Holder bets Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on opposition to photo-ID voting requirements

posted at 12:00 pm on December 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

For a man who supposedly doesn’t have the faintest clue what his own ATF is doing while bodies pile up in the hundreds in Mexico, thanks to Operation Fast and Furious, Eric Holder is rather busy sticking his nose into the business of states — and perhaps spelling the end of disparate treatment by the Department of Justice of southern states entirely.  The DoJ, through its Civil Rights division, announced that it would block a new South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID when casting a vote, claiming that it had a disproportionate impact on minority voters.  The Wall Street Journal scoffs at the claim, and points out that Holder has put the DoJ on a fast track to losing Section 5 in the 1965 Civil Rights Act as a result:

In a letter to South Carolina’s government, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez called the state law—which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo ID at the polls—a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

This is the yawning chasm the Justice Department is now using to justify the unprecedented federal intrusion into state election law, and the first denial of a “pre-clearance” Voting Rights request since 1994.

One of the forms of acceptable photo ID is the South Carolina identification card issued by the state … for free.  Applicants have to show proof of residency in the state and a birth certificate or passport that shows US citizenship.  If they lack a birth certificate, the state will provide a certified copy for $12, either in person, by mail, or by phone for an additional fee of $12.95.  Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits, another right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, for which all of these same fees would apply in South Carolina.

Interestingly, this is almost identical to Indiana, which has a provision for free state IDs but only for the purpose of voting.  They require the same documents to get the state ID, and charge between $5 to $12, depending on which county the birth record resides.  Why is Indiana important?  Because the Supreme Court approved an identical photo-ID voting requirement in Indiana in 2008, not to mention one in Georgia, also covered by Section 5, in 2005:

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was created to combat the systematic disenfranchisement of minorities, especially in Southern states with a history of discrimination. But the Justice position is a lead zeppelin, contradicting both the Supreme Court and the Department’s own precedent. In 2005, Justice approved a Georgia law with the same provisions and protections of the one Mr. Holder nixed for South Carolina. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on voters.

In a later case, this one involving Holder, the Court declined to make a decision about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, although they did note the “substantial federalism costs” of interfering in the law-making ability of a subset of states decades after the voting-rights issues have been settled.  But that’s not all they said on the matter to Holder:

A second case offers a further glimpse into the High Court’s perspective on the modern use of Section 5. In 2009′sNorthwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, the Court declined to decide the question of the constitutionality of Section 5, writing that while it imposes “substantial federalism costs,” the “importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it.” But the Justices didn’t stop there.

They also cast real doubt on the long-term viability of the law, noting in an 8-1 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts that it “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” That such strong criticism was signed by even the Court’s liberals should concern Mr. Holder, who may eventually have to defend his South Carolina smackdown in court.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley tells us she “will absolutely sue” Justice over its denial of her state’s law and that challenge will go directly to federal district court in Washington, D.C. From there it may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which would have to consider whether South Carolina can be blocked from implementing a law identical to the one the High Court approved for Indiana, simply because South Carolina is a “covered” jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act.

In the 2008 case, Section 5 wasn’t an issue, since Indiana wasn’t a covered state under its terms.  It will be a big part of the case when Haley pushes it to the Supreme Court, not just on the thin 1.6% difference that the DoJ cited, but because the Court will have to take into account the 2008 case when it decides on South Carolina’s law.  They can’t uphold the DoJ’s interpretation without relying on Section 5, but overruling the DoJ on this would all but eviscerate that section — and return the states under its aegis to the same voting-rights standards as every other state in the union, even if the Supreme Court doesn’t explicitly end Section 5, which the 2009 case showed they seriously considered doing at the time.

That wouldn’t be a bad outcome for anyone except Holder, Obama, and the radical activists on their staff at the DoJ’s Civil Rights division.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I bet it is only going to worse before Nov. 2012?
L

letget on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM

It is going to get worse. The Obama administration is promoting anarchy.

Jocundus on December 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM

What is Holder’s purpose, or goal, here? Holder is not an idiot, yet this suit seems to be the height of folly.

