Special Report
In Re Excreta
ACORN Judge gets it wrong, again.
On March 10, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon -- a Clinton-era appointee -- ruled in ACORN v. United States that the federal government was permanently enjoined from enforcing its funding bans against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Of course, this is the same Judge Gershon who a decade ago made a similar ruling against New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the result of which protected the use of city funds for an art exhibit that included elephant dung smeared on a painting of the Virgin Mary.
In her opinion Judge Gershon claimed the government "ignore[d] the existence of comprehensive regulations promulgated to address the very concerns Congress has expressed about ACORN." According to Gershon, the Code of Federal Regulations "establishes a formal process for determining when federal contractors can be suspended or debarred." However, Judge Gershon ignored the discretion Congress has to serve the public interest by exercising its oversight powers when federal agencies have failed to adequately implement debarment policies.
In fact, Congress retains the plenitude of legislative power, even when that power is narrowly delegated to administrative agencies. If federal agencies do not act responsibly to protect the taxpayers' interest, then Congress is constitutionally required to intervene, especially in questions that arise under Congress's power to appropriate dollars that originate from the wallets of the American people. Because we were concerned that several agencies were not exercising proper oversight, Congress defunded ACORN and the President signed a Continuing Resolution banning all federal funds to ACORN and its affiliates.
Subsequently, several federal agencies gave notice to ACORN that they were suspending their contracts. The federal government was simply responding to Congress's emergency action to protect the public interest.
In recent months, congressional investigators have made several findings, which Judge Gershon ignored, concerning our federal agencies' lack of proper oversight in federal contracts. On March 18, 2010, my committee held a hearing concerning the government's efforts to protect taxpayer dollars from going to unworthy contractors. At this hearing, Congress heard testimony from Inspectors General who opined about the ongoing struggle for federal agencies to apply suspension and debarment policies and procedures against poorly-performing contractors. Witnesses at the hearing exposed the reluctance of some federal agencies to protect taxpayers, and in the case of one agency, we learned that suspension and debarment decisions were regarded as either unimportant or unnecessary.
These facts intensify my alarm at Judge Gershon's recent decision to protect one of the worst actors in American history. If ever there was an organization that deserved to have its federal funding permanently stripped, it is surely ACORN. From election fraud, to embezzlement, to abuse of tax-exempt privileges, money-laundering, racketeering, and a host of other criminal acts, ACORN is emblematic of the problems that can occur when federal agencies are careless in awarding taxpayer dollars.
There is no ambiguity in the government's process for suspension and debarment. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) prescribes the process clearly. The government always retains the right -- indeed the responsibility -- to terminate or cancel any existing contract. Over a year ago, the Oversight Committee convened a hearing to examine issues related to government contracting. I said then, and I repeated on March 18 that we have a singular obligation to ensure that federal funds are spent in a cost-effective manner, with as little waste as possible.
I also noted that the system designed to protect taxpayers suffers from fundamental flaws. Today, and especially given Judge Gershon's recent decision, I am concerned that we have made little progress in this area.
Every federal agency and every federal contractor must know that Congress will not falter in its vigilant oversight of all issues related to federal contracting. We will not turn a blind eye to the squandering of taxpayer dollars on contractors who are guilty of waste, fraud, and abuse. And we will not tolerate bureaucratic inertia or ideological favoritism to protect organizations like ACORN, and others, that routinely violate the taxpayers' trust.
Judge Gershon's ruling is wholly preposterous, and the Justice Department must vigilantly pursue its reversal on appeal. Perhaps there are more luminous jurists at the Second Circuit -- or the United States Supreme Court -- who will see her glaring jurisprudential folly and correct her mistake.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Rep. Darrell Issa
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/23/in-re-excreta
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Down in the Desert
- Current Wisdom
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dr. J. Garrow| 3.23.10 @ 7:57AM
Is this judges ruling now being appealed? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part that it will be appealed?
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.23.10 @ 8:31AM
This Justice department will Never quash their mentor/contributor...until forced to do so!
