Hillary And Democrat/ACLU Justice?

[Ornery]

Just got this in the mail today from a gal who is prone to sending me Urban Legend Net Hoax type e-mails:

• > If you are a fan of Paul Harvey (radio fame) you appreciate his ability
  > to uncover obscure, but interesting news and snippets of history...
  > Forgotten Facts ?? (Conveniently)
  > Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black
  > panther named Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of
  > disloyalty.
  > Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized his friends
  > tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on
  > him. When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member
  > Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head.
  > Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles north
  > of New Haven, Conn.
  > Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black
  > Panthers.
  > In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was
  > still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship
  > to Harvard.
  > He later became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College.
  > Isn't that something? As a '60s radical you can pump a bullet into
  > someone's head, and a few years later, in the same state, you can become
  > an assistant college dean! Only in America!
  > Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water
  > for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a
  > California School Board.
  > How in the world do you think these killers got off so easy? Maybe it
  > was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the
  > defense of the Panthers.
  > These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University
  > with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during
  > their trial.
  > One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr.
  > Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of
  > a California School Board. He is now head of the US Justice Department's
  > Civil Rights Division.
  > O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable
  > Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther
  > apologist now an assistant college dean? No, Neither! The other Panther
  > defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the
  > time. She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world."
  > She is none other than the Democratic candidate for the US Senate
  > fromthe
  > State of New York----our lovely First Lady, the incredible Hillary
  > Rodham Clinton.
  > And now; as Paul Harvey says; you know (the rest of the story). Pass
  > this on! She deserves the press................
  > Jennifer Welch
  > Administrative Assistant
  > 918-669-4745
  > 918-669-4762 Fax
  >
  >

I was skeptical, so I checked out the Urban Legends site. Found nada. I did find this:

• Hillary and the Lynch Mob
  
  John McCaslin | Washington Times | June 12, 1998
  
  A gang of criminals tortures, mutilates, and murders a black man. The nation demands justice for the brutal killing.
  
  Jasper, Texas, 1998? Not quite. It's New Haven, Conn., 1969.
  
  This week's killing of 49-year-old James Byrd, reportedly by three convicts, bears similarities to the torture-murder of 24-year-old Alex Rackley in 1969.
  
  Like Mr. Byrd's murderers?suspected of ties to the Aryan Brotherhood and the Ku Klux Klan?the leaders of the Black Panthers were hardened ex-cons who had developed their doctrines of racial hatred in prison.
  
  In 1969, Panther leaders in New Haven suspected Mr. Rackley of disloyalty. He was tied to a chair, and his comrades tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him. Finally, Panther gunman Warren Kimbro ended Mr. Rackley's suffering with a bullet to the head.
  
  Only one of the killers was still in prison in 1977. The gunman, Warren Kimbro, got a Harvard scholarship and became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College. Ericka Huggins, who boiled the water for Mr. Rackley's torture, got elected to a California school board.
  
  Unlike the Texas trio accused of killing Mr. Byrd, the Panthers in 1969 became a cause for radicals at Yale Law School.
  
  One of those law students, Hillary Rodham, "organized shifts for her classmates" to "monitor civil-rights abuses" during the trial of Mr. Rackley's killers and aided the American Civil Liberties Union's defense of the Panthers, David Brock wrote in his 1996 book about the first lady.
  
  Through her involvement in the defense of these killers, he reported, Ms. Rodham met Communist Party lawyer Robert Treuhaft and won an internship in his Berkeley law office.

Now, why would I want to lump all Democrats in the same boat with ACLU type individules and Hillary when that is obviously such a low blow? Well, it's Democrats that put these people in office. It's Democrats that help further their ACLU agenda, which seems to be hell bent on circumventing justice for criminals. Here's another example:

Justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal

Hillary's name isn't on the list of supporters, but her Hollywood friends are. Not a "fair" trial, eh? Hell, there are/were folks on the GOP side of the isle trying to make less-stringent the Miranda rights law. God forbid a guilty SOB should rot in jail for making a confession without being read his Maranda rights in six different languages, after he sobers up and the interrogator wipes his ass for him! :|

 

[Ferocious]

<< Well, it's Democrats that put these people in office. >>



What people...and what office?

