t look down upon her for the SIN of poor writing skills actually took the time to explain to her exactly what the Democrats have been doing to this country for so long.
What Alice says is absolutely true. I’d say that you, despite the cornucopia of college degrees you are probably in posession of, have a serious reading and comprehension problem. I don’t think that’s your problem, though. You should read Skookum’s last post, about a man most probably more honorable than myself, and most DEFINITELY more honorable than you. Skookum’s friend Johnny couldn’t even read or write. He would have no credibility with you, I’m sure. I’m also sure he would not give two figs about your conceit and disdain for him.
The American Thinker article that Alice referenced is titled “Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis”, and, although Alice may have a few deficiencies in her writing skills, her reading skills are spot-on, and she appears to me to have understood the article and it’s ramifications perfectly.
But what the hell do I know, right? I’m not up there with the Gods in your elevated strata. I’m just a dishwasher. And a handyman. And a g–damn better reader than yourself, DEARIE.
Alice, you are completely right, and I applaud you for posting.
B-Rob, DEARIE, despite your plethora of college degrees, you appear to have a serious reading and comprehension problem. This is on top of several serious problems with contempt and arrogance.
Some things which may not have occurred to you: Alice may have been educated by the school system which has been run by your beloved Democrats since around 1970, and she may have lived in the mental ghetto which most of the schools foster. Perhaps she has been in the real ghetto, as well, also created and maintained in their current state by your beloved Democrats. Maybe, just maybe, Alice’s true education is really just now beginning, and her eyes have just recently been opened by someone who didn’t look down on her for the SIN of poor writing skills.
Perhaps someone just enlightened her recently regarding the Democrats and what they have been doing to this nation for the past half-century, and now she has just begun to expand her horizons and learn for herself even more. I hope she does, and I hope she learns to write so well that she takes your job, such as it is.
Alice, despite having, FOR NOW, poor writing skills, appears to me to have understood the article at American Thinker (entitled Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis – google it) quite perfectly, and the ramifications for America.
I wish you would read – really read – Skookum’s last post, and actually comprehend it. Skook’s friend Johnny had NO reading or writing skills, yet he was probably more honorable a man than I am, and definitely more honorable than you, from what I can tell by the few posts I’ve read that you’ve written here. I’m going to bet that you would have looked down upon Johnny as well, if by some random chance you had bumped into him. I’ll also bet that Johnny wouldn’t give two figs about your outright disdain for him either. That’s because he was honorable.
But, what do I know? I’m just a dishwasher, and a handyman. And a g–damn better reader than you. Maybe I should go into law, so I can have your job. Nevermind, I wouldn’t want it. I’ll stay down here in my lower strata with the common folk, and leave you up there with the Gods whose knowledge is worthy of seeking.
You need to learn some manners. Unfortunately for you, empathy is not something that is easily learned.
Alice’s credibility stands.
Taq, I pulled both your comments out of the spam filter (nothing personal… happens to all of us at one time or another…) and thought they worthy of repeating twice. Besides, what with your suggestion as to billy bob’s challenged reading skills, perhaps making the point twice may sink in.
Spot on analysis Alice.
I’ve noticed B-Rob disappears from discussions where his arguements and shabby, illogical analysis has been blown away. Probably waiting for someone to fax him updated talking points.
LOL mata. I’ve been checking every so often. I’m inebriated now, so my tourettes went away.
🙂
Thank you so much. Not a drinker by trade. Usually a potsmoker, but I’ve decided I don’t need that fear of police in the brokest state in the nation. My anger may not be as apparant as B-Rob’s, but after twice losing comments, I was cussing like a sailor. You rock. 🙂
Three Leinenkugel’s Oktoberfest and some singing and listening to Bobby McFerrin’s “Drive”, and I’m about as happy as I can be. Weed = depression. Leinie’s = what the monks made to replace food for lent. Joyousness ensues, and now that I see these comments, and yours, I get to go to bed happy. If you could see my retarded smile ringht now you’d be laughing too.
