[Vision2020] Fw: [Spam 6.01] Weekly Update: Obama Breaks Another Promise

[lfalen]

-----Original message-----

From: Tom Fitton info at JudicialWatch.org
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:03:51 -0700
To: LFALEN at TURBONET.COM
Subject: [Spam 6.01] Weekly Update: Obama Breaks Another Promise

July 2, 2009

>From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor in Firefighter Lawsuit
Should the test results of firefighters seeking promotion be
discarded simply because African American participants did not score as
well as their white counterparts? Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia
Sotomayor said "yes" earlier this year while sitting on a federal court of
appeals. However, in a stunning decision overturning Judge Sotomayor and
her colleagues on the appellate court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on
Monday that her decision was wrong (Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al.).
Not only that, but the Supreme Court also noted the fact that
Sotomayor's appellate court dismissed the firefighters' claims in a
one-paragraph unpublished opinion, despite the fact that there were 2,000
pages of court filings related to the case.
Here's the story according to
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html]
The Washington Post:
The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white
firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions
because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and
others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her
nomination for the high court.
The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no
African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for
promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws
that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show
discrimination.
In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential
discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against
another.
[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf] In its
5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said this is exactly what happened when
Sotomayor and her colleagues on the appellate court allowed city officials
to invalidate the firefighters' test results. Writing for the majority,
Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an
employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the
examinations and qualified for promotions. The City's discarding the test
results was impermissible..."
Now, the question for the United States Senate is whether to confirm
someone who thinks it is appropriate to discriminate based on race simply
to protect oneself from a lawsuit.
Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that New Haven
firefighters have "a right to demand...evenhanded enforcement of the
law—of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And
that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them." Judge
Sotomayor clearly did not apply our nation's anti-discrimination laws in an
evenhanded way.
But, then again, should anyone be surprised by this?
The firefighter decision by Sotomayor is perhaps the most
well-publicized, but by no means the only, occasion when the Supreme Court
nominee has demonstrated a fondness for using the courts to favor one race
over another. (Remember, we're talking about a judge who spoke of a Latina
woman's judgment as being superior to a white male's.)
I wonder, for example, what the High Court would say about two other
specific lawsuits pushed by Sotomayor while she served as the "top policy
maker" on the Board of Directors for the radical leftist Puerto Rican Legal
Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF). (Read our full report on Sotomayor and
the PRLDEF by clicking
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/SotomayorPRLDEFreport.pdf]
here. And watch the educational panel we held regarding Sotomayor last
Thursday by clicking
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2009/jun/sonia-sotomayor] here.)
In 1981, the PRLDEF supported a lawsuit that contended an entry level
government test, known as Professional Administrative Careers Examination,
had an adverse impact on the African and Hispanic Americans who failed the
exam. The lawsuit argued the test, therefore, violated the 1964 Civil
Rights Act of the failed candidates. Ultimately the government eliminated
the exam and replaced it with an alternative "race-sensitive" version.
In 1988, the PRLDEF engaged in a battle with the New York City Police
Department over its "racist" promotion exam, ultimately presiding over a
radical redesign to allow more minorities to achieve a passing grade.
According to
[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/13/nyregion/despite-revisions-few-blacks-passed-police-sergeant-test.html?pagewanted=all]
The New York Times: "The new test, a four-part exam prepared with the help
of an expert designated by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund...involved
changes in format, including the addition of open-book questions and a
video portion."
Both as an activist and a judge, Judge Sotomayor has advanced a
radical, race-conscious agenda through the courts. And it is increasingly
apparent that Judge Sotomayor did not stop being an activist once she
became a federal judge.
All of this provides further reason why the Senate should reject the
Sotomayor nomination.
Don't forget to let your senators know where you stand on the
Sotomayor nomination. If your voice isn't heard, Democrats will rush and
rubberstamp the nomination while Republicans go AWOL. Contact the Senate at
(202) 224-3121. Time is running out, as her confirmation hearings begin on
July 13, 2009.
Obama Breaks Promise on Transparency — AGAIN
You may recall almost immediately after assuming the presidency Barack
Obama boldly proclaimed, "Transparency and the rule of law will be the
touchstones of this presidency."
These types of political proclamations usually mean very little. I
recall Bill Clinton promised to run "the most ethical administration in the
history of the country" when he took office. And we all know how that
turned out. Former President Bush promised to give the Oval Office "a good
scrubbing" when he ascended to the White House in 2001, and then proceeded
to close the door on all investigations into Clinton corruption.
So now that we're six months into the Obama presidency, how is Obama
stacking up to his promises regarding government transparency? Not so good.
A couple of weeks ago, I told you that the Obama administration
refuses to release White House visitor logs, claiming the information is
privileged and confidential. Earlier this year, Judicial Watch had to force
the Obama administration to turn over documents related to the government
"bailout" of our nation's financial institutions.
In February, the Obama administration said it didn't have any
documents at all. Pressure from Judicial Watch changed their minds, leading
to the release of former Secretary Treasury Hank Paulson's talking points
for an important bank "bailout" meeting, among
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents]
other key documents. However, the administration has yet to release current
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's edited version of this blockbuster
document.
And now there is this according to