Is it just a case of Holder’s continued negligence? Did he receive this recommended action from a group of zealots in the Civil Rights Division who have no eye whatsoever for the politics of this move and it’s secondary consequences and take it at face value?

Leaving aside the possibility that Obama told him to do so, does he, in fact, think the reality of his chances are better than general opinion and that it is likely he will win, such that the consequences of a loss, and they are both several and serious, are worth the risk?

A loss would be a serious blow to his reputation on his side. It will not be considered a valiant attempt, but the height of stupidity, stupidly planned. And in doing so, he is forcing Kagan and Sotomayer to either join in slapping him down or show just how far they are willing to go in placing their political interests above the rule of law. If they choose the latter, it would be a calamity posited on Obama’s re-election effort.

That’s just an off-the-cuff and narrow consideration of the question. There are certainly other reasons to explain it. It’s just that they would appear to all be disasters with no significant upside for it. Anyone else got a reasonable explanation? I’d sure like to hear it, ’cause I don’t see one even for the ideologue that is Holder.

Dusty on December 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM

On the off chance that urban elitist shows up here …

peski on December 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM

This would be a good time for Urban Elitist to explain why such prosecution would be racist.

Bishop on December 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Considering the much-deserved, and very fine whupping you and others gave the Elitist in the headline thread, I doubt very much that he/she will be coming back for more whupping anytime soon.

Rod on December 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM

JimLennon on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Hey Jim, I’m a Lake Co. resident too. I have lived in both north and south county, two different worlds. Currently I live in the small south county town where I grew up, and there are corn and bean fields two blocks away. But I spent plenty of time in the north end, lived in Hammond for years, and had friends who lived in EC. Shot some pool around there, sometimes in places I wouldn’t have entered without a local friend.

Folks who insist that voter fraud and corrupt elections aren’t a significant problem live in a dream world. The testimony in any number of political corruption trials arising in Lake County prove differently. I remember one trial where the testimony was to the effect that the “street people” always looked forward to election day, because they got paid based on how many times they voted. I remember a clueless reporter talking to the mayor of Gary about late reporting of election results, and being told that after the polls closed the first thing would be to “see where we stand”, which was a reference to initial tallying to determine how many votes needed to be manufactured to get the desired results. Bob Beckel (!) recently repeated on air his story of calling the Gary mayor to get an update on how many votes he could expect out of Gary, and being asked in return, “How many do you need?”

Of course, those prosecutions only happen when there is a Republican in the Oval Office, and therefore a Republican in the US Attorneys office.

novaculus on December 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM

That is, a law is properly passed by a state legislature, signed by the Governor, and then, eh, the DOJ says “sorry, no can do.”

williampeck1958 on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

.
Only for states where DoJ Preclearance for election law changes is required. These are mostly deep south states, including Virginia, and Alaska, with the exception of North Carolina but for a few jurisdictions.
.
See my comment here for more articles and references: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/12/30/holders-racial-politics/comment-page-2/#comment-1718954
.
This is an overtly racist law in today’s United States.

ExpressoBold on December 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Hueydriver on December 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Those States DID have a history of racism. Of course, the question is whether, after over 40 years of correction, such racism still exists — or whether a voter ID law which allows said IDs to be issued at no cost can be considered the equivalent of a “poll tax”.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act derives, in part, from the 15th Amendment to our Constitution, which has the Federal Government be the ultimate guarantor of voting rights. Hence, section 5, like Reconstruction, is a wholly appropriate remedy for the problems which existed in 1965. In fact, the solution is so appropriate that the Republicans — always the guarantors of black voting rights — were far more in favor than the Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

One can say that “white libertarians” were the reason for the enactment of this law. Now, like a dead jellyfish, the nettles still sting 45 years onward, but to no good effect.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Eric Holder is a racist

J_Crater on December 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

on voters who are poor and old.”

J_Crater on December 30, 2011 at 1:12 PM

they don’t have IDs already???

that doesn’t make ANY sense…

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Hey the president does not even have to show a valid birth certificate and we are surprised that HOLDER says people don’t have to show ID to vote?

