pageok
pageok
pageok
Holder's Plans for DOJ's Civil Rights Division:
Charlie Savage has the scoop in the New York Times. No big surprises, in my view: It's pretty much what any Democratic Administration would do.
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Oh snap! The Civil Rights Division enforcing civil rights! What next? Will Holder have the Anti-terrorism Division go after Bin Laden? Perhaps have the White collar crime Division go after financial faudsters?


The administration's fiscal year 2010 budget request includes an increase of about $22 million for the division, an 18 percent increase from the 2009 budget.

Better use of the money than Gonzo's war on (non-child) pornography.
9.1.2009 11:15am
Steve:
Savage is a pretty funny writer. Or maybe it's just the facts that are funny:

Among the critics, Hans von Spakovsky, a former key Bush-era official at the division, has accused the Obama team of "nakedly political" maneuvers.

Classic stuff.
9.1.2009 11:23am
klp85 (mail):
Is the any resource that compiles a list of at least the more notable cases that Republican and Democratic administrations have pursued and/or notable cases that administrations have decided not to pursue (e.g., the NBP charges mentioned in the article) through the Civil Rights Division?
9.1.2009 11:34am
klp85 (mail):
*Is there*
9.1.2009 11:35am
Melancton Smith:
Maybe the Civil Rights Division will go after people who intimidate voters at the polls...
9.1.2009 11:37am
AndyinNc:

Charlie Savage has the scoop in the New York Times. No big surprises, in my view: It's pretty much what any Democratic Administration would do.

Hire competent people?

Because that right there is a nice change from the Liberty
U. know-nothings.
9.1.2009 11:52am
Mike& (mail) (www):
It seems to me that the Attorney General Holder should focus on the many civil rights violations his own prosecutors are committing. He had two to dismiss recent high profile dismissals due to prosecutorial misconduct (Ted Stevens; Zhenli Ye Gon). And the headlines have been full of federal prosecutors being taken to the mat.

Clean your own house first, AG Holder.
9.1.2009 12:11pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

He had two to dismiss recent high profile dismissals due to prosecutorial misconduct (Ted Stevens;

Oh dear. Really? The Stevens prosecutors were Holder's?
9.1.2009 12:14pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
In the past I used to puzzle why elite liberals seemed to have such a fond regard for civil rights legislation, above and beyond any material personal interest. I mean, after all, it's not as if many of them could directly relate to Blacks through shared life experience, right? Then, through repeated observation, I began to realize that much of that passionate advocacy -- not all, but much -- naturally emerges as a method to foist their policies upon the dissenting public by extra-democratic means. I see time and again liberals exploiting the correlation between race and social pathology to make reasoned criticism of their ideology difficult or impossible in the public sphere. For instance, if one tries to point out that, say, rent control does not seem help the indigent it becomes all too easy for that to be construed in a less intellectual forum as an obvious "hating of the brown people". Another analagous example is the American with Disabilites Act -- sure, it is noble in its intent, but we when see outright extortion of family businesses by unscrupulous lawyers for obeying every letter of the law, shouldn't we re-evaulate the legislation? What then follows after substantial reform is proposed? Snark and sarcasm.

Civil rights legislation is used as a tool by the Left to paper over the oft perverse outcomes of government policy. How many discussions on even the VC end up deadlocked at, "you can't possibly be against the Civil Rights Act, right?!" They deftly use the fact that "anti-racism" has become an established pillar of polite discourse to avoid engaging any substantive criticsm. Racism, discrimination, and other important social issues are much more complicated than posed, but that can be ignored for now, while we forge ahead for progress.
9.1.2009 12:14pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

Maybe the Civil Rights Division will go after people who intimidate voters at the polls...

They did. DOJ rebuffed GA's SoS Handel's request to change voting procedures.
9.1.2009 12:15pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
Obviously I meant, in the previous post, "...for [not]obeying every letter of the law..."
9.1.2009 12:16pm
Mike& (mail) (www):
Oh snap! The Civil Rights Division enforcing civil rights! What next? Will Holder have the Anti-terrorism Division go after Bin Laden? Perhaps have the White collar crime Division go after financial faudsters?

