By Andrew Kreig
Huffington Post, June 29
“As a start in redressing the nation’s most notorious political prosecution, the Supreme Court today released its decision vacating federal corruption convictions of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and co-defendant businessman Richard Scrushy
“The court remanded their Alabama convictions to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta despite arguments last November by Solicitor General Elena Kagan that their convictions should stand.” More
And, of course, previously from COTO Report, Elena Kagan – Willing Accomplice Continue reading
By Michael Collins
Should Elena Kagan be approved as a justice to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States?
As it turns out there’s a supremely simple method of testing her suitability. Once applied, citizens of any political persuasion will see that her nomination should be rejected outright.
As Solicitor General of the United States, Kagan argued against an appeal to the Supreme Court by former Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman in November, 2009. The Siegelman prosecution is viewed by many as one of the gravest injustices of the modern era, a purely political prosecution initiated by the Gonzales Justice Department.
Forty four former state attorneys general were so concerned that they issued a public petition on Siegelman’s behalf in 2007. The petition to the United States House of Representatives urged prompt investigation of the many shady dealings in the Siegelman case, before, during and after his trial. They framed their petition in this simple sentence: “The U.S. justice system should be above reproach.” It wasn’t.
Posted in Censorship, Elections, Human Rights Civil Liberties, Prisons
Tagged courts, injustice, justice department, kagan, law, nomination, political prosecution, scrushy, siegelman, Supreme Court