Eric Holder’s Bipartisan Rebuke

News Real Blog ^ | November 24, 2010 | J. Christian Adams

[jazusamo]

Although the story was completely ignored by the mainstream media, Attorney General Eric Holder received a rare bipartisan rebuke last Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee.  At issue was Holder’s decision to ignore the committee’s invitation to have a Justice Department representative testify on whether religious organizations may make religious-based employment based decisions while accepting federal funds.

In a joint letter (pdf) from Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the committee characterized Holder’s action as “inexcusable.”  The committee lectured Holder that,

“[i]t is unacceptable – and flatly inconsistent with the President’s pledge of greater transparency – that the Department of Justice has not made its position clear to the Congress or to agencies and partnering organizations who must understand and comply with the law.”

In other words, does the Obama Administration believe Catholic charities may refuse to hire employees who are open critics of Catholic doctrine, or, must synagogues hire  Palestinians who call for the destruction of the Jewish faith?

Was it political tone deafness that caused Holder to deliberately alienate his congressional guardians?  Or was it mere cowardice? Most likely, it was a bit of both.

It is, of course, well settled that religious organizations may discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.  The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) has formally opined that Congress may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, extend the religious exemptions under federal law to faith-based organizations receiving direct payments of federal money under the charitable choice provisions of federal statutes. But for Holder to publicly acknowledge (let alone embrace) these precedents and reiterate the employment flexibility enjoyed by religious institutions would trigger tremendous backlash from the radical non-religious leftist groups that Holder increasingly relies on as his only remaining sources of political support.

Don’t forget as well that the highly partisan Holder has already demonstrated, in contrast to his predecessors, that he does not feel himself bound to OLC’s opinions if he finds it politically expedient to reject them, as he did to his own national embarrassment last year in a matter involving the unconstitutionality of a D.C. voting rights act bill.  Already taking a beating for his actions on detainee prosecutions, racially selective enforcement of civil rights laws, bizarre support of illegal immigration and outrageous attacks on states that are seeking to fill the federal immigration enforcement void, and a host of other excesses, Holder simply cannot afford to lose his militant (albeit completely out-of-touch) base.  After all, if he loses their backing, who — other than perhaps Malik Zulu Shabazz and the New Black Panther Party — is left to support him?

All of this helps explain his decision to blow off the House Judiciary Committee last week.  Washington occasionally has instances of bipartisanship.  But the mainstream media seems reluctant to report when it involves bipartisan criticism of the Obama Administration.

Needless to say, with Republicans slated to take over in six weeks, Eric Holder’s polite declination of invitations will no longer be an option.

[American Constitutionalist]

Looks like the House Judiciary Committee will be on Janet’s domestic terrorist watch list now since they rebuked Eric Holder..... Sarcasm

[samtheman]

How to hold the media’s feet to the fire. That’s the question. There’s got to be a way to do it.

[Conservative Tsunami]

Is Holder’s wrist still stinging from the feather-duster?

[FlingWingFlyer]

This bozo needs to resign and go away. He’s worthless and is destroying the moral of all of our law enforcement agencies.

[jazusamo]

It’ll be interesting to see if any of the enemedia will cover the upcoming House investigations that are coming up, there’ll be many of them.

[jazusamo]

Well said! If he doesn’t resign he’ll be spending a lot of his time testifying before House Committees in the next couple years.

[353FMG]

“..... Sarcasm”

.
Should not have been included.

[American Constitutionalist]

Your right, should have left it out.

[Rashputin]

Oh, ouchie. A “rebuke” and “bipartisan” to boot. How much does that deduct from his paycheck or limit his future actions?

My God, these people, especially Holder, show obvious disdain for the Constitution and have regularly violated their oaths of office as well as the Constitution. What's a nasty letter supposed to do? Have him crying in his pillow and considering suicide? God, when did a mealy mouthed letter become the same thing as doing something?

Convene hearings as to whether to just fire him or to fire him and imprison him as well. Then send Federal Marshals to bring him to the hearing and see who the Marshals Service obeys, Congress or the AG. That's doing something, whining in print isn't.

Regards

[Jerrybob]

Eric Holder needs to be led away in handcuffs and tried for treason. Period.

[Ann Archy]

Eric Holder is a VERY DANGEROUS MAN!

[jazusamo]

AMEN! Both of you are absolutely right.

[American Constitutionalist]

Wonder if Eric Holder believes in the cult theology that blacks are the true Jews ? as in the cult of yewah ben yahweh

[American Constitutionalist]

Wonder if Eric Holder believes in the cult theology that blacks are the true Jews ? as in the cult of yewah ben yahweh