-Taq
LOL I cannot believe that you posted them both. HA!
B-Rob
I read the decision.
The judge relied on a case where Congress took away funding from 40 or so FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. Because they were EMPLOYEES, that court was a Bill of Attainder because the workers already had a vested interest in their INDIVIDUAL jobs therein.
The judge in this case treated the CORPORATION known as ACORN as an INDIVIDUAL. Which, for other than tax purposes is not done in court cases for any reason, because ONLY in tax-law, are corporations deemed as having INDIVIDUAL rights.
The judge in-question deemed that Acorn is being unfairly “punished” because they are being denied the “right” to offer services to the government IN THE FUTURE (when no such thing was ever mentioned in the wording by Congress which cut off funding.)
Here in the real world, Acorn has no “rights” to demand ANYTHING let alone perpetual employment by this government.
So in effect, this judge has placed into precedence, that the government can’t prohibit ANY organization from receiving funds, once it has begun sucking up our tax dollars, even when those funds are discretionary, as deemed by Congress, nor when the entity in-question has committed, or is suspected of criminal activity.
So in a sense, according to this judge, because I once worked for the Navy, and also for the FBI and CIA, I now have a “right” to be paid in perpetuity, and my contract can never be terminated, even if they suspect me of fraud. Or that the the cancelling of the F-22/C-17 was somehow illegal. Maybe I’ll notify Lockheed…as they might have a vested interest in re-hiring the 5000 people who worked on these projects.
Will you be my lawyer? cuz I want more of your tax dollars.
Any other stupid questions about this case, moron? Because your “god” of a president is going to lose this case on purpose, without even bothering to appeal. To to the idiots like you, the ends justifies the means, even if it tramples the constitution. The ONLY way this dipwad won is through Acorn, so exactly how far will you let Acorn and the judges in their pockets distort laws?
Don’t bother answering, because I can already paraphrase your answer: “As far as necessary to keep power, right up until the CONS try the same thing.”
DAMN you make me sick.
Patvann, I’m a rock solid conservative but I still think the judge (and B-Rob) are correct just this once. Corporations are accorded rights and treated as individuals in the law in many circumstances.
You are correct that no corporation or individual person has a right to work for the government in the future. But they do have a right to compete on an equal basis for future government work with every other corporation or individual. The problem that most conservatives are having with this particular case is that we all hate ACORN (and rightfully so!). But you can’t let your interpretation of the Constitution vary according to which side of a particular case you want to win. What if the next time it is the Dems wanting to punish [fill in blank of some conservative corporation] just because they want to punish them?
We are a nation of laws. If Congress wants to pass a law that dictates that any corporation whose employees are caught on tape trying to help a pimp set up a business will forfeit the right to future government funding, I suppose it could. But that law must be a law BEFORE the event occurs (Constitution forbids ex post facto laws), not after, and it must apply equally to all similarly situated corps or individuals (can’t say it only applies to ACORN, or only to conservative corporations). And once such a law is enacted, then such corporations violating the law must be tried and convicted in a court of law, not in a trial before Congress, or worse, just in the court of public opinion without any trial. You and I would agree that ACORN is most likely guilty, but I thought O.J. was guilty as sin, too. If memory serves me he was found “not guilty.”
The Constitution is for our protection. The Fed Govt is a government of limited authority. The Constitution limits the authority of Congress to punish individuals who have not been tried before a court of law. If you think taking away the right to work for the government is not a punishment, I guess we do not have much more to discuss. What about those souls who work there who did nothing wrong? Should all the employees be punished because of what a few did? How about we fire you because a co-worker broke laws? I want the protection of the Constitution, especially now that the liberals are running Congress. I hope that after you ponder these points that you will reconsider your position.
