The DOJ has announced that it is detailing the the South Carolina US Attorneys Office the DOJ Voting Rights Section Chief who filed the lawsuit against the New Black Panthers Party last year, which was later dismissed by Obama Administration political appointees. A DOJ spokesman said that the reassignment “had nothing to do with the New Black Panther Party case but was the result of conversations Mr. Coates initiated with officials within the Civil Rights Division earlier this year.” The case was dismissed in May of this year.
Me says:
Exile for having the audacity to enforce the Voting Rights Act, even when the violators are black, one was a Democratic official, and one was an Obama poll-watcher.
Mustn’t enforce the civil rights laws against politically-connected people — especially when they are also members of the New Black Panther Party, which is classified as a left-wing hate group even by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center, and which describes Jews as “bloodsuckers.”
December 31, 2009, 4:16 pmRyan Waxx says:
Its been long enough since the incident that you cannot fairly conclude that the reassignment is connected to the case. Of course, it could be that the people doing the assigning waited for exactly that reason, but either way the result is that you can’t make a conclusion from these facts.
December 31, 2009, 4:46 pmEvilDave says:
Does the ABA approve of this way of enforcing diversity?
December 31, 2009, 5:03 pmjosh bornstein says:
Ryan,
December 31, 2009, 5:35 pmI think it’s a bit unfair of you to bring reasonable explanations and rationality into the conversation. If forced to look at all possible sides of an issue, it’s very likely that our heads will explode. I much prefer a more-simple thought-process: If an action of Obama (or his administration) might have a good or nefarious motivation, I just assume that he’s evil (And a communist. Oh yeah; and a fascist), and that the deed was done for all the wrong reasons. This frees up my brain for more important topics, like finding more hidden propaganda messages in Rockefeller Center.
Dave N. says:
Josh Bornstein,
That was a fairly effective strategy for many leftists during the eight years of the Bush Administration, too. It is a sad state of affairs when disagreement over political issues instantly makes the President from the opposing party evil, rather than just wrong or incompetent.
December 31, 2009, 5:43 pmEric Rasmusen says:
It’s also possible that the Chief doesn’t want to work under a political appointee who lacks integrity and would force him to do bad things. Exile for a few years isn’t always the worst alternative.
December 31, 2009, 5:55 pmFûz says:
“Exile for a few years isn’t always the worst alternative.” For the Chief, perhaps.
He’s not the party I’m concerned about. I’m thinking more about my wife or my mother-in-law, or my daughter, and not just the next Tuesday in November, but for all election days to come.
December 31, 2009, 6:48 pmgeokstr says:
There are a lot of very smart lawyers here. Can one of you explain to this non-lawyer a legitimate legal rationale for dismissing a case in which you have already gotten a default judgment against the defendants?
I didn’t even realize you can still dismiss a case after you’d already won it, and am left totally bewildered as to why you’d want to do it even if you can.
December 31, 2009, 7:43 pmTwirip says:
Liberal hypocrisy really is quite staggering. After all the wailing about the “politicization of justice” under Bush, we get silence or weak excuses when there is actual politicization of justice from the left.
December 31, 2009, 9:35 pmSirKev says:
As far as I know, there is nothing illegal in the actions taken by the DOJ in this instance. However, it provides example #1,000,000 and counting of the agenda nature of the current mainstream media. If the parties were reversed, I have a good idea of the screaming of the media and certain politicans.
December 31, 2009, 10:16 pmjosh bornstein says:
Geokstr,
Just last week, I dismissed a case I had already won. Why? Part of a settlement agreement that, for a variety of reasons, was much better for me than my legal victory in court. It wasn’t a default judgment, so not exactly on-point. I am not sure if I am a ‘smart lawyer,’ but that’s one reason. And maybe others will chime in with other reasons.
A second hypo comes to mind: Say you’re the winning plaintiff, and after your victory, the defendant comes to you with the proof that you committed perjury (etc) to win your case. Given the choice between facing possible prosecution and you dismissing the case (that you’ve already won); most–if not all–plaintiffs in your situation might decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and would give up their already-earned victory.
A third hypo: You win your original case. But you later find out facts that convince you that you sued the wrong person (or, should have lost in the original case.). Here, you are a highly ethical person, and knowing that you should not have won, you go to court and voluntarily dismissing your winning case. (Merely doing nothing, and choosing to not enforce your judgment would still affect the losing defendant’s credit rating, in many cases, so that’s not a good option.)
January 1, 2010, 12:04 amgeokstr says:
Thanks, Josh, but even as a non-lawyer, I figured there could be reasons an ethical prosecutor might dismiss a case he had already won. However, none of the hypotheticals you posit seem relevant to this case, which seems totally political, at least to me.
