|
 eter
Kirsanow will attend the January 11 meeting of the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights, NR has learned. The meeting will be the
panel's first since chairwoman Mary Frances Berry and a majority
of the commissioners refused
to recognize Kirsanow as a rightful member of the panel last
month. But the courts probably won't let him have his seat until
the second half of the month at the earliest.
In November,
President Bush appointed Kirsanow to a slot held by Victoria Wilson.
But Wilson and her liberal allies on the commission insist that
her term does not expire until 2006. At their monthly meeting in
December, they voted against seating Kirsanow
and refused even to let him speak.
The matter
is already before a judge, with both sides submitting papers to
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler and hoping for a ruling shortly
after January 14, when final briefs are due. Kessler is a Clinton
appointee. But the strength of Kirsanow's case may see him through.
Last month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service backed
the White House view that Wilson's term has expired and the seat
belongs to Kirsanow. No matter how Kessler rules, however, the case
probably won't be settled except on appeal.
Wilson has
secured her own legal representation in the case, but the commission
is now trying to intervene. On December 21, staff director Les Jin
announced that he had hired the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison to represent the commission in the matter.
This prompted a strong reply today from Commissioner Jennifer Braceras,
who supports Kirsanow. "On what basis is the Commission authorized
to retain outside counsel to represent us in this or any other matter?"
she writes in a memo to Jin.
It's a good
question. Wilson has her own lawyers. Why must the commission force
its way into the dispute? But even if there's a constructive role
for it to play, why can't its own staff lawyers handle the job?
How much is this costing taxpayers? Last
summer, Berry forbade commissioners Abigail Thernstrom and Russell
Redenbaugh were barred from consulting with uncompensated scholars
on their dissent to the commission's report on the presidential
vote in Florida. Surely Berry isn't accepting pro bono assistance
now.
Worth Reading
While we were away, Kevin Hasson had an excellent response to the
notion, peddled by Bill Clinton among others, that we're fighting
a war "against all those who believe in an absolute truth."
Hasson argues that this idea simply inverts Osama bin Laden's way
of looking at the world: "Both assume truth and freedom are
irreconcilable opposites. The difference is that the Taliban happily
sacrifices freedom for truth, while Clinton and the others obligingly
sacrifice truth for freedom." The whole piece may be read
here.
|
