Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Monthly Archives: January 2013

Marco Rubio Better Answer Some Questions First

January 30th, 2013 - 7:34 am

Republicans who support granting amnesty to foreign nationals residing in the United States illegally better answer some questions first.

I have previously argued that warm and fuzzy feelings toward the GOP will not grow in minority communities simply because some Republicans accept as lawful what was once lawless. The racial interest groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and LULAC have such a stranglehold in these communities that no GOP compromise will break it.

Racially polarized voting patterns among blacks and Hispanics are the fruits of their labors over decades.

Republicans who think these groups will allow goodwill toward the GOP to blossom once immigration reform passes are naïve. After any concessions, they will be back to job number one: ensuring continued racially polarized voting that will eventually lead to the demise of the Republican Party, especially with millions of new voters.

If you don’t think that’s happening, then you aren’t listening to them boast about “demographic changes.”

Even if you don’t accept the premise that racially polarized voting patterns are permanent and even if you don’t think immigration concessions are a suicide pact for Republicans, still senators like Marco Rubio had better answer a few substantive questions.

First, will you support a bill if it allows an alien convicted of a felony criminal offense or multiple misdemeanors to benefit from the legalization program? Currently, any alien who commits one felony or two misdemeanors cannot participate in immigration benefit programs such as Temporary Protected Status. Any legalization program should not be more generous.

Are you going to support a bill if it allows aliens to participate in the legalization program who have been through legal proceedings and already ordered removed from the United States, but who have ignored the removal order? We call those people fugitives. Will you support them being included in amnesty?

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

Go Inside the Obama Cave

January 25th, 2013 - 9:03 am

You thought Mitt Romney was beaten badly in 2012?  You don’t know nothing.

It was worse than you ever imagined – and there are no signs that the GOP understands what it is up against.  If you want to go Inside the Obama Cave, click here and read this staggering report on the Obama campaign ground game, data management and how they destroyed Romney.

Here’s the bad news: the GOP doesn’t even start to conceptualize the battle this way.  The culture of the GOP political apparatus is Beltway-heavy, stodgy, slow, TV centric.  Think the Maginot Line compared to Stormin’ Normin. 

The DC consultancy class, Congressional Republicans, and the party structure can’t even begin to think in these data driven terms. At best, a scaled down model of the Obama 2012 model will be in place in 2016, while the Obama model of 2012 will be made obsolete by these same people creating something more powerful in 2016. Meanwhile, huge amounts of GOP money will go into TV advertising and direct mail.

Which D.C. Lawfirm Will Snap Up Lanny Breuer?

January 24th, 2013 - 2:20 pm

So finally another resignation from the bloody Fast and Furious scandal at DOJ.  Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has resigned.

He’s down, but not out.  Expect a high priced Washington D.C. lawfirm to snap Breuer up.  Disgraced Democrats usually find soft landings at big left leaning D.C. lawfirms.  Former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, for example, has landed nicely back at WilmerHale.  His clients include plenty of unnamed “leading companies.”

Brewer practiced law at Covington and Burling, a firm noted for representing Islamic terrorists free of charge.  So did his ex-boss Eric Holder.  I’ll bet Breuer is back at Covington before you can say Jack Robinson.  Once Eric Holder leaves the Justice Department after closing down GITMO, Covington will probably welcome him back with open arms - the only Attorney General of the United States to have been found in contempt of Congress.

Such is the intersection between Big Law and the Democrat Party in Washington D.C.

Whatever lawfirm takes Breuer, you can be sure PJ Media will be on it.

Dear Representative Ryan:

I thought you might like to learn more about the fellow who boasted he started that wave of boos at your inaugural appearance: Department of Justice Voting Section lawyer Daniel Freeman.  Here at PJ Media we’ve been covering Freeman’s partisan enforcement of federal election laws for years.