This is ineffective sarcasm. There are many complicated issues. What civil rights do you protect? Whose civil rights? Do you favor blacks? Religious people? Children? Women sold into sexual slavery?

The Bush Administration devoted a lot of efforts to stop human trafficking. To me, sex slavery is a much worse harm that the (alleged) housing discrimination minorities are facing. I'd say that scarce resources should go towards protection women from being enslaved. Instead, Holder will focus on whether there is an SAT gap between whites and blacks.

The Bush Administration also focused on intentional discrimination rather than so-called disparate impact discrimination. Bush also focused on the civil rights of religious people. The latter focus is silly, since religious people have the political power to protect themselves.

Indeed, given the great political power blacks have, should Civil Rights really be protecting them? Shouldn't Civil Rights focus on the politically marginal and powerless? Say, e.g., sex slaves?

The role of Civil Rights raises complicated issues. You should develop a serious appreciation for the issues if you want to be taken seriously. If you're desire is to pretend like you on 4Chan, then of course, you are doing a great job, ruufles.
9.1.2009 12:16pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

I mean, after all, it's not as if many of them could directly relate to Blacks through shared life experience, right?

No, of course not, blacks aren't humans so ergo have no life experience to speak of. Go back to helping to find the great white hope.
9.1.2009 12:17pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

Shouldn't Civil Rights focus on the politically marginal and powerless? Say, e.g., sex slaves?

Ironic isn't it, since sex slaves are almost always illegal immigrants.

If you're desire is to pretend like you on 4Chan

Some days you its just hard to tell the difference.
9.1.2009 12:19pm
Sarcastro (www):
It's housing or sex slaves! Choose wisely, Civil Rights guys, since you can only choose one!
9.1.2009 12:22pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):

No, of course not, blacks aren't humans so ergo have no life experience to speak of. Go back to helping to find the great white hope.

You have no so sense of irony, obviously. You could care less what I wrote, it's positively reflexive with you.
9.1.2009 12:23pm
Mike& (mail) (www):
Oh dear. Really? The Stevens prosecutors were Holder's?

They are most certainly his problem. Whether DOJ's policy or custom of withholding Brady material was born under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I doesn't matter. Holder is currently the Attorney General.

DOJ is out of control. Just run a Google News search for prosecutorial misconduct.

It might "score points" among the moronic and trifling to blame Bush. At some point, though, AG Holder has to accept responsibility for DOJ.

The biggest civil rights violations are coming from within DOJ. Holder needs to spend a few months repairing his own glass house.
9.1.2009 12:23pm
Mike& (mail) (www):
It's housing or sex slaves! Choose wisely, Civil Rights guys, since you can only choose one!

Where do you think Civil Rights' scare resources should be devoted; and why?

Or do you think I am being dishonest by suggesting that Civil Rights, like every institution, has only scarce resources, and thus cannot focus on all evils at the same time?
9.1.2009 12:25pm
Sarcastro (www):
Mike&'s point about limited resources extends to your daily life. Always put all their eggs in one basket, since you do not have infinite eggs.

Then condemn everyone who has more than one basket.

Really, I hear Bush spent some of the Civil Rights budget NOT dealing with human trafficking. Why does he hate slave children so much?
9.1.2009 12:34pm
ShelbyC:

They did. DOJ rebuffed GA's SoS Handel's request to change voting procedures.


You're confusing "intimidate" with "verify the qualifications of". Tricky, huh?
9.1.2009 12:39pm
CJColucci:
In the past I used to puzzle why elite liberals seemed to have such a fond regard for civil rights legislation, above and beyond any material personal interest.

Was it really all that hard? And is this the best explanation you could come up with? Maybe you ought to get out more.
9.1.2009 12:48pm
wva (mail):
I do not see why anyone would object to a commitment by the Attorney General to secure enforcement of the various civil rights federal statutes forbidding varieties of discrimination, whether in housing, employment, voting, public accommodations. Rather, I think what may be worrisome is the tendency of some federal agencies to seize upon broad notions of "underrepresentation" as "prima facie evidence of discrimination," such that employers and others are put under duress to engage in "affirmative action" forms of actual discrimination (sometimes called "reverse discrimination") in order to avoid being "investigated" and prosecuted by the federal government.
9.1.2009 12:48pm
Putting Two and Two...:
Are human trafficking cases really handled by the Civil Rights Division?