Cmon!

TX-96 on December 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Heh. The dissenter in 2009′s 8-1 Northwest Austin decision was Justice Thomas. He wanted to go ahead and find Section 5 unconstitutional instead of waitng for another case to come along.

ex Dem from Miami on December 30, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I was wondering who the holdout was. Thanks for the catch.

iurockhead on December 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Dusty on December 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Don’t look at things in such altruistic terms. As I pointed out in a comment above, Holder knows that Section 5 is, for all intents and purposes — dead law (his objection to a state law is the first in several years), but it will serve the purpose of “firing up the base” who are quite ready to believe that they are the targets of discrimination in this matter, or that they need to contribute more to the Democrats to keep discrimination from returning.

To put it bluntly, this is bald election year pandering.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM

THIS IS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE DEMS ABILITY TO STEAL THE 2012 ELECTION – THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN WIN.

reliapundit on December 30, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Can’t somebody arrest this jerk for something already???

sage0925 on December 30, 2011 at 1:33 PM

This is an overtly racist law in today’s United States.

ExpressoBold on December 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Once upon a time, it wasn’t — it was the response to a real issue in the states it covers (including New Mexico and Alaska).

With years of additions by the Democrats (who have controlled the Senate 32 out of the past 46 years, and who have controlled the House 30 out of the past 46 years), we have something which is nothing like what those who voted for the original 1965 voting act would have imagined.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM

To put it bluntly, this is bald election year pandering.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Sing it loud!

Have any of the GOP presidential candidates been asked about/expressed a call to repeal Section 5? If the SCOTUS doesn’t strike it down, I believe this should be a significant issue in the 2012 elections, particularly congressional elections. Congress last acted on Section 5 in 2006, when they extended it for 25 years. (Which, GOP majority in Congress. WTF?) This legislation has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed.

Syzygy on December 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I think you give Holder and his crew too much credit. Whatever native intelligence they have is seriously handicapped by their defects of character and incompetence as lawyers. Corrupt, racist ideologues just don’t make good lawyers.

novaculus on December 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Once upon a time, it wasn’t — it was the response to a real issue in the states it covers (including New Mexico and Alaska).

.
Today’s South is a far, far different region than it was 46 years ago. Did you read the articles I referenced about changes to voting ballots in Kinston, NC? DoJ insists that minorities need the cue of a political party designation to vote “correctly.” That is blatant favoritism. That is not necessary nor was it ever “fair.”

ExpressoBold on December 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Bishop: prosecuting The New Black Panthers would be challenging because investigators could find no instances of intimidation. And why would black guys go to an all-black housing project if their goal was inti
intimidating white voters?

The Sunday voting thing is about North Carolina. Until Obama narrowly won NC, early voting was allowed on Sundays, and many black churches would get their parishioners to the polls immediacy after services. Another attempt to reduce turnout, it seems. Or just a coincidence? At any rate, the Repuicans lost that one. Early voting has been limited in several other states, each controlled by Republicans.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

So how many in raw numbers are we talking about?

According to the BLS numbers from 2010 there are about 3,061,990 whites and 1,563,374 non-whites in SC.

10% of non-whites would be 160,000 rounding up.
8.4% of whites would be 257,000 rounding down.

Now these are BLS demographics and not Registered voters, but I would assume that voter registrations would shake out along similar lines as the demographics.

So doesn’t the argument hold that this would affect white voters more than non-whites?

weaselyone on December 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

It shouldn’t matter. If South Carolina’s in play, it means the Republicans are totally screwed. (Probably means the Republicans nominated Ron Paul….)

notropis on December 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM

It doesn’t mean SC is in play, it was a shot across the bow for other states. Over at PJM, Christian Adams has been writing about this (predicted it would happen) and he said Texas is next, he also said the states strategy is wrong, they should have gone directly to the courts, have a read,
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2011/12/23/breaking-eric-holder-blocks-sc-voter-id-texas-next/

In fact, there’s an article on how TX AG is blowing the photo ID defense

The DOJ source reports that “if that were really true, then Abbott would have filed in federal court against us after the South Carolina objection. They have no clue what they are doing and the damage they are doing to Texas Voter ID. They think they can win after an objection. Good luck. They have no idea what is about to happen.”