January 1, 2010, 12:40 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » DOJ Details New Black Panthers Prosecutor to South Carolina: -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mercatus Bloggers, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: DOJ Details New Black Panthers Prosecutor to South Carolina:: The DOJ has announced that it is detailing the th.. http://bit.ly/7WyJT1 [...]
January 1, 2010, 1:30 amjosh bornstein says:
Geokstr,
January 1, 2010, 2:15 amIf it’s relevant; I’m not a prosecutor. All 3 cases I was thinking of (or an actual participant in) are civil cases. And I do agree that my hypos were not on-point to the OP. That was no accident; I was responding to a specific (albeit slightly off-topic) question that you had asked, which asked for any examples of why a winning party would ever dismiss a case. :-) (And for what it’s worth; if the above situation indeed turned out to be politically based, I’d be just as annoyed as you. Feelings are consistent, regardless of if a Dem or Rep is in office.
rpt says:
Monica Goodling. Alberto Gonzalez. Bradley Scholzman. Hans von Spakovsky. Too many more to list.
January 1, 2010, 2:35 amrpt says:
Ted Stevens
January 1, 2010, 2:37 amneurodoc says:
The simple thought process you say you prefer, one which causes you to “assume that he’s evil (And a communist. Oh yeah; and a fascist),” is not only simple, it is also simple-minded and produces self-evidently stupid results. So, why don’t you try to reason like a reasonably intelligent, fair-minded person.
How do you think a reasonably intelligent, fair-minded person should put it all together? In particular, what is to be made of the part which is of most interest/concern, namely the curious decision of Obama appointees to override career DOJ prosecutors and drop prosecution of the Malik Shabazz and the other two New Black Panther Party thugs who stood in front of a polling place in military-like uniforms brandishing night sticks in order to intimidate those who came to vote there? Do you have an explanation that is both benign and plausible?
January 1, 2010, 9:48 amneurodoc says:
So, do you think DOJ should be forthcoming about its reasons for dismissing what to many of us looks like a clear case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party thugs? And since DOJ has not been forthcoming to date, are you hopeful that Republicans will be able to get an explanation for us? Can you imagine any reason(s) for DOJ to remain mum here?
(BTW, are you familiar with Malik Shabazz? When Shabazz was a student at Howard, he proved himself to be a committed bigot, one who made David Duke look like less than a fully committed one. I wonder if Shabazz ever sat for the bar in DC or anywhere else, and I would be surprised and dismayed if he had passed and been admitted.)
January 1, 2010, 9:58 amTwirip says:
Ted Stevens was wrongly indicted in yet another example of the abuse of the judicial process.
What do these people have to do with the decision to drop an already won case against the Black Panehers?
January 1, 2010, 10:34 amtommy gun says:
The truth about this “detail” will be coming out soon. You can’t contain the truth for long.
January 1, 2010, 2:31 pmHans says:
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights — even the liberal Commissioners — questioned the Obama Administration’s decision to drop this voting rights suit after the Justice Department had already won a default judgment in the case, against people who engaged in voter intimidation, while wielding a nightstick and using racial slurs.
Essentially, the Obama Administration snatched defeat from the jaws of victory — perhaps because the victory would have been against two voting-rights violators who were big Obama supporters (supporters who were members of a racist, anti-semitic group).
This seems like a fairly clear-cut case of politicization of the Justice Department.
January 1, 2010, 3:59 pmneurodoc says:
No question that this is “a racist, anti-semitic group,” and I don’t doubt that they could be counted “Obama supporters” in 2008, but in what sense “big”? Could these individuals and this group be anything more than of the most marginal political consequence? The Obama Administration might have some sympathy for ACORN and do what they could to protect that organization, but it beggars the imagination, at least mine, that they would do anything for Malik Shabazz and his New Black Panthers Party. What could be in it for them other than trouble of a sort they surely don’t want?
January 1, 2010, 8:24 pmNickM says:
I’ll throw out one reasonable possibility: Shabazz and his fellow thugs had knowledge of illegal activity by other Obama campaign staff or other Dem party operatives, such as unreported “walking-around money,” which they could testify to in return for a lighter sentence.
Nick
January 2, 2010, 12:16 amneurodoc says:
Geez, “walking-around money” is a hallowed tradition in some places, e.g., Baltimore. And didn’t JFK’s father, Joe Kennedy, provide lots of it so his son could win the WVa primary, setting up JFK’s joke about his father told him he would pay for a win, but not a landslide?
Anyway, I appreciate your speculation and don’t rule it or something like it out as beyond the realm of the possible. It just doesn’t sound too convincing to me, though. But then I have no idea what might explain the seemingly inexplicable, that is letting these miscreants off when the prosecutors’ work had been done and convictions could have been had so easily. Maybe Josh Bornstein will return to give us a fair-minded answer.
January 2, 2010, 11:27 am