Michelle Malkin » Clinton judicial appointee stymies congressional ACORN funding ban

Clinton judicial appointee stymies congressional ACORN funding ban

By Michelle Malkin • December 11, 2009 07:10 PM

Oy. The Hill’s Eric Zimmerman reports that a Clinton-appointed judge has enjoined the congressional ACORN funding bans as illegal “bills of attainder:”

A federal judge today issued an injunction preventing the implementation of a congressional ban on funding for ACORN.

Judge Nina Gershon concluded that the ban amounted to a “bill of attainder” that unfairly singled out ACORN.

“[The plaintiffs] have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process of adjudicating guilt,” Gershon wrote in her decision.

Gershon said ACORN had demonstrated “irreperable harm” from the ban, while “the potential harm to the government, in granting the injunction, is less.” The decision noted that the ban had already prevented ACORN from receiving payment from contracts awarded before the ban took effect.

“The public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies, which was stopped solely by reason of [the ban],” Gershon wrote.

In defending the ban, the Obama administration argued it interpreted the bill narrowly enough to allow payment of existing contracts. But Gershon found the legislation too broad.

Constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh mulled over the legal questions in September here. So did Hans von Spakovsky here. His conclusion:

In sum, the Defund ACORN Act does not meet the legal definition of a bill of attainder. There is no valid reason why the courts would not defer to the legislative judgment of Congress as to the regulatory purposes of this statute, particularly since its general provisions provide no proof of punitive intent and further the interests of not providing taxpayer funds to organizations that violate campaign finance and election laws — laws that implicate the very essence of our democratic form of government and our voting process.

The [Congressional Research Service report on the bill of attainder question] at one point concedes the tenuousness of such a claim, as it should, when it admits that a “court would most likely be able to discern a rational, non-punitive purpose for [the Act]: a desire to prevent federal funds being used for activities that violate federal or state law.”[30] There is no basis for a court to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of the Act and rule otherwise

ACORN critic Mike Gaynor can say “I told you so.”

Gershon’s Judgepedia profile is here.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: ACORN Watch

Printer Friendly

comments (125)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:34 am, purealchemy said:

John Deaux,

If ya really wanna know, write me at my personal address.
#102

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am, happyscrapper said:

Which schools?

Occidental, Columbia University, Harvard Law School, University of Chicago. I mean, he SAYS he went there, but won’t release any of this records? So why should I believe it? Has anyone come forward who actually saw him attending those schools? Who were his roomies. Maybe he went to them for a while, but maybe got kicked out for drugging or something. His past is so shady, who the heck knows??? He is definitely covering up something big time. You don’t spend that kind of money for no reason. It is the same kind of thing we were fighting during the election…no one would investigate this guy, and look what we got. Even now, with proof positive of his agenda, no one wants to use some journalistic integrity and actually find out the truth. No one, of course, except the radical right-wing extremists.
#103

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am, jangar said:

More realistic plan is to shake down the Republican Party to get it back on track.

Take the rug out and beat the fleas out of it.
#104

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:44 am, happyscrapper said:

Take the rug out and beat the fleas out of it.

Great slogan!! Let’s use it.
#105

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:44 am, happyscrapper said:

I want to stay on topic.

Clinton

ACORN
#106

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am, Roland said:

He has spent over one million dollars to keep a lid on his birth cert, his college records and his medical records. WHY???

Because there is something there, somewhere in the mix. For certain.

However, I understand why conservative leadership won’t touch the birther issue. They think it is a trap. It may not be the thing Obama is really hiding. It is just one of the many things he’s hiding so no one will know where the smoking gun is.

For instance, he may have written a paper that was blatantly racist and/or overtly anti-American, calling for the toppling of the “American Empire” and the destruction of American wealth.

Or maybe he had a criminal record that was expunged because he was 17 at the time. And maybe the crime was something really odious.

Or maybe …. you get the idea.

If he aggressively hides everything (while preaching about transparency to his idiot followers), no one will dig as hard for that one thing because they won’t know where to look.
#107

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:49 am, jangar said:

happyscrapper said:
I want to stay on topic.