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/28/tx-ag-abbott-is-blowing-voter-id/

Remember what action (hint, none) Holder took to protect Military Ballots overseas in the 2010 Elections? Where is the GOP on this to make sure our military is not disenfranchised? Holder definitely picks and chooses, we are not all equal under his DOJ.

beacon on December 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM

There are a number of government agencies that issue ID cards that anyone can obtain with minimal effort. This is nothing but a “BS” effort by holder to get illegal and unauthorized voters into the voting booths. Don’t fall for his garbage.

rplat on December 30, 2011 at 1:50 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

prosecuting The New Black Panthers would be challenging because investigators could find no instances of intimidation.

BS. As if the para-military uniforms, possession of weapons, and hurling racial insults is not intimidation per se. The blatant intimidation was witnessed and the video is on YouTube. Do you think people are blind? Bartie Bull, a civil rights lawyer and a poll watcher, called it the worst case of voter intimidation he had ever seen, and gave the DOJ an affidavit to that effect.

And why would black guys go to an all-black housing project if their goal was inti
intimidating white voters?

It wasn’t “all-black”. And just how far do you think they would have gotten with that vile behavior anywhere else?

novaculus on December 30, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Who says Holder is not a moron? He exemplifies the Obama administration, just keeps getting worse. What law sewer spawned this guy?

StevC on December 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

prosecuting The New Black Panthers would be challenging because investigators could find no instances of intimidation.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Because Racist Thugs in paramilitary garb and berets, anxiously smacking batons against their legs would intimidate absolutely no-one?

Please…….we’ve all seen the video.

But thanks for playing.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Numchucks? The only person intimidated was some the guy with the video camera, who was clearly there to be a little obnoxious himself. I’m not in favor of this, but it’s not a federal votingrights act violation. I’ve seen the project where this occurred, and I’m pretty it’s virtually all black. But, that’s beside the point because investigators, including those hired during the bush administration, couldn’t produce a single intimidated voter.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

So here we see Holdor picking and choosing which constitutional rights he favors. What a shining beacon of liberty he is! *blech* The bum needs to be impeached and run out of town on a rail. On a side note: Minnesota needs a law like SC’s. If we’d had one several years ago, Norm Coleman would be a senator, and Tom Emmer would be governor. I’m looking at you, Mark Richtie, you dirtbag! :)

Othniel on December 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

LMAO – put a (gasp) white face under the beret, a white body under the paramilitary uniform, and a (super-gasp) white hand on the billy-club.

Does that help? Your vapidity never ceases to amaze.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I wonder if Obama’s mom would have been intimidated. In a precinct, in a housing project, it’s likely that these were known to the voters. Also, it would be unsurprising if these guys had decided to “protect” the locals from meddling outsiders out to suppress the black vote. Theres paranoia in black neighborhoods, too. You think illegal Mexicans are stealing elections, black people think that conservative whites are trying to suppress their turnout.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

What kind of dummies do you think occupy these threads? Maybe you can fool your moronic friends by making sh!t up as you go, but that sure as hell ain’t gonna fly around here.

The Justice Department was well on its way to winning a default judgement against all of the defendants in this case when the racist Eric Holder disappeared it.

NotCoach on December 30, 2011 at 2:10 PM

To put it bluntly, this is bald election year pandering.

[unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM]

Okay, sure, it’s a short term goal purely to gin up campaign contributions for Obama and his cohort that they, in turn, use to enrich their cronies and hangers-on at the expense of the their rank and file. I can see that. And Holder, Obama, and the rest will be gone from the scene long after the consequences of the striking down of Section 5 is shown to not discriminate against them.

It still leaves Sotomayer and Kagan up the creek without a paddle with the worst case being the two fire up most of the rest of the voters to oppose letting Obama have the opportunity to nominate any more Justices.