And Patvann, the decision does not mean that Congress can’t cut off funds to those who do jobs for the Government, it means that Congress can’t cut off funds because of a desire to punish. For instance, if you are accused of theft, but never convicted. Congress must treat all persons equally. It can’t come along and cut off funds only to conservatives. Or cut off those who have been accused of crimes but never tried and convicted. Congress made no secret when they wrote the law that they were punishing ACORN for what its employees did. If Congress wanted to cut off all funds to all corporations doing the same job, then it would not be singling ACORN out for punishment.
I hear ya Doe, but I have only one word to respond to your VERY well worded counter-posit.
(Professor Volokh touches on the same principals)
That word is Blackwater. Nobody was convicted of anything, yet they were canceled by Congress, without even a distinct Bill. (Then quietly brought back) No judge ever stood up for them, even though they had tried to get a case heard.
The other thing is that Congress suspended payments, it did not terminate… ostensibly to perform an investigation, per the Bill. So in light of the fact that this particular Demo-held Congress will never do such a thing, then by law, they should have either rescinded the Bill, or passed another to terminate the suspension.
I do however think that the Bill passed was poorly constructed, and was nebulus enough to bring forth this type of quandry.
@ JDoe
AND another thing. 😉 (Just remembered this)
Whenever I had contract with the Feds, whether it was through my construction company or my “freelance”, there was always the clause that if I did anything “unbecoming” or “unlawful” that put the United States in a bad light, the contract was terminated, or suspended (with payment held in escrow until such matter was adjudicated.)
Of course I have not been privy to Acorn’s contract, but it seemed pretty boilerplate to me, and my laywer.
@ Patvann —
“The judge in this case treated the CORPORATION known as ACORN as an INDIVIDUAL. Which, for other than tax purposes is not done in court cases for any reason, because ONLY in tax-law, are corporations deemed as having INDIVIDUAL rights.”
In saying that corporations are only treated as “persons” for tax reasons, you are simply showing how friggn ignorant you are of the 14th Amendment and its implications for corporations. I won’t go through all the case law (because it is way above your IQ) but here is a quick summary: corporations have due process rights just like individuals; corporations have free speech rights just like individuals; you can no more take property from a corporation without fair compensation and due process than you can take it from a little old lady. You simply don’t know what the hell you are talking about, Pat.
“The judge in-question deemed that Acorn is being unfairly ‘punished’ because they are being denied the ‘right’ to offer services to the government IN THE FUTURE (when no such thing was ever mentioned in the wording by Congress which cut off funding.)”
No, that is not all that he said. He pointed out that the statute prohibits payment to them for services already rendered; it keeps them from being paid for future services under the same contracts; AND it prohibits them from competing for future contracts . . . all without a judicial finding of any wrongdoing. Yeah , I see have not mentioned that last part. Wonder why?
“Here in the real world, Acorn has no ‘rights’ to demand ANYTHING let alone perpetual employment by this government.”
Agreed. But they do have the right to (a) be paid for services already rendered; (b) get an opportunity to complete a contract, and get the benefit thereof, since they HAVE NOT BREACHED THE CONTRACT; and (c) they have the right to compete on future contracts under fair and equal terms with everyone else.
“So in effect, this judge has placed into precedence, that the government can’t prohibit ANY organization from receiving funds, once it has begun sucking up our tax dollars, even when those funds are discretionary, as deemed by Congress, nor when the entity in-question has committed, or is suspected of criminal activity.”
This is simply a lie. Companies are debarred from government contracting all the time; but that is done after a fair hearing. What is it that you cons have against a fair hearing for ACORN? Afraid they might be found innocent? Ah . . . the presumption of innocence . . . .
“So in a sense, according to this judge, because I once worked for the Navy, and also for the FBI and CIA, I now have a ‘right’ to be paid in perpetuity, and my contract can never be terminated, even if they suspect me of fraud.”
No, you just made that up. If you have a contract with the government, and you have not breached it, it can’t be yanked out from under you for political reasons, or without you having a hearing to show your innocence of alleged fraud. It’s not enough for the government to “suspect” you committed fraud; due process notions stand for the proposition that they have to prove it, nt just assume it and act accordingly.