Clinton
Obama
ACORN
Rinos
Tiger
Thread Hijacking

Ok.
#108

On December 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am, jangar said:

Roland said:

Because there is something there, somewhere in the mix. For certain.

Add to that affirmative action, from begining to end.
#109

On December 13th, 2009 at 10:11 am, happyscrapper said:

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:49 am, jangar said:
happyscrapper said:
I want to stay on topic.

Clinton
Obama
ACORN
Rinos
Tiger
Thread Hijacking
Ok.

Well, as long as we mention Clinton and ACORN once in a while, we are on topic, right?

I am in the mood to “chat” today. However, I can’t!! Big party this afternoon at my daughter’s house and I am making a bunch of nibbles. We have a lot to celebrate. The Vikings game, of course. But also three birthdays, and the biggie…our Son-in-Law is taking his FINAL FINAL test this afternoon at Augsburg College. He has completed his four-year degree in four years while taking care of his wife and two kids and working a full-time job. Also, he will be graduating Magna Cum Laude. I guess you might say, our daughter picked a winner!! (Unfortunately, this is the same son-in-law who voted for Obama, but I have forgiven him because he has been too busy to actually keep up with politics, and his family is democrat. I do believe he is having some buyers remorse, thanks to me. As we all know, you can be well educated and still lack common sense, right?? I tell him that all the time! )

Anyway, good stuff is happening all over this country, as its citizens continue to work hard and excel against difficult odds. That is the good old American Spirit!!
#110

On December 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am, DBNinKY said:

ACORN…an outlier…you can find hundreds of organizations…that disobey the law as egregiously….

But do those orgs also attempt to abet and enable underage prostitution?

…on both sides of the aisle.

And please, both sides of the isle? somehow I doubt that.
#111

On December 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am, jangar said:

this is the same son-in-law who voted for Obama

A cross to bear, I know.
#112

On December 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am, Roland said:

A cross to bear, I know.

Imagine both parents, all of your siblings, all of your aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces and cousins and all of their spouses were Carter, Clinton, Obama cheering leftists who thought and still think Ronald Reagan was one of our worst Presidents.

Welcome to my world.

And in the 20+ years since I figured out they were all nuts and they’ve been trying relentlessly to bring me back into the fold, I haven’t managed to move even one of them one iota away from their world views.

You have to teach the children. Nothing else works.
#113

On December 13th, 2009 at 11:29 am, chapoutier said:

And please, both sides of the isle? somehow I doubt that.

Um, yes. Every election year, you hear stories about churches engaging in impermissible activities with respect to campaigns. Juts as many of these come from the right as they do the left. Every election year you see commercials from outside groups from both sides that are supposed to be issue ads, but that are clearly not.
#114

On December 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm, happyscrapper said:

On December 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am, Roland said:

My sincere sympathies, Roland!! I imagine Thanksgiving with your family must be a hoot. You are right, we need to get our children early before they have been brainwashed. Our solution for the future lies in the education of our kids. And that means the pubic schools sytem needs to be either overhauled completely, or disbanded. Stay vigilant, parents and grandparents, to what they are teaching your kids!!
#115

On December 13th, 2009 at 1:24 pm, purealchemy said:

On December 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am, happyscrapper said:

Which schools?

Occidental, Columbia University, Harvard Law School, University of Chicago. I mean, he SAYS he went there, but won’t release any of this records? So why should I believe it? Has anyone come forward who actually saw him attending those schools?

happy, as much as I would dearly love to see Obumbo flushed back to Chicago, or better yet, Indonesia, I don’t think there’s any lack of evidence for his attendance of those schools.
I do remember seeing a class photo of him from Harvard where he was the editor of the Law Review. And Michelle did a lot of bitter carping during the campaign about paying off their student loans. All the white kids had trust funds, she said.
#116

On December 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm, purealchemy said:

