Monthly Archives: May 2012

Former Federal Judge Clemon Unhinged

Retired U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon gave a speech full of hyperbole and misstatements about the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court.  Birmingham News.

The Voting Rights Act, Clemon said, “has almost been interpreted out of existence.
“With the rise of the Rehnquist court, our wall against the flood became the flood itself. We have seen, in the past quarter century, civil rights on the scaffold.”


“Clemon also criticized the “racist laws” passed by Arizona and Alabama that target illegal i
immigration and the “rank and unprotected discrimination” that homosexuals are subject to.


After his remarks, Clemon, who stepped down in 2009 to pursue a private law practice with the firm White Arnold & Dowd, joked that he was happy to have his First Amendment Freedom of Speech back.



The ideological direction of the court contributed to his decision to step down, and the liberation that has come with it, to speak publicly and advocate for change, has made him feel joyful “like a newly-freed slave,” he said.

This is nonsense and Clemon needs to be called out.  Firstly, the Voting Rights Act has not even come close to being “interpreted out of existence.”  The jurisprudence surrounding Section 2, for example, is spot on and robust.  Section 5 of the Act is aggressive as it ever has been based on the 2006 reauthorization.  Section 4(e) remedies are being imposed where they probably shouldn’t.  I could go on and on. 

Federal Judges, even if retired, have an obligation to be measured and credible, not kooky and racially inciting.  U.W. Clemon fails the test and deserves national attention for this nonsense.

“Dishonest, Dishonorable, and Illegal” – John Edwards’ violation of federal law

…the gifts made on behalf of Edwards by his campaign contributors to keep
this potential scandal quiet were intended to help him stay in the 2008
presidential race as a viable candidate. They would not have been made
if not for Edwards’s status as a federal candidate, and they were linked
to a federal election. They should be considered illegal campaign
contributions under federal law and applicable FEC regulations and
advisory opinions. A jury may end up disagreeing that Edwards knew that
what he was doing was illegal, but if the government’s facts are
correct, then John Edwards should be held accountable for violating
federal law.   full story at National Review Online.

“Dishonest, Dishonorable, and Illegal” – John Edwards’ violation of federal law

…the gifts made on behalf of Edwards by his campaign contributors to keep
this potential scandal quiet were intended to help him stay in the 2008
presidential race as a viable candidate. They would not have been made
if not for Edwards’s status as a federal candidate, and they were linked
to a federal election. They should be considered illegal campaign
contributions under federal law and applicable FEC regulations and
advisory opinions. A jury may end up disagreeing that Edwards knew that
what he was doing was illegal, but if the government’s facts are
correct, then John Edwards should be held accountable for violating
federal law.   full story at National Review Online.