The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wants to investigate the Department of Justice’s handling of voter intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. According to this report, the Justice Department is instructing its attorneys not to cooperate.
The commission last week subpoenaed at least two Justice Department lawyers and sought documents from the department to explain why the complaint was dismissed just as a federal judge was about to punish the New Black Panther Party and three of its members for intimidating voters.
Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, ordered the lawyers’ silence in a letter to the attorney for J. Christian Adams, the lead attorney for the department in the New Black Panther case. The letter said “well-established” and “lawful” Justice Department guidelines prohibited Mr. Adams’ cooperation in the commission probe.
In the letter, Mr. Hunt said the Civil Rights Commission “possesses no authority to initiate criminal prosecution of anyone” and has the ability only to make referrals to the Justice Department recommending that a criminal case be opened. The commission does not have the authority to enforce subpoenas, he added.
(LvIP)
It looks to me like an interesting turf battle is in the works. (Of course, I doubt it will compare with the Commission’s prior turf battles.)
MJH21 says:
I have no issue with any entity using any good-faith legal argument in their arsenal to protect its interests. The DOJ under Holder is simpy doing what the DOJ would do under any AG. But, the President made increased transparency a campaign issue and repeatedly stressed that his administration would do much better than his predecessor on this front. Therefore, I think it’s appropriate to point out that, once again, the campaign rhetoric – the cheap and easy talking-points and Bush-bashing – runs smack in to the reality of actually running the executive branch of government.
Either the President was naive, or is a hypocrite. Neither speaks well of him or his administration.
December 16, 2009, 10:41 ampmorem says:
… the Civil Rights Commission “possesses no authority to initiate criminal prosecution of anyone” and has the ability only to make referrals to the Justice Department recommending that a criminal case be opened. The commission does not have the authority to enforce subpoenas…
Does this translate as “Don’t worry, we won’t prosecute you”?
Should I be disturbed by this?
December 16, 2009, 10:41 amrarango says:
My layperson’s take on this: The USCRC could have investigated the new black panther party for voter intimidation–in so doing they can only hold hearings without the right to subpoena?
The DOJ is asserting the USCRC has no power to investigate any federal agency? Did I misunderstand that?
So what precisely does the USCRC do other than posture and pontificate?
December 16, 2009, 10:50 amdeioces says:
The issue will be decided by political will rather than by legal standards. DOJ has arguments in favor of protecting internal deliberations, and these have been well articulated in OLC opinions by Wm. Rhenquist and Ted Olsen. On the other side are many precedents compiled in a CRS publication, and in court cases such as Smith v. Beasly, 946 F Supp 1174 (DSC 1996) in which the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division had to turn over the notes of Department attorneys. The administration will feel some heat because of all of its talk of transparency, and some discomfort due to being in a fight with the Civil Rights Commission over its civil rights enforcement. On the other hand, the Commission has lost so much moral authority that defying it may not have muchcost
December 16, 2009, 11:10 amA. Criminal says:
Holder’s obfuscates his racism with legal mumbo-jumbo. It’s every so subtle ‘n’ intellectual.
December 16, 2009, 12:36 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Racism isn’t any prettier when it is practiced by Black people.
December 16, 2009, 12:59 pmAdam J says:
A. Criminal & Houston Lawyer- Maybe I’m dense, but could you just elaborate a little bit- where’s the racism?
December 16, 2009, 1:42 pmEric Rasmusen says:
If the House goes Republican next year, a Congressional Committee might subpoena the records.
Does any federal agency except the Justice Dept. have the power to enforce subpoenas? Can the Justice Dept. refuse to enforce a Congressional subpoena?
December 16, 2009, 1:42 pmdeioces says:
Eric Rasmusen asks: If the House goes Republican next year, a Congressional Committee might subpoena the records. Does any federal agency except the Justice Dept. have the power to enforce subpoenas? Can the Justice Dept. refuse to enforce a Congressional subpoena?
If Congress finds a person, including the attorney general, in contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, Congress must send the case to the US Attorney for DC for any prosecution. The US Attorney could refuse to prosecute, but in a case like this the political cost would far outweigh the interest in holding back the material. As the CRS paper documents, Justice “accomodates” Congress frequently.
December 16, 2009, 2:14 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Nothing. It’s a relic of an earlier time, a combination of politicians’ penchant for forming a committee whenever they don’t want to do anything; government’s general unwillingness to eliminate any positions where patronage could come into play; and Washington’s specific unwillingness to do anything that could lead to charges of racism.
Basically, it was a sop created in 1957 for civil rights advocates as part of the Civil Rights Act of that year, because of Congress’s unwillingness to actually do anything substantive. It can hold hearings and write reports. That’s all it can do. Given that we now have an active DoJ and a million private rights of action, it serves no function at all and should be allowed to die a quiet, and taxpayer-friendly, death.
December 16, 2009, 2:16 pmOren says:
Congress can take the DOJ to court. See, e.g. Richard Nixon.
December 16, 2009, 2:20 pmSeamus says:
Not when the Civil Rights Commission is only trying to enforce the civil rights of a bunch of honkies.
December 16, 2009, 2:43 pmManju says:
I disagree. Its prettier because context and degree matter. So the New Black Panther Party engaging in voter intimidation is at best just a singular buffoonish act, or at worst maybe they have a few vicitms. Either way it doesn’t create a huge systemic problem the way white racism has.
In contrast, the voter intimidation engaged in by the KKK for almost a century resulted in a virtual one-party monopoly of the south, a monopoly enforced by that most hideous form of political violence (lynching).
Perhaps this distinction will be made more palpable to you by pointing out that voter intimidation in the south benefited democrats and progressives more than anyone else. It is one of the ironies of american history that this right-wing xenophobic nativist terror group was actually more asssociated with democrats, liberals and progressives. Obviously since lincoln freed the slaves the klan found a home in the democratic party.
But this affiliation extended to ideology as well. the progressive era (1880′s-1920′s) is considered the worst for african americans as this is when the klan and lynching peaked. the movement was infused with racism (think eugenics a la margaret sanger) and the most progressive politician of the time (woodrow wilson:progressive income tax, league of nations etc) was also the most racist; he segregated the us govt and advocated “birth of a nation” which is credited with restarting the klan. the klan in turn was heavily involved in prohibition enforcement (which for some reason was a big progressive cause) advocating for better public schools, expanded road construction, and other progressive political measures that benefited lower class whites.
this set the stage for the klan’s afilliation with democrats as the party moved left. FDR passed the new deal with their help (by agreeing to overlook segregation and lynching in return for votes). even liberal stallwart JFK as a senator effectively killed an anti-lynching/voter intimidation bill by inserting a provision for trial by jury (which he knew would result in jury nullification in the south). He was rewarded by carrying the south handedly against Nixon.
so, in effect, white voter intimidation helped put thru the new deal and other statist measures. black voter intimidation has no such parallel. so i’ve given you a libertarian argument that substantiates left-wing race theory.
December 16, 2009, 3:54 pmRPT says:
Hans von Spakovsky must be involved in this somewhere.
December 16, 2009, 8:10 pmObama Stonewalls Civil Rights Investigation | Orange Juice says:
[...] Rogue Elephant posted this in Eric Holder, Fresh Juice, barack obama on December 16th, 2009 The lawless Obama administration is stonewalling a civil rights investigation by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The commission is investigating the Justice [...]
December 16, 2009, 10:20 pmJohnny Foucher says:
We blacks need to rise up. Our history is one to be proud of.
July 5, 2010, 1:35 am