If he aggressively hides everything (while preaching about transparency to his idiot followers), no one will dig as hard for that one thing because they won’t know where to look

How about where did he get the money to travel to Pakistan when he was a student?
#117

On December 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm, purealchemy said:

On December 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am, jangar said:

Roland said:

Because there is something there, somewhere in the mix. For certain

.
Add to that affirmative action, from begining to end

I did read that he got Harvard Law Review editor on pure merit.
#118

On December 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, purealchemy said:

happy, big congrats to your son-in-law and daughter!
#119

On December 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, purealchemy said:

On December 13th, 2009 at 11:29 am, chapoutier said:
And please, both sides of the isle? somehow I doubt that.
Um, yes. Every election year, you hear stories about churches engaging in impermissible activities with respect to campaigns. Juts as many of these come from the right as they do the left. Every election year you see commercials from outside groups from both sides that are supposed to be issue ads, but that are clearly not

Aw, come on, chaps, that is small beans compared to ACORN’s thuggery.
#120

On December 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, purealchemy said:

This relates to a previous thread about Desiree Rogers. My FIRST TotallyLooksLike (very exciting!):

http://cheezburger.com/View.aspx?aid=2947144192

hat tip to beachmom
#121

On December 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm, purealchemy said:

On December 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am, jangar said:
this is the same son-in-law who voted for Obama
A cross to bear, I know

College kids always tend to favor the “cooler” candidate. Usually there’s not much difference but this time they got Mr. Uber-Cool.
#122

On December 13th, 2009 at 2:20 pm, purealchemy said:

Okay, done talking to self.
If these threads get any deader, will call mortician.
#123

On December 13th, 2009 at 4:45 pm, tiredofit08 said:

dodomayor issues first opinion…uses the term “undocumented workers”/”undocumented aliens” rather than the “illegal workers/illegal aliens used in previous case law…go figure….a wise latina setting precedence eh?

http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Mohawk_Industries%2C_Inc._v._Carpenter

On December 8, the Court issued its opinion—the first authored by Justice Sotomayor—in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter. Resolving a split among the courts of appeals, the Court held that an order requiring the disclosure of information protected (arguably) by the attorney–client privilege is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The collateral order doctrine, progeny of the Court’s ruling in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., allows for the immediate appellate review of an order that fulfills three criteria: first, the order must conclusively determine the disputed question; second, it must resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the case; and third, the order must be effectively unreviewable, were a party to wait for the final judgment in a case. Concluding, as did the Eleventh Circuit, that an order requiring the disclosure of allegedly privileged information can manageably be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment, the Court held that the collateral order doctrine does not allow the immediate appeal of such an order.

The facts of the case are straightforward. Mohawk was born of two separate lawsuits. In one, a group of employees sued Mohawk Industries over an alleged conspiracy to drive down their wages by knowingly hiring lower-paid undocumented workers. Without knowledge of that lawsuit, Carpenter allegedly complained to Mohawk’s human resources department about the company’s employment of undocumented aliens.
#124

On December 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am, jangar said:

On December 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am, Roland said:

It boggles the mind at times…must be severe brainwashing, or dementia…

Certainly not paying attention, that’s for sure.
#125

On December 14th, 2009 at 10:37 am, DBNinKY said:

When the Congress-Dems revealed the law cutting ACORN off from gov funding, it was all the buzz in the media that the legislation would be overturned in court as it was mere window dressing to satisfy the anti-ACORN sentiments of their constituents; but given the undeniable documentation of ACORN’s wrong doing and the level of controversy surrounding ACORN’s apparent business practices, I don’t think it will be a slam-dunk matter for them to prove a case of an attainder violation and have the funding restored.

Every election year…stories about churches engaging in impermissible activities with respect to campaigns…commercials from outside groups from both sides that are supposed to be issue ads…..

And nearly all of them composed of out of context quotes from Lefty-agitators looking to start somethin’. These accusers should give video like the Reverend Wright tapes to make a case of electioneering violations; otherwise, like many of the ads, it’s a matter of subjective interpretation.