We understand, however, that your duties setting spending levels for federal agencies like the Department of Justice often leave you too busy to keep up with the partisan rot deep inside the civil service at DOJ. If your duties as chair of the House Committee on the Budget permit just a few minutes, PJ Media thought you’d like to learn a bit more about the man who started the wave of boos against you, as well as how his office is corrupting the enforcement of federal election laws.

Come budget time, maybe your committee can boo back.

Mr. Freeman was hired as part of an unprecedented ideological hiring blitz inside the Department of Justice Voting Section soon after the 2009 inauguration. Freeman had all the right credentials for a job as a career civil servant inside Eric Holder’s Justice Department – membership in the Yale Law Democrats and experience with the ACLU attacking Bush administration national security policy. For good measure, he sought out representation of al-Qaeda terrorists at Gitmo.

DOJ’s Daniel Freeman

You’ll note that he didn’t have any experience in federal election law. No matter. Experience in the activist trenches as a radical leftist is the top qualification at Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division. You can read the biographies of the hundreds of radical leftists hired from 2009-2010 in the Civil Rights Division here.

Stay tuned, because PJ Media hasn’t even reported on the ones hired from 2011-2012 yet.

Once Daniel Freeman was hired, he became a trusted soldier to Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. He was assigned to politically important voting cases even though he had no experience in election law. One such politically important case was Eric Holder’s battle against South Carolina voter ID.

That case was politically important for two reasons. First, in 2011, President Obama’s base was asleep and unenthused. Blocking South Carolina’s voter ID under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act became part of a political strategy to reawaken his base – a base the president used against you in the fall.

Second, and most importantly, Freeman was assigned to the South Carolina case because of a pesky political problem – other more sensible career lawyers inside the DOJ Voting Section actually recommended in a detailed memo that DOJ approve South Carolina’s voter ID administratively.

You won’t hear much about that memo because reporters in the tank for the administration like McClatchy’s James Rosen have never informed readers that the memo exists. If the memo from the career lawyers had been followed, South Carolina and the federal government would have saved millions of dollars by avoiding a lengthy federal court trial.

But what does taxpayer money matter when a president is up for reelection?

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet
YouTube Preview Image

7 Crappy Products From the Green Movement

January 13th, 2013 - 1:36 pm

In the good old days, consumers got what they wanted. Supply and demand governed product design and manufacturing, not causes or ideology. That’s why we have great American icons like the 1969 Chevy Camaro, the charcoal burning Weber grill, and DDT.

But things have changed. The Green Movement’s worship of scarcity has changed the consumer landscape for the worse. Instead of big, powerful, and most importantly, effective products, in 2012 consumers must suffer with pansy products. Sure, they are designed to save energy and make you feel good. But they just don’t work as well as the old, and usually cheaper, versions.

Below are seven crappy products we must endure, courtesy of the Green Movement.

1. Low Water Toilets

Any article with the headline above must start with low water toilets. Many of you will remember an age before the government decided water was scarce, when toilets could be counted on. In 1992, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, and President George Bush signed it. It mandated a maximum flush capacity for toilets. Naturally, the 1992 version of the Green Movement was behind the law, and behind the Republican sponsor – Representative Philip Sharp of Indiana. Since Bush signed Sharp’s legislation, plunger sales have sky-rocketed. Sharp’s bad idea has caused some of the most embarrassing moments of people’s lives, especially when they are visiting someone else’s home.

Beware, the freaks next want to eliminate water in your toilet, as well as toilet paper.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Comments bullet bullet

This week, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez ran a closed-door meeting with all of the Voting Section staff at the Justice Department. Perez called the meeting to discuss the increasingly likely demise of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows federal oversight of southern elections. (See the full coverage map here.)

Perez articulated how the political appointees, including Eric Holder, intend to handle a loss in the case brought by Shelby County, Alabama, challenging Section 5 federal oversight. The case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court  next month. If Shelby wins, Section 5 obligations may go away for all or some of the covered jurisdictions.

