Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Monthly Archives: July 2013

On a July day in 2006, the entire Republican caucus was invited to hear a private debate in a meeting room in the Capitol.  Scores of GOP members attended, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert.  At issue was whether the federal government should continue to have control over every election-law change in sixteen states, including Texas, California, Florida, and South Carolina.  Federal power over the states was set to expire.  On one side of the debate was lawyer Mike Carvin, who argued that federal oversight should end.

Carvin’s opponent arguing for continued federal power to review election changes like voter ID wasn’t a Democrat, or even a zealot from the NAACP.

Instead, opposing Carvin’s constitutionalist viewpoint and advocating for federal oversight of state elections was the former chief counsel to the Republican National Committee (RNC).  Also on that side was a group of RNC consultants and lawyers who remained active in RNC policy advancing this viewpoint in the following years.

Top Republicans in Congress listened to the two sides – Carvin arguing for an end to federal oversight of state elections, and the RNC side arguing for continued oversight with even tougher new burdens on states.  House Republicans eventually sided with the RNC point of view, and passed the 2006 reauthorization of federal preclearance power a few days after the debate.

In June 2013, the Supreme Court at last settled the issue in the Shelby County decision by striking down the triggers which placed fifteen states under federal receivership for election-law changes as an unconstitutionally outdated infringement of state sovereignty.

That the RNC continued to support federal oversight one way or another over the past few years was no surprise to me or anyone else who has closely followed the issue — or spoken with the parties involved in the 2006 debate.  As recently as last year, one of the RNC-affiliated lawyers remained bitter toward PJ Media contributor Hans von Spakovsky for helping to organize the 2006 debate on Capitol Hill.

This might explain the peculiar reaction of the RNC to the PJ Tatler posting of last Friday (see, “RNC Operatives Join Holder’s Campaign Against Texas, Several Other States“).

A frantic (and ungrammatical) response was posted in the comments to the PJ Tatler posting by an RNC official, and the same response was picked up by a handful of lesser read blogs. Oddly, the RNC response included my name, saying I was on the wrong side of the debate in 2006.  Factually, this was inaccurate as I was at the Justice Department at the time and had no role, pro or con.

Late Friday night, an RNC communications operative carpet-bombed conservative bloggers with this response and included an attack on PJ Media for good measure. Obviously I have extraordinary relations with many of the bloggers, so they alerted me and wondered whether the RNC had lost it.

Saturday, the RNC sent me an apology, noting they were in error to name me.  Given their stand-up retraction, the matter is now closed to me.

Whether the federal government continues to possess power to approve or reject state election-law changes is an issue that has exposed divisions within the Republican Party between partisan election lawyers and those who believe the Constitution is more important than racial gerrymandering.

Last week, PJ Tatler reported that RNC consultants and staff were searching for ways to reactivate and preserve this federal power over states like Texas despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, just as Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to do.

To anyone following these issues for the last decade, the PJ Tatler post was neither surprising nor unexpected.  A small group of lawyers and consultants either working for the RNC or consulting with them has long advocated for federal preclearance power over state elections.

Whether this RNC activity ended after the PJ Tatler story was released on Friday, or when the Supreme Court ruled in June, or sometime before is unclear.

Yes, the RNC really did support federal preclearance oversight of state elections, just as Eric Holder does now.  When this support ended is an unanswered question after the RNC on Friday unequivocally stated it opposes any fix to Section 4 that would place states such as Texas, South Carolina, and Virginia back under a federal boot.  That’s good news.

But before the announcement last week, the self-serving RNC collusion with the racialist left was well-known and obvious. After all, the GOP used Section 5 federal oversight to racially gerrymander safe Republican districts and herd blacks into electoral enclaves for the last 23 years.

That this well-known collusion and support of federal oversight surprised anyone last Friday was the only surprise.

Pages: 1 2 | 114 Comments bullet bullet

You can take the community organizer out of the South Side, but you can’t take the community organizer out of the community organizer.

Today, America heard threats from the increasingly predictable President Alinsky.