In fact . . . wouldn’t you have a problem with a scenario where you had a contract under the Bush administration, had never breached it, but had it pulled from you because someone SAYS you are a crook, but they never proved it? And you rendered the services promised under the contract, but they refused to pay you because someone merely alleged “Patvann is a crook and a Republican shill”? That is precisely what happened to ACORN.
“Any other stupid questions about this case, moron? Because your ‘god’ of a president is going to lose this case on purpose, without even bothering to appeal. To to the idiots like you, the ends justifies the means, even if it tramples the constitution.”
Numbn*ts Patvann, I cited you the Supreme Court definition of a “bill of attainder.” You have not even addressed how that relates to the case! So what the f. would you know about the Constitution, when you don’t even have basic knowledge how the 14th Amendment has been applied to corporations since the 1870s! And if the AG (who defends statutes, not the president you mook) decides the case is a loser, he should NOT waste taxpayer money to appeal. Indeed, since I don’t see anyone here actually disputing the legal conclusions the judge made, only whining about the outcome, that pretty much makes it clear to me that neither the judge nor I missed any sub rosa, legitimate argument that the statute was not a bill of attainder. It sure as hell looks like one and neither you nor any of the other brain-donors here have even made an effort to claim otherwise.
“The ONLY way this dipwad won is through Acorn, so exactly how far will you let Acorn and the judges in their pockets distort laws?”
Yeah . . . keep telling yourself he won Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Nevada, and New Mexico because of ACORN. Keep telling yourself that the seven point, near 10 million vote winning margin was due to a ragtag group of community activists who can’t even keep their books straight. Yep . . . they can’t keep track of their employees conduct during a voter registration drive, but they were able to somehow gerryrig a 100 electoral vote swing for Obama? Uh huh . . .your delusions about their omnipotence betrays your insanity, dude.
*pfffft*
@Patvann:
Pat, how is ACORN’s misuse of public funding any different than Kevin Johnson and St. Hope?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Exclusive-Congressional-Report-Rhee-did-damage-control-after-sex-charges-against-fiancee-Kevin-Johnson.html
Personally Missy, I don’t see how any of these groups are allowed any tax money at all. They have become defacto government agencies, and THAT is the biggest problem of all.
But of course they were established by Demo’s, for Demo’s, so move along…nothing to see.
No kidding!
I see both as the same type of case, the libs just ended them differently. With Kevin Johnson and St. Hope, Walprin had to bedenigrated, made to be the crazy old man, fired and thrown under that bus. Next step was their attempt to sweep the whole thing under the rug for fear that Sacramento would lose fed money when Johnson became Mayor. So, it evidently was not uncommon to lose dollars for fraud.
Both were private nonprofits accepting and abusing federal grants, both were in the process of being denied federal funding, in the end one case was manipulated to achieve their desired outcome and a judge spun the law like a top in the other.
@Patvann, the clause in the contract, so long as it is the same in every firm’s contract, and so long as it is applied equally to all corporations, seems as though it would not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. And that is how ACORN should have been handled in this case.
That much is true, John. We can only hope that with several buildings worth of lawyers we are paying in DC, that at least a few of them get motivated to get this corrupt and obviously partisan group out of our government, and out of our lives.
-Thanks for the “make-me-think” comments.
Hey Missy….
Check this out:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Did-AmeriCorps-official-lie-about-possible-First-Lady-link-to-IG-firing-79209617.html
@Patvann:
Interesting. What a day for Michelles, it also came out yesterday that Blago’s attorneys are attempting to supoena documents relating to Mrs. President. Ooooh, what could the Obama’s have to do with Blago?
Wonder if Blago will eventually find himself in our new terrorist prison?
Then this morning there has been some squawking about money pulled out of the stimulus for bonuses. One bonus recipient is non other than Michelle Rhee, fiancee of FOO Kevin Johnson. It seems her annual salary with the DC school system is $275,000, her annual bonus is 10%($27,500). This year she gets over $42,000, the DC schools are still at the bottom.