Leo Terrell quits the NAACP?

Can someone conrirm this?
I was (stupidly) browsing the first page of the Fox News site (man it's so horridly laid out) and saw on the front page this:

'Civil Rights Leader Quits NAACP over Judical Nominee'

WASHINGTON — A Democratic champion of the left has resigned as a member of the NAACP, saying officials tried to strong-arm him into dropping his endorsement of a controversial Bush judicial nominee.

Los Angeles civil rights attorney and radio talk show host Leo Terrell (search), who has made headlines in recent years for defending friend O.J. Simpson, and speaking out against the Bush administration, accused the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (search) of "an old-fashioned backdoor power-play," and vowed to use his weekly radio show to incriminate the 94-year-old civil rights organization.

"How dare the NAACP tell me who I can or cannot endorse on an individual basis. That is the part that makes this so outrageous," Terrell told Foxnews.com. "I am going to tell the whole world what the NAACP did to me."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94175,00.html

Is this story true? I searched on my usual sites of CNN, ABCNews, CBSNews, Reuters and Associated Press and can find nothing... what's the deal?

~Dem's in '04!

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030807-112751-9923r.htm

Sounds like a set-up to me.

"Know your ROLE"

NAACP is an important organization and we are not about to take this whitehouse lying down!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

*snip* Hilary O. Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington office, said he called Mr. Terrell simply to advise him against billing himself as an "NAACP lawyer."
"He's not an NAACP lawyer, not even a former NAACP lawyer," Mr. Shelton said. "He's done volunteer work for us, which we appreciate.
"But when he takes a position that is diametrically opposite from our position, he's not speaking for us," he said. *snip*
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030807-112751-9923r.htm

The judge that this matter involves is Judge Kuhl. Right now Bush is trying to push her though even though both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer oppose her. Generally the home senator is giving a lot of say as to the Judicial nominees in their districts. This is another instance of Bush trying to give the old F U to democracy.

thanks for confirming the story.
Wonder if he really said that about the NAACP ... or was it just a setup and crap by Faux News...

I know NOTHING about the Wash. Times.. is that a fair news source?

That's what you have to do with any news source, separate the tidbits of fact from reporter's bias. It helps to do read numerous articles pertaining to the same issue and checking the actual statements and reports wherever possible. What's reported as fact often isn't and when it's repeated over and over and over, we go into a war based on lies.

.

I went to law school with Leo at UCLA, where he wasn't exactly a star. If you would have told me 16 years ago that the most famous member of our class would be Leo, I would have laughed!

He's certainly done well for himself, although if he'd tone things down a bit (okay, a lot) he'd be more credible. I'm surprised, though, that he seems to be taking a pretty objective and reasonable position re the Kuhl appointment.

I hate the politicization of judicial appointments. Liberals should be allowed to appoint liberals, and conservatives should be allowed to appoint conservatives. No one wants to unilaterally disarm, though; if Democrats let all of Bush's appointees sail through confirmation, there's no guarantee that Republicans will reciprocate when, say, President Dean makes his appointments.

The appointments always had to have the approval of the two state senators. If the appointment didn't get them, bam, they're gone. There's plenty of qualified judges out there, no reason Bush has to keep recycling the same few that have been rejected over and over. Except if he actually was reasonable, there'd be no 'obstructionism' charge would there? It's political all right, but not all one sided.

"I hate the politicization of judicial appointments. Liberals should be allowed to appoint liberals, and conservatives should be allowed to appoint conservatives."

I agree that there's an armed stand-off, with no one wishing to blink, but I think the question now goes beyond mere factionalism.

A functional democratic society would just let each victor appoint judges who share the preferred biases. But as a severely dysfunctional democracy--one not merely rife with disenfranchisement but, of course, led by the loser of the last election--we can hardly rubberstamp Bush's appointments.

Under these circumstances, quibbling over nominees' qualifications seems far too generous. I'd have the Democrats stonewall completely until we can restore democracy--by holding fair and proper elections.

in nearly every TV interview i see him in. I guess thats his schtick.