Pete| 3.23.10 @ 8:38AM
Did you notice the AP article on how ACORN is going bankrupt, shutting down, etc...because of those mean right-wing activists? The mainstream media is complicit in all of these criminals getting elected. No investigation of anything related to the current administration. If they say ACORN is going away, the MSM will just report it as fact. After all, Osama wouldn't lie, would he? Not a word about them reorganizing and operating under different names all the while guzzling federal funds and engaging in illegal and partisan activities. Makes me sick.
John Navratil| 3.23.10 @ 9:32AM
They can blame the right all they want, but last Sunday reminded me that the Dems control Congress and the purse.
Miss Alabama| 3.23.10 @ 7:50PM
I DO wish you readers of American Spectator would be a little more Christian in your philosphy.
Try to be a wee bit more charitable when considering the good antipoverty agencies have accomplished for the poor and disinfranchised.
Christian charity. That's what you need more of. That's all.
Nick| 3.23.10 @ 8:02PM
Miss Alabama,
ACORN has as much to do with Christian Charity as Playboy magazine.
Christ was not a bleeding heart liberal.
Miss Alabama| 3.23.10 @ 10:07PM
Nick, I beg to differ. If Jesus of Nazareth was anything, he was an extraordinary friend of the unfortunate and the down-trodden, definitely a Liberal, whose advocacy on their behalf so infuriated the ultra-Conservative religious and political leaders of his day that they had Him killed to prevent the public from hearing His very liberal teachings.
Read the words of Jesus, and you will see.
Cliff| 3.23.10 @ 11:05PM
You understand neither Jesus nor politics. That is abundantly clear.
Rocin| 3.24.10 @ 9:55AM
You need to re-think these facile definitions, Miss A. Jesus was neither a liberal nor a conservative.
To follow Jesus, we must love our neighbor, and that is not simply accomplished with the ease of sending tax dollars off to the government for a bureaucrat to administer.
The danger there is of replicating the heartless processes of the Pharisees of Jesus' day.
I wonder what other modern day "liberal" teachings you ascribe to Jesus.
Rocin| 3.24.10 @ 10:30AM
The problem with governmental humanitarian and philanthropic work is that it tends to make a religion of social service itself. We ignore our duty toward God, to love and honor Him, which love and honor draws us to love our neighbor, and care for him, as a brother or sister.
Nick| 3.24.10 @ 5:53PM
Miss Alabama,
Then, perhaps you will show me where in the Bible Christ commanded us to, "Go, and demand that Ceasar tax us more, so that we can help the poor?"
Or where in the Bible He rebuked the Sanhedrin for not "reforming" the money-changers or raising the Temple tax to help the poor?
Christ was also good friends with the very wealthy of His day, the tax-collectors. He broke bread with these most hated of Jews. He did not condemn them.
Jesus Christ called for a "circumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:29), for a personal, inward conversion to the Father. If you love Him, you will love your neighbor, because God made him.
And, YOU, yes YOU will want to help him. Not pass the buck to the government, and then pat yourself on the back.
Your marxist version of Christ is a fiction. You are the one who needs to read, and understand His words.
tailgunner| 3.25.10 @ 6:36PM
Crap.
Jesus never advocated the involuntary expropriation of other people's private earnings for the benefit of His supporters and favored people.
Christian charity has ALWAYS been voluntary.
And its objective has NEVER been personal power or other tangible benefit for the donor.
And Jesus, unlike liberals, NEVER advocated, voted for, supported or tried to make its opponents PAY for unrestricted abortions.
So you can lay off this 'Jesus is a Liberal' bullsh*t.
Dan Hirsch| 3.23.10 @ 10:03AM
Rep. Issa you make an excellent point; Judge Gershon's ruling is obviously problematic.
Reversing it will take time, lots of time. Reversal is in no way certain. And even if successful, the costs in time, energy, and money will be lost. The delay redounds to her credit as a protector of an obviously illegal and partisan operation, especially in the eyes of her like-minded peers.
What to do?
Impeachment!
The judge making a ruling so flagrantly contrary to duly enacted legislation and the well known and proven facts must be impeached.
The constitutional requirement for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Subverting duly enacted legislation sounds a lot like a high crime to me, much less a misdemeanor.
Impeachment has two benefits: it clarifies what all judges should know - their function is to interpret duly enacted legislation, not ignore it, or worse yet, write their own law. And, the judge's like-minded peers would be very much reminded of the proper performance of their job if they see one of their own lose her pension and privileges for obvious malfeasance.
