Case Dismissed!
And it was a really good case against the New Black Panther Party for violating the Voting Rights Act. The Obama Justice Department went to bat for the party -- and then covered it up, writes Jennifer Rubin in the Weekly Standard:
The case is straightforward. On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses--one of the poll watchers was called a "white devil" and a "cracker." A Panther told him he would be "ruled by the black man." The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.
The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment--meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.
...On the morning of April 29, the acting deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, Steven Rosenbaum, sent an email to Coates about the case. It was the first indication by any department official that something was amiss. "I have serious doubts about the merits of the motion for entry of a default judgment and the request for injunctive relief," Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, wrote. "Most significantly, this case raises serious First Amendment issues, but the papers make no mention of the First Amendment." Rosenbaum asked Coates a series of questions--whether "the defendants make any statements threatening physical harm to voters or persons aiding voters," for example, and what was the "factual predicate for enjoining the Party, as opposed to individual defendants"--which indicated that he was not familiar with the case and had not read the detailed memorandum accompanying the draft order.
The trial team was surprised by the email and answered Rosenbaum point by point in a response sent that same evening. They corrected his misstatements and explained in answer to his First Amendment concerns, "We are not seeking to enjoin the making of those (or any) statements. We plan to introduce them as evidence to show that what happened in Philadelphia on Election Day was planned and announced in advance by the central authority of the NBPP, and was a NBPP initiative." They pointed out that dressing in military garb did not raise First Amendment concerns when "used with the brandishing of a weapon to intimidate people going to the polling station." They concluded: "We strongly believe that this is one of the clearest violations of Section 11(b) [of the Voting Rights Act] the Department has come across. There is never a good reason to bring a billy club to a polling station. If the conduct of these men, which was video recorded and broadcast nationally, does not violate Section 11(b), the statute will have little meaning going forward."
The trial team assumed that Rosenbaum was simply confused about the applicable law. The notion that this was a problematic case would have been outlandish. With video evidence, multiple witnesses, and clear case law, it was one the easiest cases on which any of the trial team attorneys--who had more than 75 years of collective experience--had worked.
And the question for the future:
While the interference by political appointees in the NBPP case has been egregious, there is a critical issue with implications far beyond this single case: Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites.
"Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites."
Yes. They do. Is this surprising to anyone with a brain? Whites can't be mistreated in any way, or did you not get the memo?
momof4 at June 28, 2010 5:00 AM
I just put up a post about this very serious matter, here.
david foster at June 28, 2010 7:37 AM
If the government doesn't represent me, why should I pay taxes?
MarkD at June 28, 2010 7:38 AM
This President and his cabinet promised change. Well we got it, a big fat change for the worse. They have become so brazen they don’t even try to hide it anymore. This regime makes Bush and his people look like Mr. Rodgers neighborhood.
The elitist politicians in Washington and every state in the union no longer play by the same rules they enforce on us. The time has come, I implore all voting age people not to vote based on a ideology or a single issue (ie: abortion, social security, 2nd amendment etc…) Just simply vote out the incumbent regardless of party or vote for someone that is not from the Republican or Democratic parties. A fell swoop massive change in D.C. is the only way to take our country and states back. We the people still hold all the power and it’s high time we swing that sword and cut off the head of the snake…..
Ed at June 28, 2010 7:00 PM
Leave a comment