Sources knowlegable with the content of the discussions told PJ Media that Perez assured Justice Department attorneys and analysts who enforce Section 5 that he intends to pivot the duties and responsibilities of the analysts from Section 5 review to Section 2 enforcement litigation. Perez was described as “resigned” to the demise of Section 5, though he exhibited “superficial confidence.”

Tom Perez

Section 2 is the provision of the Voting Rights Act that allows private plaintiffs and the DOJ to bring cases as a plaintiff where discrimination in voting is alleged. Under Section 5, states and local jurisdictions must act as plaintiffs, sue the DOJ, and carry the burden of proof.

Perez’s reorienting of Department resources toward Section 2 is ironic, to say the least. The last Section 2 case filed by the Holder Justice Department was brought in March 2009, almost four years ago. In fact, that case was initiated by the Bush Justice Department.

Full disclosure: I brought it.

The fact that the Obama administration has a moribund Section 2 record is ironic, because candidate Obama campaigned against the Bush DOJ’s Section 2 enforcement record — a record that with four years of Obama-era hindsight far surpasses that of the Holder-run DOJ. Activists like Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights complained about the Bush Section 2 record, but have been noticeably silent about the dismal Section 2 record of the Holder/Perez era.

At least Henderson has kept quiet. Left-wing election law professors like Stanford’s Pam Karlan have brazenly published false scholarship about the Bush DOJ Section 2 record. She made false claims in a Duke Law School law review article: the Bush administration brought no Section 2 cases over a five-year span; and the first one they did bring was against black defendants. Both false. This phony scholarship has yet to be corrected, and not a single one of Karlan’s fellow-traveler election law professors have called her out.

Senate Republicans should pay attention to her phony scholarship, given that Karlan has been mentioned repeatedly as a candidate for the federal bench.

Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

Last week was a bad one for the Eric Holder Justice Department. A federal court ruled that South Carolina was a prevailing party in the voter ID litigation the state was forced to bring after Holder blocked the state law under the Voting Rights Act. (PJ Media had previously reported that career lawyers at the DOJ Voting Section had found the law to be nondiscriminatory but were overruled by political appointee Tom Perez).

The response to the court’s ruling? Send DOJ lawyers from Washington D.C. to monitor a special election for a town council seat in Branchville, South Carolina (voting-age population: 800). A whopping 186 people voted in the special election while the DOJ probably spent thousands to send the lawyers.

Branchville Raylrode Daze Festivul

Because Holder is ideologically opposed to voter ID (he falsely called it a poll tax, a label even the leftist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected), the jaunt to Branchville is a bit of sour grapes.

Branchville doesn’t have but a few polling places. But DOJ lawyers and federal employees monitored voting, and trolled for any voters that might have difficulty. They collected evidence which may eventually be used against South Carolina in future actions, or just as likely, for leaks by his press shop to sympathetic left-wing bloggers.

A federal court has ruled that South Carolina was the prevailing party in the unnecessary Voter ID litigation, and therefore the Justice Department is liable for paying the state’s costs. South Carolina spent $3,500,000 to obtain federal court approval of the state’s Voter ID law as non-discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit was made necessary only because of the political and ideological radicalism of Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez and his deputy Matthew Colangelo.

AAG Tom Perez

PJ Media had this exclusive report detailing that career Voting Section employees, including Voting Section Chief Chris Herren, recommended that the Voter ID law be approved in the first place by DOJ after a careful written analysis inside the Voting Section.  Documents prepared by the career staff urged Perez and Colangelo to grant administrative approval to the South Carolina Voter ID law — but they refused. Their refusal was, in part, designed to energize a moribund political base heading into the 2012 election. The cost to the American taxpayers for their stunt will be significant.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office was quick to respond to the court’s ruling late yesterday:

“The state Attorney General’s Office blamed the U.S. Department of Justice for the high cost of the case. They accused the federal government of delaying the case by 120 days by filing numerous frivolous motions, including challenging the 12-point font size on a document the state filed.