“The position of the middle class will erode further,” Mr. Obama said. “Inequality will continue to increase, money’s power will distort our politics even more. Social tensions will rise, as various groups fight to hold on to what they have, start blaming somebody else for why their position isn’t improving. That’s not the America we know.”

This is standard-fare Das Kapital by Karl Marx.  Obama doesn’t even attempt to disguise it, leaving out only the original author’s name.  Obama merely adds the threat of social tensions.

For that, thank speech co-author Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky saw social tensions as a necessary circumstance to effective community organizing. Without anger, without the have-nots blaming the haves, it is harder to accumulate power.  Alinsky considered the creation of social tensions, or the exploitation of them, as essential to move wealth and power from those who have it to those who don’t.

Once “social tensions” are stoked, all that is left is the tactical organization.

Compare how conversant President Obama is in the ominous language of the economically illiterate left with President Reagan’s faith in the economic power of American freedom.  Obama’s economic worldview flows from Marx and Alinsky, when the free-market oxygen of Reagan is so badly needed.  Instead of uplifting Americans, Obama threatens them.

Republicans must match Obama’s dark vision with something equally aggressive and directly confrontational.  One idea? Defund Obamacare instead of another in a series of phony House votes to repeal it.

The Founders gave the House the power of the purse for times like these.  Defund Obamacare and watch the economy accelerate overnight.

Unfortunately for now, it seems some in the GOP don’t understand their opponent.  Speaker John Boehner gravely misunderstands the situation if he truly believes Obama’s address was devoid of content — a mere “Easter egg with no candy in it.”

There was plenty of content in that speech, if you know what to listen for.  Boehner’s response might have worked during more civil times.  But with soaring debt and a new muscular federal government, sweet quips don’t cut it.

Michigan voters decided to ban the use of race in college admissions.  Predictably, the modern civil rights industry, in vivid contrast to their predecessors a generation earlier who defended equality, sought to overturn the referendum in the courts.

A group named (whether ironically or clumsily) the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary challenged the Michigan ban on race discrimination in college admissions.  Unfortunately, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with them, and the case is now before the United States Supreme Court.

Four former Justice Department Civil Rights Division lawyers, myself included, have filed this brief through Michael F. Smith defending the ban on race discrimination in Michigan college admissions.  One snip:

One such measure that invoked the need for flexibility was Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), in which this Court approved – though plainly did not mandate – the University of Michigan Law School’s self-proclaimed “highly individualized, holistic” review process that considered an individual’s race as a factor in admissions. But one person’s holism is another’s smokescreen and sophistry, and proponents of race-neutral admissions properly reacted to Grutter by gathering enough signatures to place Proposal 2 on the statewide November 2006 ballot via the initiative mechanism of art. XII, § 2. It passed overwhelmingly, by a 58-42 margin among nearly 4 million voters. Thus, while this Court in Grutter voiced its expectation that by 2028, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” 539 U.S. at 343, the People of Michigan, through the initiative process, brought their State to that point 22 years ahead of schedule.

 

 

A Catholic church has been robbed of donations destined for the Marih Center, a Pro-Life crisis pregnancy center in Alexandria, Virginia. St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Alexandria had been collecting donations of diapers, baby clothes, food, and infant formula for mothers in a playpen in the back of the church.

Multiple robberies removed the donated supplies from the church, straight from the playpens. Also, they took the playpens.

From the St. Mary’s church bulletin:

First, as we do typically twice a year, we are currently collecting items for Marih Center, the crisis pregnancy center on Duke Street. We ask for diapers, baby clothes, etc.  These donations are placed in a playpen at the back of the church, very appropriate for the task at hand.

We have had a problem of people coming into church and taking the donated items, meaning they never make their way to Marih. Well, two weeks ago someone stole the whole playpen. Maybe using the word ‘stole’ is not correct. Perhaps someone was in desperate need of a playpen for their little ones. One of our parishioners, an usher, was kind enough to buy a new playpen. Sadly, that depository was also stolen last weekend. I didn’t realize how much of a commodity playpens have obviously become. Nonetheless, that is the saga of the Marih Center playpen.