Dusty on December 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

You must be crr6′s replacement.
The NBP case was prosecuted and a default judgment was in the process of being rendered during the outgoing Bush administration. The cute little black panther group failed to respond to the initial claim and put up a defense thus the default judgment. One of the defendants in the case—Malik Shabazz had been to the white house prior to Holder’s decision. Do facts ever concern you?

arnold ziffel on December 30, 2011 at 2:13 PM

We do have a couple of groups of menacing looking black men who stand on the street corners talking about whitey. The second time you pass by, you barely notice them except for the noise. But again:no victim. No crime. If the DOJ, Fox and Breitbart together couldn’t find an intimidated voter, there weren’t any. But it does make a nice scary video to watch and convince yourself that Obama supports a race war.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM

You think illegal Mexicans are stealing elections, black people think that conservative whites are trying to suppress their turnout.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Illegals don’t vote. Whether there is a voter ID law or not, a name has to exist on the voter rolls. And that name has to be attached to a legal citizen.

I think illegals are draining our tax dollars and artificially skewing representation since they are counted in the census. I don’t think they are helping to perpetuate voter fraud.

You need to take some advanced liberal trolling classes. Your schtick is severely lacking.

NotCoach on December 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM

We do have a couple of groups of menacing looking black men who stand on the street corners talking about whitey. The second time you pass by, you barely notice them except for the noise. But again:no victim. No crime. If the DOJ, Fox and Breitbart together couldn’t find an intimidated voter, there weren’t any. But it does make a nice scary video to watch and convince yourself that Obama supports a race war.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I’ve given that a lot of thought. It was most likely an all black neighborhood, so who were they trying to intimidate? Obama freely took over 90% of the vote so it doesn’t seem necessary. However, there were black panther candidates running locally. What if they weren’t there to suppress the white vote but instead to police the black vote and make a threat to anyone who might consider not voting for the black panthers.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:20 PM

But it does make a nice scary video to watch and convince yourself that Obama supports a race war.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Uh-huh.

$15 Trillion in debt
Record Unemployment
The economy in a full-blown meltdown
A President that’s played more golf in 3 years than most play in a lifetime…..

…and in your mind – we’re trying to convince ourselves about some sort of race war?

You really need a new Messiah buddy…..this one’s turned you into a nutcase.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

LMAO – put a (gasp) white face under the beret, a white body under the paramilitary uniform, and a (super-gasp) white hand on the billy-club.

Does that help? Your vapidity never ceases to amaze.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

You need to take some advanced liberal trolling classes. Your schtick is severely lacking.

NotCoach on December 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Yeah, like most urban elitists, he’s a lying sack. Don’t see much point in further engagement.

peski on December 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Possible. I wish my son were available, he knows city politics well and would know better how organized the “Panthers” are or if this was just a gang of freelancers trying to impress people on election day.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:25 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

.
Everything you state in this comment is an utter lie. A fabrication. It is worthless to even engage you.

ExpressoBold on December 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM

My read …

Chief Justice Roberts has signaled that “unconstitutional as applied” rulings are in Section 5′s future.

If the description in the article is accurate – the requirements of South Carolina are the same as those found constitutional in Indiana – then I think this case will force the issue … the Court would have to hold the authority under Section 5 is being improperly, i.e., unconstitutionally, exercised.

Given how politicized this Justice Department is, it’s wise to look for the political angle …

* gives them something to crow about to their base – “we’re standing in the breach against that screw ball SC governor & all those racist Republicans, blah blah blah …” And, of course, to raise money.

* plays into what we know will be the general election theme … smear all Republicans, including the nominee.

* the lower courts are obliged to follow Supreme Court precedent. If the laws are, for all intents and purposes, identical, then this exercise of Section 5 should be struck down … wonder what the timeline is? How likely is it that such an order would come down in the weeks prior to the election, just when it would be most helpful to “rile up the base”?

BD57 on December 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I’ve given that a lot of thought. It was most likely an all black neighborhood, so who were they trying to intimidate? Obama freely took over 90% of the vote so it doesn’t seem necessary. However, there were black panther candidates running locally. What if they weren’t there to suppress the white vote but instead to police the black vote and make a threat to anyone who might consider not voting for the black panthers.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Tipical racist Lib-tard argument – so I guess that absolutely NO-ONE in that district is “other than black” correct my racist pal -and everyone just loves “black” thugs with billy-clubs…cuz hey we’re all “black”?