BTW, the ACLU has defended the NAZI party's right to march on America's streets before. So using your warped logic....Democrats must be right-wing Nazis.

 

[Ornery]

&quot;It's Democrats that help further their ACLU agenda...&quot;

And who picks judges for the Supreme court?

 

[403Forbidden]

<< And who picks judges for the Supreme court? >>



Whoever is President when a vancy on the Court opens up (when a justice dies or quites).
Then Congess must approves of the nomination before the new person
becomes a Supreme Court Justice.

If you were trying to insuinuate that the Supreme Court
is filled with liberal justices because democratic presidents
fill the court, you &quot;theory&quot; has just been shot.


For your information, the majority of the justices on
the Supreme Court have been picked by Republican presidents.

 

[403Forbidden]

list of Supreme Court justices and the President who appointed them:

William H. Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon)
info

John Paul Stevens (appointed by Ford)
info

Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Reagan)
info

Antonin Scalia (appointed by Reagan)
info

Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Reagan)
info

David H. Souter (appointed by Bush)
info

Clarence Thomas (appointed by Bush)
info

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton)
info

Stephen G. Breyer (appointed by Clinton)
info

 

[403Forbidden]

As you can see...only two of the supreme court jusitices were
appointed by a democratic President. All the rest are
Republicans.


So quite your damn whining. Every time a republican
has a problem, they always whine and complain
about the liberal media or the supposedly
&quot;liberal&quot; justices. Get your facts straight
before making yourself look like a fool.

 

[AndrewR]

403: Sorry, bud, but you need to get your facts straight. List of judges and their leanings:

Scalia: Very conservative
Rehnquist: Conservative
Thomas: Conservative
O'Connor: Conservative to Centrist
Kennedy: Centrist
Stevens: Liberal to Centrist
Ginsberg: Liberal
Souter: Liberal
Breyer: Liberal

It's hardly a conservative court, though it does tend to lean that way if at all. However, O'Connor can definitely vote with the liberals on some issues as might Kennedy as well. One concern with the upcoming election is that the new president will likely determine the future politics of the court since Rehnquist is getting quite old and is likely to retire (or die, for that matter), and Stevens is also moving along in years. Should Gore be elected and appoint two staunch liberals to the Court to replace Rehnquist and Stevens, God help us all -- criminals will have more rights than regular citizens.


<< Whoever is President when a vancy on the Court opens up (when a justice dies or quites). Then Congess must approves of the nomination before the new person becomes a Supreme Court Justice. >>


And who had control over Congress when the majority of these justices were approved? I think it was probably the Democrats. If the President was the sole determinant of the new justice, Bork would be sitting in place of Kennedy, and the Court would be VERY different.

 

[searcher]

Ornery:

Another Urban Legends site you may want to add to your bookmarks/favorites.

Urban Legends

And this page in particular for those moral outrage types.

Moral Outrage

Now, for your specific story.

Less Biased


Your version is not quite accurate.


Michael

 

[403Forbidden]

Andrew,

Don't go confusing legal decisions with Political parties. How do
you come to the conslusion that certain Justices are &quot;liberal&quot;. By the
decisions they hand down?

Fact is, 7 of the 9 Justices are members of the Republican party.

A justice who makes a &quot;liberal&quot; decision bases it more on
the rule of law than politics. This is the exact reason why
it is so idiotic to simply blame a judge's decison based on
what party the judge belongs to.

How do you explain the Court's upholding of Miranda Rights? The court
is comprised of mostly conservative republicans, yet this &quot;liberal&quot; law
is upheld.

The fact is, the US Constitution requires DUE PROCESS for every
criminal conviction. DUE PROCESS includes the right to be represented by
legal counsel before answering any questions. If you need further guidance
on what exactly &quot;DUE PROCESS&quot; consists of, go to law school.

 

[Ornery]

&quot;The flimsy &quot;evidence&quot; typically mustered as &quot;proof&quot; of their &quot;support&quot; for the Black Panthers is that Hillary Clinton was co-editor of the Yale Review when it printed a derogatory cartoon depicting police as decapitated pigs, even though no one has demonstrated that she approved (or even knew) of it...&quot;

Somehow she never seems to be aware of anything going on around her. That's her excuse for everything! She doesn't seem to have any qualms pinning all her husband's problems on a &quot;vast right wing conspiracy&quot;, but we're supposed to be able to &quot;prove&quot; she defended Black Panthers, knew nothing about the files found in her office, was blameless in Whitewater...