This judge has taken refuge in the protected status of a federal judgeship to attack the law and its fair application.
These days, the only way to get impeached is to get caught taking bribes. We need to broaden this understanding to include flagrant overreaching, and legislating from the bench.
How do you impeach? It takes the House and Senate; so we must take back the House and Senate. Then show some backbone and refuse to accept such non-legal rulings as within the proper duties of our federal judiciary. The Congress must take on the challenge of returning the judiciary to its constitutional role.
One note of hope, if we start going down this road, the shock waves would be felt immediately and the tide would start to slow...
So we write, we post, we vote, we work, we endure. At least we don't have to die, like so many before us. We owe them our best.
Bruce| 3.23.10 @ 10:46AM
This should be part of the GOP campaign platform; impeachment of federal judges that ignore the consititution. It is time to take off the gloves.
Oldefarte| 3.23.10 @ 11:25AM
This bit of legalese mombo-jumbo is fine and dandy, but it skirts the ISSUE. Our TAXPAYER PROVIDED, government funds were being spent/supplied to Acorn whose activities were POLITICALLY PARTISANED in nature, They were registering voters for the sole purpose of voting for DEMOCRATS ONLY. Previously, this organization got some of its street-wise, legal advice on doing thus from none other than THE CHOSEN ONE who now resides at 1600. How ILLEGAL is that??????????????????
Margie| 3.23.10 @ 1:22PM
To Olde Farte:
Right on! Right on! Right on!
RAMIII| 3.23.10 @ 1:35PM
I agree whole heartedly!! Parsing legal mumbo jumbo will not solve this problem.
This is evidence of corruption at the highest levels. If they don't change/cheat the rules before November, these politicians (those who refuse to act on behalf of the Constitution) will pay for their powerless spinelessness by being booted out of office.
Andrew| 3.23.10 @ 6:09PM
Unless they committ even more voter fraud and steal the elections. Gee , with maybe 20 Million new illegal aliens being made citizens. That is what is next!
Tim| 3.23.10 @ 12:24PM
ACORN is declaring bankruptcy and attempting to rebrand.
Keep the heat on them !
Break their power.
Pingback| 3.23.10 @ 12:39PM
The American Spectator : In Re Excreta | Acorn Issues links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.23.10 @ 2:08PM
Right-Wing Links (March 23, 2010) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.23.10 @ 4:47PM
The American Spectator : In Re Excreta Federal Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Len| 3.23.10 @ 6:19PM
Hey Issa, you missed the most glaring problem in the judges ruling. I wonder if that is due to your not caring a whit about it either.
What is that problem? THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT RECEIVED any frigging authority to either start an agency or employ an independent company to do anything that ACORN does. So who cares what some judge says.
Ok, just looked up your voting record, you are clearly just another big government repug. Sir I ask you, why do you continue to violate the US constitution, and in so doing help to impose tyranny on a free people? Why do you not fight for constraining the federal government to ONLY those powers specifically enumerated?
Petronius| 3.23.10 @ 8:10PM
The beltway establishment and congressional leaders have utilized the federal judiciary to nullify the true will of the people since Earl Warren's reign. After a judge rules, it's so much more convenient for legislators to dodge the issues and policies they don't want to deal with. We didn't vote for liberal social engineering. The injustices did that from the Supreme bench.
Marc Jeric| 3.24.10 @ 1:40AM
What did you expect from a judge appointed by that disbarred felon Clinton? But ACORN's boss is Abu Hussein from Kenya, aka Obama, a dedicated revolutionary marxist; no doubt he will find another way to give ACORN thugs the 8.7$ he reserved for them in his "stimulus bill".
Pingback| 3.24.10 @ 5:17AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : In Re Excreta [spectator.org] on Top links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Oldefarte| 3.24.10 @ 1:33PM
A reminder to all: this governmental funding of Acorn DID NOT begin a year ago, but has been going on for decades [from funding various entities with other names, all of which had/have the same political purpose----the election of Democrats]. Anyone giving to [say] the United Fund,etc has their contribution possibly diverted into the coffers of an Acorn-like organization [and this has been occurring my whole lifetime]!!!!!