How base must one become to steal from a church, particularly supplies destined for needy mothers?  Had the thief approached the pastor of the church seeking help, Christian charity might well have resulted in the thief receiving cheerful assistance. But respect for the rule of law, particularly as it pertains to these charitable donations destined for needy mothers who have chosen life over abortion, is in short supply these days.

You can’t make stuff up like this.  The radical and dishonest racialist, and soon to be Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, is being sued by left of center DOJ employees for race discrimination.

Here is the press release from the lawfirm bringing the case.

Today, a diverse group of current and former members of the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division met with staff of the United States Senate-both Republican and Democrat-to outline substantial misconduct allegations against Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. Mr. Perez is pending confirmation before the Senate as Secretary of Labor, and is rumored to be considered for a vote as early as this weekend. Earlier this year, the Civil Rights Division, at the direction of Mr. Perez and his senior staff, began a widespread campaign of disparate treatment discrimination against Civil Rights Division employees who were disabled (mobility; hearing; vision; emotional; physical or mental condition); as well as of protected status based on race; gender; age; and/or parental status. Upon opposing this widespread, unlawful discrimination, DOJ employees have been subjected to an exceptionally hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation.  In addition, members of the Civil Rights Division also presented evidence to the Senate todayof statistical evidence of disparate impact discrimination under the leadership of Mr. Perez.

Talk about being hoisted on your own petard.  Perez, the champion of disparate impact theory is now being sued under disparate impact theory.

Perez is up before the full Senate for a vote now that enough Republicans caved to Democrat bluster regarding the filibuster.

This week, Judicial Watch released documents demonstrating that the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service was deeply entangled in New Black Panther-led rallies and protests in Sanford, Florida, against George Zimmerman. These are the same rallies during which the New Black Panthers called for a bounty on George Zimmerman, and released “dead or alive” posters. The New Black Panther leading the rallies was the same New Black Panther Eric Holder sprang free in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.

Michael Ledeen posted the most recent of hundreds of articles calling for Holder to resign — he’s “maxed out his race card,” the figurative saying goes. But is the use of “race card” really figurative when it comes to our attorney general? Sadly, no — Holder really does carry around a race card in his wallet.

And what the card says speaks to the whole nasty entanglement of the Department of Justice, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panthers, and the Trayvon Martin affair.

You can read all about what’s in Eric Holder’s wallet in my book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department(Regnery, 2011):

For much of his life, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. carried around something peculiar. While most people keep cash, family photos, and credit cards in their wallets, Holder revealed to a reporter in 1996 that he keeps with him an old clipping of a quote from Harlem preacher Reverend Samuel D. Proctor. Holder put the clipping in his wallet in 1971, when he was studying history at Columbia University, and kept it in wallet after wallet over the ensuing decades.

What were Proctor’s words that Holder found so compelling?

“Blackness is another issue entirely apart from class in America. No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more particularly than anything else. Black people have a common cause that requires attending to, and this cause does not allow for the rigid class separation that is the luxury of American whites. There is a sense in which every black man is as far from liberation as the weakest one if his weakness is attributable to racial injustice.”

When asked to explain the passage, Holder replied, “It really says that … I am not the tall U.S. attorney, I am not the thin United States attorney. I am the black United States attorney. And he was saying that no matter how successful you are, there’s a common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black criminal or the black doctor with the black homeless person.

Has anyone ever asked Holder what exactly is the “common cause” that binds the black attorney general and the black criminal? More important, what should the black attorney general do about this common cause? Should the black criminal feel empathy for the black attorney general, or more likely, do the favors only flow in one direction?

Holder’s explanation of Proctor’s quote offers some key insights into our attorney general’s worldview. First, being “more particular” than anything else, skin color limits and defines Americans — in other words, race comes first for Holder.

Ponder again Holder’s rancid comments, and consider what they mean for George Zimmerman.

Especially since Holder’s Civil Rights Division still has an open investigation of George Zimmerman, though just about nobody is reporting on this explosive fact.

If Zimmerman is acquitted, look for race-obsessed and truth-challenged Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez to act against Zimmerman. We’ll see once again what that corrosive “common cause” can do.