That seems odd.
9.1.2009 12:59pm
Angus:
To me, sex slavery is a much worse harm that the (alleged) housing discrimination minorities are facing.
Seems to me something more for the criminal division than the Civil Rights division.
9.1.2009 1:02pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):

Was it really all that hard? And is this the best explanation you could come up with? Maybe you ought to get out more.

No, it wasn't the best I could come up with, but my more comprehensive theory of leftism is far too controversial to be discussed here. Still, I maintain that it was genuinely puzzling to me why the issue exercised some so. I feel that one can usually divine a much more apparent base of rapport in other forms of political advocacy, and this difference seems to beg for better explanation.
9.1.2009 1:04pm
Constantin:
Maybe they can start with Atlanta's mayoral election.

Because that right there is a nice change from the Liberty
U. know-nothings.


What was Barack's LSAT score again?
9.1.2009 1:36pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
Cato writes: In the past I used to puzzle why elite liberals seemed to have such a fond regard for civil rights legislation, above and beyond any material personal interest. I mean, after all, it's not as if many of them could directly relate to Blacks through shared life experience, right?

I guess I can't "directly relate" to murder victims and the families of murder victims either, since I've never known one. And yet I still have a "fond regard" for the idea that the law should prohibit murder. Go figure.

Beyond that, your attempt to paint civil rights laws as something foisted on the country by "elites" is historically inaccurate. Such laws were won from the ground up, through years of organizing and protests on the local level, from the victims of discrimination and their local allies. Such acts help sway opinions of policymakers.

Cato continues: Civil rights legislation is used as a tool by the Left to paper over the oft perverse outcomes of government policy. How many discussions on even the VC end up deadlocked at, "you can't possibly be against the Civil Rights Act, right?!"

Actually, I don't recall any discussion here being "deadlocked" after A asked B about support for the Civil Rights Act. It is instructive to ask, though. Because -- contrary to your assertions -- liberals are well aware of the complexities and difficulties of issues like affirmative action and other applications of the Civil Rights Law. On the other hand, there is an overwhelming political consensus in this country that laws barring, e.g., race discrimination in employment, are a good thing.

You have a right to disagree, and I'm certainly not trying to cause a "deadlock." But it perhaps worth noting that the idea of, say, revoking the Civil Rights Act in toto, is advocated by a small minority, and it has no chance of actually happening. But hey, I support some things that are only supported by a small minority and have no realistic chance of happening either, so have a ball.
9.1.2009 1:46pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
P.S.

my more comprehensive theory of leftism is far too controversial to be discussed here.

Oh please, don't leave us hanging. Although I'm not sure it's only "leftists" who support the basic concept of anti-discrimination laws.
9.1.2009 1:52pm
klp85 (mail):

Although I'm not sure it's only "leftists" who support the basic concept of anti-discrimination laws.

Centrists might also. But I thought that it was well-known that conservatives and libertarians only support reverse anti-discrimination laws.
9.1.2009 2:00pm
J. Aldridge:
DOJ is out of control. Just run a Google News search for prosecutorial misconduct.

Nah, they just have become a political tool. They still have no idea what a "civil right" is, and think suffrage is a "civil right."
9.1.2009 2:46pm
Houston Lawyer:
It is the Left that supports the concept that antidiscrimination laws were written only to protect the rights of some people, not all of them. If the basic concept of antidiscrimination laws is that you can always discriminate against white men, then a lot of people don't support their enforcement.
9.1.2009 2:57pm
CJColucci:
If the basic concept of antidiscrimination laws is that you can always discriminate against white men, then a lot of people don't support their enforcement.