Hey, she's as near socialist as a Democrat can get based on her very own past record. She's about as believable as her husband too. Guilt by association? Try guilty of being radically left by her own actions. And who is most likely to vote for her? That's the point of this topic.

 

[Ornery]

DUE PROCESS does not mean a killer should walk because a cop doesn't dot every I and cross every T.

And the point of this topic is that &quot;It's Democrats that help further their ACLU agenda...&quot;

If we could get a decent Supreme court, we wouldn't have legalized infanticide or killers walking because of tiny technicalities.

 

[chess9]

AndrewR:

If you think the current Supreme Court is too liberal, you need to move to a country with a right wing dictatorship. How can you stand America? Tsk, tsk. All these &quot;rights&quot; getting in the way of the &quot;truth&quot;.

Let's face it, you were born at least 3 centuries too late!

 

[searcher]

I will just quote the last paragraph from Less Biased in response.

&quot;Stripped of all the invective and blatant political ranting, the case here against Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton comes down to nothing more than &quot;We don't like their politics&quot; and &quot;They were there,&quot; so they must be as morally guilty as the Panthers themselves. As a junior senator from Wisconsin once demonstrated, if you can't defeat your political opponents at the ballot box, and you can't point to anything specific they've done wrong, simply declare them guilty for once having been associated (no matter how tenuous the association) with a group now reviled. &quot;Vilification by association&quot; tactics that worked for McCarthyites in the 1950s apparently still have their adherents today.&quot;

Michael

 

[chess9]

Ornery:

I can't stand Hilary, but that was a bit of a stretch, no? I've met both O.J. Simpson and Marion Berry. Does that make me a killer and womanizer? If the right wing propagates this sort of stuff to New Yorkers, it will backfire. When will the right wing stop engaging in this sort of character assassination? They are killing themselves with it and just keep rolling. Dense comes to mind.

 

[Ornery]

I did mention that I was dubious of the story when I first saw it. And if the &quot;less biased&quot; story is the only thing to extracate her from the scene of the crime, then I'll just let the story run.

She's in lock step with the Hollywood crowd that wants Mumia Abu-Jamal set free. No she would never admit it! That would be as politically suicidal as saying, &quot;I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and proud of it!&quot; Hmmmm, if I checked and found out that she is/was an ACLU member, would that be a feather in her cap or not?

Doesn't matter. Hillary's socialized health care program speaks for itself. And you can't blame anybody but her for that!

 

[searcher]

<< I did mention that I was dubious of the story when I first saw it. And if the &quot;less biased&quot; story is the only thing to extracate her from the scene of the crime, then I'll just let the story run. >>



Displays one of the problems with modern reporting, don't let the truth get in the way of the trash you wanna talk.

&quot;Scene of the crime&quot;, scene of what crime?


Rabid Republicans.

Michael

 

[searcher]

<< Doesn't matter. Hillary's socialized health care program speaks for itself. And you can't blame anybody but her for that! >>



And I thought a national health care program was an assignment given to her.



Michael

 

[Ornery]

Fact: &quot;Hillary Clinton was co-editor of the Yale Review when it printed a derogatory cartoon depicting police as decapitated pigs...&quot;

Fact: &quot;...she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations.&quot;

Face it, she ain't gonna come out and admit how far left she is. All we have is her actions as proof.

 

[403Forbidden]

<< Fact: &quot;...she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations.&quot; >>




So what's wrong with this? I suppose it was a bad thing that Martin Luther King
and other people were fighting for Civil Rights huh?

 

[Ornery]

You might as well compare MLK to Johnny Cochran while you're at it! I'm sure MLK would have been just thrilled to see OJ walk by playing &quot;the race card&quot;. That's what Civil Rights were all about, right? He must be rolling in his grave...

Like I said, I bet Hillary wouldn't even admit to being a member of the ACLU now or before. Why is that?