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/politics/22pledge.html?ref=us] The
New York Times:
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once
a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for
five days before he signed it.
"When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the
public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before
I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing," Mr. Obama said
as a candidate, telling voters he would make government more transparent
and accountable.
When he took office in January, his team added that in posting
nonemergency bills, it would "allow the public to review and comment"
before Mr. Obama signed them. Five months into his administration, Mr.
Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days.
Yet another broken promise.
As you know, Judicial Watch is the nation's leading organization when
it comes to using the law to force the government to release documents into
the public domain. We've been doing this for nearly 15 years and through
three presidential administrations. Few know the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) open records process better than Judicial Watch litigators and
investigators. And I can tell you this: The Obama administration may say
the right things publicly but it is just as committed to secrecy as the
Bush and Clinton administrations — perhaps even more so.
Obama administration officials delay and stonewall the release of
documents through niggling administrative and bureaucratic means. They
delay by pretending not to understand what the request means. They claim
they need to consult with the White House before addressing requests, which
is highly irregular. And they deny requests for silly, bureaucratic reasons
that force us to go through a bureaucratic and time-consuming appeals
process.
And when it comes to litigation, our lawyers see no difference between
the FOIA litigation positions and tactics of the Bush and Obama
administrations, period.
When it comes to transparency, the Obama administration is no better
than the Bush administration – in fact, it is worse.
California Courts Undermine Federal Immigration Law
Communities across America, sometimes aided and abetted by the court
system, continue to be outright hostile to federal immigration law. Los
Angeles, California, is no exception.
On June 17, 2009, the California Court of Appeals dismissed
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/lapd-special-order-40] Judicial Watch's
taxpayer lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department's "Special Order
40" policy." (Judicial Watch, Inc. v The Los Angeles Police Department, et.
al, Case No. BC349040).
Judicial Watch is now considering whether to appeal this decision to
the California Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the
[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B209913.PDF] appellate
court admitted:
Many local police agencies, including the LAPD, believe that local
law enforcement can best achieve its goal of crime prevention by making it
known to the community that local law enforcement officers are unconcerned
with immigration violations — thereby encouraging illegal immigrants to
come forward with relevant information about crimes without fear of
deportation...[The LAPD] chose to impose limits on its officers ability to
investigate the immigration status of aliens with whom they come into
contact.
The fact that Special Order 40 inhibits police officers from
inquiring about an individual's immigration status is a plain violation of
the law. And Judicial Watch demonstrated through discovery that Special
Order 40, as practiced, prohibits LAPD officers from communicating with
federal immigration authorities. According to Judicial Watch's
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/so40-opptointsumjudgement.pdf]
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed last year:
Deputy Chief Brennan testified that it would be inconsistent with
LAPD's policy for an officer to notify federal immigration officials about
a person's immigration status "just for any purpose." He agreed that, if an
officer just happened to learn, unrelated to a criminal investigation, that
a person was an illegal alien, the officer would not refer that person to
federal immigration officials.
Moreover, an independent review panel, at the request of the LAPD
Board of Police Commissioners confirmed: "...In practice, LAPD officers do
not routinely notify INS [now ICE] about the immigration status of
individuals who have not been arrested."
This is all a clear and direct violation of federal immigration law,
which states: "...a Federal State, or local government entity or official
may not prohibit, or in any way restrict [emphasis added], any government
entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or
unlawful, of any individual."
Our lawsuit in Los Angeles has helped galvanize public opinion against
Special Order 40 and in favor of the rule of law. Los Angeles politicians
are under significant pressure to do the right thing and reform Special
Order 40. And while Judicial Watch has not yet prevailed in its Special
Order 40 litigation, we have successfully argued against these types of
sanctuary policies in the courts.
For example, Judicial Watch earned a
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/fonseca-v-fong] huge court victory against
the City of San Francisco when an appellate court ruled that the San
Francisco Police Department must comply with a state law requiring police
officers to notify federal authorities when they arrest a person for
various narcotics offenses whom they suspect to be an alien, legal or
illegal [Fonseca v. Fong, Case No. A120206]. (We have a similar, pending
challenge against the Special Order 40 sanctuary policy.)
There is no question the law is on our side and our lawyers will
consider the legal options in the Special Order 40 matter. In the meantime,
we will continue to battle aggressively across the country against these
illegal alien sanctuary policies.
***
Please accept my best wishes for a wonderful Independence Day holiday.
Until next week...

Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized
under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is
dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a
return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a
tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts,
[https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate] click here.
[https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate]
 

This message was sent by: Judicial Watch, 501 School St. SW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20024

Email Marketing by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com

Manage your subscription:
http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=6411607&l=2547&s=52ID&m=149145&c=157205

Forward to a friend: 
http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=149145&s=6411607&c=52ID&cid=157205



-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Tom Fitton <info at JudicialWatch.org>
Subject: [Spam 6.01] Weekly Update: Obama Breaks Another Promise
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:03:51 -0400
Size: 35041
Url: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090709/8d28c896/attachment-0001.mht