Since you use the name "Houston Lawyer," I'm going to guess you are one. Have you actually read any of the civil rights laws? Or more than two or three of the many cases decided under them? If so, you can't be serious. I have a handful of white plaintiff civil rights cases on my desk even as we speak, and have had many others. White folks win civil rights cases all the time, in roughly the same proportions as everyone else. Do white people not win cases in Houston? Maybe they don't sue -- perhaps because some lawyer they went to told them the civil rights laws are strictly for minorities? Or maybe nobody in Houston who has anything to give out withholds it from white people?
9.1.2009 3:35pm
Danno52:
Now hear this:

Because of obvious civil rights violations, all copies of Richard Pryor's recording of "That Nigger's Crazy" (taped live on Don Cornelius' "Soul Train") are hereby recalled.

The offending recordings are to be turned in to your local ACORN/Panther watch-and-ward person: non-compliance is not acceptable. There is to be no graduation in punishment; all penalties are to be absolute.

We will always deal thusly with the people's (and this administration's) enemies! Any affront to our dignity will be always dealt with severely!

You may now return to your appointed tasks.

That is all.
9.1.2009 4:17pm
ShelbyC:
@CJColucci, I think you read Houston Lawyer's comment the way some people get accused of reading the 2nd amendment.
9.1.2009 4:20pm
Danno52:
Pls. substitute gradation for graduation.
9.1.2009 4:22pm
Anderson (mail):
In the past I used to puzzle why elite liberals seemed to have such a fond regard for civil rights legislation, above and beyond any material personal interest.

Living in Mississippi, I know quite a few people who have ample cause for gratitude to the "elite liberals."
9.1.2009 5:53pm
CJColucci:
Shelby C:
If I understand your reference, you think I have overlooked the first part of Houston Lawyer's comment. Looking back, you may be right. It may be that HL is saying that although he knows perfectly well that the civil rights laws apply to white people, something he defines as the "Left" either (1) does not know that or (2)does know it and disapproves. I suppose (1) could be true of some people, maybe even a lot of people, because a lot of people don't know jackshit, but hardly a large group defined by their politics. As for (2), I know a small number of annoying folk of leftish tendencies who think that, but not many, and none of consequence. And considering how large a band of the political spectrum gets described as the "Left" around here, the share is tiny.
9.1.2009 6:06pm
Melancton Smith:
I don't know which is more intimidating when trying to vote: armed black panthers menacing me as I try to enter or the guy asking to see my Driver's License to identify me...
9.1.2009 6:38pm
Sarcastro (www):
Yes, the black panthers were EVERYWHERE! For every black panther I didn't see, I understand there were three others I didn't see either!
9.1.2009 6:49pm
Constantin:
Yes, the black panthers were EVERYWHERE! For every black panther I didn't see, I understand there were three others I didn't see either!

Uh, what about the ones everyone (except Holder and Barack, I guess) saw? How about we deal with them and then get on to the straw men.

Not your best effort.
9.1.2009 9:26pm
ArthurKirkland:

Among the critics, Hans von Spakovsky, a former key Bush-era official at the division, has accused the Obama team of "nakedly political" maneuvers.

Where's Monica Goodling with a taxpayer-funded, custom-fitted drape when you need her?
9.1.2009 9:54pm
Floridan:
Cato: "Another analagous example is the American with Disabilites Act -- sure, it is noble in its intent, but we when see outright extortion of family businesses by unscrupulous lawyers for [not]obeying every letter of the law, shouldn't we re-evaulate the legislation?"

There may not be enough hours in the day to re-evaluate every law that unscrupulous lawyers take advantage of.

Cato again: ". . . my more comprehensive theory of leftism is far too controversial to be discussed here."

Translation - "Even I think it's nutty."
9.1.2009 10:12pm
Sarcastro (www):
Constantin has a point. If we saw 2 of them nationwide, that is a HUGE DEAL!
9.2.2009 1:20am
Melancton Smith:
Sarcastro wrote:

Constantin has a point. If we saw 2 of them nationwide, that is a HUGE DEAL!


A law was clearly broken. An important law. I'm sure if there were only 2 klansman intimidating black voters at one polling place no one would be upset at all...
9.3.2009 11:43am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.