Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Embarrassment for the Holder DOJ
NRO/The Corner ^ | September 16, 2010 | Hans A. von Spakovsky & Roger Clegg

Posted on 09/16/2010 2:42:19 PM PDT by jazusamo

The Obama Justice Department just got slapped down in a lawsuit filed by Shelby County, Alabama, challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 is the original “emergency” provision passed in 1965 that required certain states to get preapproval from the federal government for all voting changes, no matter how minor. After 40 years of extensions, Congress renewed this supposedly temporary provision in 2006 for another 25 years.

Shelby County sued Eric Holder, saying that today’s vastly improved conditions no longer warrant such extraordinary intrusion into local sovereignty over elections and voting, and that Congress did not have a legislative record of ongoing and systematic discrimination that would warrant renewal of this law. Worse, the main use to which the federal government puts Section 5 today is to coerce racial gerrymandering, a practice both unconstitutional and at odds with the original ideals of the civil-rights movement. Shelby County filed a motion for summary judgment shortly after filing its lawsuit, since its facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 is a legal dispute, not a factual one, and no discovery is needed.

In its apparent desperation to delay a constitutional challenge to a portion of the Voting Rights Act, the now infamous Civil Rights Division opposed the motion for summary judgment, making three absurd arguments. The Division claimed it needed a long period of discovery to 1) determine whether Shelby County has standing to file suit; 2) explore whether Shelby could bail out (thus avoiding the constitutional question); and 3) gather information about the VRA’s constitutionality.

Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia federal district court gave short shrift to all of the Division’s arguments in an order issued today. The judge was obviously flabbergasted that the DOJ would argue that a county covered by the mandates of this federal law would lack standing: “At oral argument, the government was unable to articulate any reason why a covered jurisdiction subject to Section 5’s preclearance requirement — such as Shelby County — would lack standing to bring this type of action.”

The government was also forced to admit that Shelby County was not seeking bailout, so obviously there was no need for discovery on this issue. Again, the judge seemed amazed that the Division had raised such a nonsensical argument: “The government agreed at oral argument that neither it nor this Court could force Shelby County to accept bailout.”

Finally, Judge Bates concluded that the government’s claim that it needed discovery on the issue of constitutionality was “unwarranted.” The court’s analysis in a facial challenge to the constitutionality of congressional legislation is limited to the actual evidence Congress considered when it passed the legislation. When the judge asked the government at oral argument to identify a single case that held to the contrary, the Division’s lawyers were unable to do so.

What this means is the case will go straight to a legal fight over whether it was constitutional to renew Section 5 in 2006. The almost frivolous arguments raised by the Holder Justice Department to delay this case are just another example of how badly (and unprofessionally) that Department is being run.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; bhodoj; democrats; doj; dojisajoke; elections; ericthejackboot; holder; holdertruthfile; lawsuit; obama; shelbycounty; vote; votingrightsact
The Voting Rights Act of 1965

Holder needs to go along with many of he and Obama's thug appointees.

1 posted on 09/16/2010 2:42:20 PM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Quite remarkably Obama has yet to nominate a single individual to any job for which that person is competent.

This record defies the laws of chance ~ there should have been at least one competent person but yet there are none.

2 posted on 09/16/2010 2:58:10 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; bamahead

Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere




3 posted on 09/16/2010 3:00:01 PM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Isn’t it the truth! You’d think by sheer numbers he’d accidentally nominate a competent person. I honestly believe it’s because these type people reflect his warped view of the “change’ he envisions.


4 posted on 09/16/2010 3:06:31 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I thought they were all academics?
Bunch of teachers who were too stupid to make it in the real world say with a business of their own. So like waaay too many “teachers” they suck the teet that is the public trough.


5 posted on 09/16/2010 3:06:49 PM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Less gubmint is best gubmint. I wants my free gubmint cheese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; 1-Eagle; 131st Scout; 2CAVTrooper; 65superhawk; 6Covs; A.P.M.; adkinsjohnnie; ...
The Obama Justice Department just got slapped down in a lawsuit filed by Shelby County, Alabama, challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

This warrants a PING!

FREE REPUBLIC @ ALABAMA



Keeping the people of Alabama informed!

FReepmail Ultra Sonic 007 or bamahead to get on or off this ping list.

6 posted on 09/16/2010 3:11:49 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

Good point...Most are performing like academics out of the ivied environment who haven’t a clue.


7 posted on 09/16/2010 3:15:26 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"Hey Whitey, shut up and sit down.

If we want anything from you, we'll tax it away." - Eric Holder channeling Baraq Soetoro.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

8 posted on 09/16/2010 3:19:18 PM PDT by The Comedian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

What makes you think that the Holder DoJ is capable of embarrassment or shame?


9 posted on 09/16/2010 3:23:42 PM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
At oral argument, the government was unable to articulate any reason why a covered jurisdiction subject to Section 5’s preclearance requirement — such as Shelby County — would lack standing to bring this type of action.

Playing games with "standing" is the stock and trade of judicial partiality, as well as a handy dandy stalling tactic. If standing is granted they'll file and appeal. It will go on and on... oh hell, it could be 25 years!

Gee, that number rings a bell. Wasn't that Sandra Day O'Connor's bogus extension of affirmative action? Well, at least we know how far out those incredible moving goal posts really are.

10 posted on 09/16/2010 3:25:26 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Billy the Mountain

I’m sure he’s high on Cong Darrell Issa’s list of peeps to investigate in January.


12 posted on 09/16/2010 5:27:55 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
This brings up an excellent point. I was disappointed in the ruling of SCOTUS in the Danbury(?) Connecticut firefighters' case where the court held that the white men had been unconstitutionally discriminated against. The result seemed right, but the logic could have been far more straightforward. SCOTUS should have held, and should hold in this case, that a country which can elect a black to the presidency is a country in which evidence of current racism is gloriously weak.

SCOTUS should simply declare, "The future is now," and overturn all the "reverse" racism in US law and precedent in a single stroke.


13 posted on 09/16/2010 5:48:15 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Well said, but can you imagine the outrage from a large group of entitlement minorities if that actually happened? :)


14 posted on 09/16/2010 6:09:47 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
In this case the subject of the litigation was subject to an argument that they didn't have standing ~ (to respond to the case being made against them).

That's so manifestly preposterous I'm surprised the judge didn't rule the government's lawyers in contempt for daring to bring such an idiotic argument before the court.

I don't think the target particularly cares how long things get delayed.

15 posted on 09/16/2010 7:16:35 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I don't think the target particularly cares how long things get delayed... ...as long as it is delayed LONGER.

This is as bad as chasing a young thug down an alley as he knocks over garbage cans to slow you down. It is Chicago after all.

16 posted on 09/16/2010 7:23:41 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is still in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“This record defies the laws of chance ~ there should have been at least one competent person but yet there are none.”

It is not chance.


17 posted on 09/17/2010 2:30:35 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20
You mean it's for the same reason the lies come around and he catches them?

NO!?

18 posted on 09/17/2010 3:42:26 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
can you imagine the outrage from a large group of entitlement minorities if that actually happened? :)
The exploding heads would be a sight, wouldn't they!

19 posted on 09/17/2010 4:16:47 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

You’re right, after the 1st time that isn’t chance either.


20 posted on 09/17/2010 4:51:01 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson