The testimony of Christopher Coates before the United States Civil Rights Commission exposed a pervasive hostility to equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, as well as racialist policies at the Justice Department. He also exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of the defenders of the dismissal of the New Black Panther case.
The testimony was covered by CNN and the Los Angeles Times, and was on the front page, above the fold, in the Washington Post. Yet ABC, NBC, and CBS devoted no coverage to his testimony.
But while the networks were willfully ignorant, some internet media abandoned any pretense of reporting on the story with integrity.
Christian Science Monitor
Law professor Allan Lichtman confessed to the Christian Science Monitor what we have said all along — that many, including he, are hostile to equal enforcement of the law:
You can try to force [the Voting Rights Act] to be equal, but it’s not. … If these are the worst examples you can find, then, by God, white people in America are pretty safe.
Lichtman regularly serves as an expert in Voting Rights Act litigation. He is listed as a “consultant on voting rights to the United States Department of Justice.” Any attorney doing Lichtman’s expert deposition in the future should spend a great deal of time developing evidence on his unequal and racialist view of the Voting Rights Act.
Sorry professor, the law is race-neutral.
Perhaps the most intellectually bankrupt commentary on Coates came from Mary Jacoby, writing for Main Justice — a blog set up in the halcyon days of early 2009 to be the mouthpiece of the Obama DOJ. Flush with seed money, they became Eric Holder’s Pravda.
In the last month, Main Justice has lost 30 percent of its readership, and gets approximately 1/200th the page views of PJM.
Jacoby trotted out all of the intellectually bankrupt attacks. Obviously disappointed that she failed in her task at keeping the New Black Panthers story bottled up, Jacoby lamented:
The goal of conservatives who nurtured this story was always to get them validated by a non-ideological respected mainstream outlet. Now they’ve done it, thanks to a deluge of calls [to the Washington Post ombudsman.]
Really? That was the goal?
Maybe, in a world where ultimate truth doesn’t exist, would publication on the front page of the Washington Post matter. Maybe to people whose lives exist to advance their own agenda, or to be a handmaiden for a government, skewed motives lurk everywhere.
But the New Black Panther case has always been about a simpler, more important question: are we a nation that enforces the law equally?
Jacoby trots out the meaningless question of frequency: Are there “massive numbers of white voters in America who are being kept from the polls”? Of course, the words “massive numbers” never appear in the Voting Rights Act. In fact, if there is a number, it is zero — the law bans even the attempt to intimidate.
This was an intentional change in 1965, which Jacoby and the other Holder sycophants ignore. Without the change, perfectly successful acts of intimidation would not be illegal. A Klan rally at the entrance to a poll that succeeded in keeping all black voters home would be perfectly fine using Mary Jacoby’s version of statutory interpretation — unless, of course, the race of the victim matters.
Which apparently it does to Jacoby.
This is the dirty little secret we knew all along: people like Mary Jacoby, former Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, and Professor Allan Lichtman really don’t believe the protections of the law apply to whites.