 

[searcher]

<< Fact: &quot;Hillary Clinton was co-editor of the Yale Review when it printed a derogatory cartoon depicting police as decapitated pigs...&quot; >>

A political cartoon depicting police as decapitated pigs... in a university student publication in the 60's???? No-way man!!!


<< Fact: &quot;...she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations.&quot;

Face it, she ain't gonna come out and admit how far left she is. All we have is her actions as proof. >>

Let's try to put this &quot;fact&quot; in context.

&quot;Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations. That a law student's tangential participation in one of the most controversial, politically and racially charged trials of her time (one that took place right on her doorstep) to help ensure it remained free of civil rights abuses is now offered as &quot;proof&quot; of her moral reprehensibility demonstrates that McCarthyism is alive and well -- some of us apparently believe in rights but don't believe everyone has the right to have rights.


Michael

 

[Russ]

searcher,

While your link to the snopes article has value in that it presents the information from a different perspective, to call it &quot;Less Biased&quot; is an insult to any thinking person. It is certainly very biased and spins the story quite well in an attempt to paint the perception that Hillary is an angel.

There is nothing wrong with this; it is an opinion piece, that's what it's supposed to do. Just don't expect anyone to believe that it's not biased.

Russ, NCNE

 

[CyberSax]

Hillary Clinton for Civil Rights? LOL! Hell, the damn b|tch isn't even in favor of human rights. She supports the widespread government sanctioned slaughter of the unborn.

Oh, what a sick world we live in

 

[searcher]

Russ:

Sorry, but sayin' it don't make it so. I saw nothing depicting Hillary as &quot;angelic&quot;.

Michael

 

[AndrewR]

<< Don't go confusing legal decisions with Political parties. How do you come to the conslusion that certain Justices are &quot;liberal&quot;. By the decisions they hand down? >>


Proof is in action, not belonging. There are liberals and centrists in the Republican party -- ever hear of Arlen Specter? By your angle, Clinton could be an arch-conservative, but he just happens to enact laws that he thinks are the most Constitutional.

Justices, whether trial, appeals, or Supreme, act on their politics because there are so many grey areas in the law that it can be twisted in just about any way conceivable. If you were to actually read some Constitutional cases, you'd see that. Or, do you honestly believe that the Commerce clause was enacted to allow the federal government the ability to regulate everythere? LOL


<< Fact is, 7 of the 9 Justices are members of the Republican party. >>


So what?


<< The fact is, the US Constitution requires DUE PROCESS for every criminal conviction. DUE PROCESS includes the right to be represented by legal counsel before answering any questions. If you need further guidance on what exactly &quot;DUE PROCESS&quot; consists of, go to law school. >>


Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have been to law school and was particularly interested in Constitutional law and criminal law in even more particularity. If you are trying to tell me that the meaning of &quot;due process&quot; is perfectly clear and not subject to the political leanings of a particular justice, then you are either deluded, ignorant, or slow. Supreme Court decisions change the meaning of the Constitution all the time, and they find nuances in very strange places. Ever notice that the vaunted law of privacy that we enjoy in this country is not delineated in the Constitution? They wanted to make one, thought we should have one, so it was created. Where is Miranda spelled out in the Bill of Rights? Why do the police need to make an informed citizen out of a criminal?

Chess9:

<< you think the current Supreme Court is too liberal, you need to move to a country with a right wing dictatorship. How can you stand America? Tsk, tsk. All these &quot;rights&quot; getting in the way of the &quot;truth&quot;. >>


Ok, read a little bit before responding. Did I say the Supreme Court is too liberal? Regardless of the fact that I think the Supreme Court needs to be more conservative (at least in the sense of Scalia's strict constructionist views -- there's far too much bench lawmaking these days), I laid out the general views of the justices which well shows that the Court is far from being a conservative one. The court is basically a centrist one with leanings either way depending on the issues. If the Court were truly too conservative, the Miranda ruling and the ruling on police car searches would have gone the other way.

If you think it's too conservative, then you really should consider a socialist country where criminals have more rights than citizens. Do you long for the rise of the proletariat? I can't say you were born at the wrong time because a true Marxist state has never existed!