“The Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., bears responsibility for the litigation costs,” said Mark Powell, Wilson’s spokesman. “The decision was so emphatic, even the Department of Justice and Interveners did not appeal it. South Carolina was forced to pay a hefty price because a handful of Washington insiders refused to do the right thing.”

Whether Congress will hold Perez and Colangelo accountable remains to be seen. Members of Congress, including Senator Lindsey Graham, have already demanded that Perez turn over the documents about which PJ Media first reported on September 11, 2012. So far, sources tell me that Graham has not received what he has asked for, though he may already possess the documents from other sources.

Tellingly, DOJ has not denied that such internal approval memos exist. They can’t.

All of this raises the question — will Perez and Colangelo be held accountable for what amounted to an expensive use of the Justice Department to energize President Obama’s political base? As we now know, there was no merit to the objection. A federal court approved the law. The many career staff who looked at it said the South Carolina law did not discriminate.

Congress might get answers if they haul DOJ Voting Section Chief Christopher Herren before the House Judiciary Committee for answers. The Democrats could hardly object — after all, they dragged Bush-era Voting Section Chief John Tanner before the Democrat-run House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about Georgia Voter ID. There is precedent. Democrats could hardly object when the Voting Section Chief during the Bush administration was made to dance the dance before the Committee.

Chris Herren

Of course, had the president’s base remained asleep, Perez and Colangelo would be looking for work, with the former earning a slippery reputation over the last four years.  MORE ON PAGE TWO.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

The Eric Holder Justice Department is on a roll, this time threatening to sue Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The problem?  The lack of hot delicious gluten-free food in the university cafeteria.  Thanks to Eric Holder, the Federal government is bringing big changes to the college mess hall.  Among the new federal mandates at Lesley:

· Continually provide ready-made hot and cold gluten- and allergen-free food options in its dining hall food lines;

· Develop individualized meal plans for students with food allergies, and allow those students to pre-order allergen free meals, that can be made available at the university’s dining halls in Cambridge and Boston;

· Provide a dedicated space in its main dining hall to store and prepare gluten-free and allergen-free foods and to avoid cross-contamination; 

· Work to retain vendors that accept students’ prepaid meal cards that offer food without allergens.

The college was also required to fork over $50,000 for peace.  Expect smelly perfumes to be the Fed’s next target.  You can read the absurd agreement here.  Read it and ponder the tens of thousands of federal tax dollars behind the agreement – the travel, the time, the costs.  Would George Bush have signed the Americans with Disability Act had he known it would result in federal government bureaucrats drafting agreements that include this:

The University understands that students may be at or near different parts of campus during lunch and dinner and might prefer to have their meals delivered to these locations. Accordingly, when students order meals via the Pre-Order Option described in Paragraph 4(d), students may request that the University deliver their meals to the University’s other dining hall and food eatery facilities. Students should provide the Food Service Provider with reasonable twenty-four (24) hours advanced notice to allow the Food Service Provider to prepare and deliver the meal to the designated location. The University will make reasonable efforts to deliver the meals to the designated location after receiving 24 hours advanced notice, but in certain circumstances may be unable to deliver meals in a timely manner due to inclement weather or other transportation impediments. Due to the limited size and capacity of the University’s dining hall kitchens, the University will prepare such meals at the White Hall kitchen facility. These meals will then be delivered to the other University kitchens, where they are kept separate to avoid cross-contamination.

And it wasn’t enough for Holder for the college to simply offer hot gluten free meals, they had to agree to this:

 

The University will maintain the dedicated area and ensure that it contains the following:

 

(i) A sink and counter area, dish rack, and other kitchen supplies, (i.e., paper towels, dish soap, sponges, etc.), refreshed as necessary;

 

(ii) A refrigerator and freezer for perishable items;

 

(iii) Cabinet space for non-perishable items;

 

(iv) Separate appliances, including a microwave and toaster; and

 

(v) A food warmer to keep pre-ordered meals warm.

 

Lesley President Joseph Moore was obviously more interested in getting Eric Holder off his back than testing the questionable legal basis behind this federal intrusion.