And in your little world it JUST MUST BE OK for people in klansman garb to police “white” neighborhoods…..cuz hey they’re all “white”

I’m so tired of weak minds and weak arguments on this issue.

Urbanelitest is the king of both.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I think you give Holder and his crew too much credit. Whatever native intelligence they have is seriously handicapped by their defects of character and incompetence as lawyers. Corrupt, racist ideologues just don’t make good lawyers.

[novaculus on December 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM]

But unclesmrgol is saying that Holder is wearing his politician hat for this, not his attorney hat. Reason isn’t the only way to fire up supporters; appealing to emotion is often just as effective.

Dusty on December 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Let me get this straight. You’re denying that there are majority black neighborhoods, or you object to hearing that there is?

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM

I’d say that SC’s white voters are numerically far more disenfranchised by not having voter ID laws. Let’s review the numbers:
Total SC Population (2010) 4,625,364
Percent white – 67.4% = 3,117,495
Percent “nonwhite” – 31.8% = 1,470,866

Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

8.4% of white demographic = 261,869 potential voters
10% of nonwhite demographic = 147,086 potential voters

The numbers say that white voters in SC are 56% more disenfranchised by lack of voter ID laws than are nonwhite voters in SC.

Clearly, the numbers are racist.

Harbingeing on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Let me get this straight. You’re denying that there are majority black neighborhoods, or you object to hearing that there is?

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM

um…troll…please for all of us….quote where I said that.

Thanks for playing.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Tipical racist Lib-tard argument – so I guess that absolutely NO-ONE in that district is “other than black” correct my racist pal -and everyone just loves “black” thugs with billy-clubs…cuz hey we’re all “black”?

And in your little world it JUST MUST BE OK for people in klansman garb to police “white” neighborhoods…..cuz hey they’re all “white”

I’m so tired of weak minds and weak arguments on this issue.

Urbanelitest is the king of both.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I really didn’t think much of this case either. You have some black guys outside a polling place in a black neighborhood. What are they doing forcing black people to vote Democrat? I considered it a nothingburger, but then I read that black panthers held some local seats, and I realized that it probably was indeed voter intimidation, but not in the way I had expected.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I live in Georgia, (also subject to Section 5 of Voting Rights Act) which has had Voter ID in place since 2008; our law has been upheld several times by higher courts, but was still challenged AGAIN by Holder after Obama was “immaculated.”

Holder’s challenge bounced the GA law to the Supreme Court, (I believe in 2009), WHO REFUSED THE CASE.

SC’s voter ID law should NOT be challenged on Sec 5 grounds, and Holder knows it.

Similar to the NLRB action, this is another “Rob & Delay” attempt by this manically power-driven Administration to rob ‘enemy’ states tax $ to defend reasonable laws, and to keep them in court for years so they don’t get implemented.

THIS HAS TO STOP; WE MUST WIN 2012 OR OUR COUNTRY IS TOAST.

CatyMac on December 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Dusty on December 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I’m not saying he isn’t motivated by political considerations. That is the corrupt part. I’m saying he and his crew are too incompetent and functionally moronic to realize they are giving their opponents a good case on the facts to litigate and effectively gut Section 5.

novaculus on December 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM

um…troll…please for all of us….quote where I said that.

Thanks for playing.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM

so I guess that absolutely NO-ONE in that district is “other than black”
Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

The point you were making wasn’t very clear, so yeah that’s about the best I could do with what you wrote.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:39 PM

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Again…..Please provide a quote from me essentially saying:

You’re denying that there are majority black neighborhoods, or you object to hearing that there is?

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM

or stfu and stop wasting my time.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:39 PM

The point you were making wasn’t very clear, so yeah that’s about the best I could do with what you wrote.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:39 PM

It’s perfectly clear…..you just don’t want to hear it.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Just sitting on my couch, but is that the proper chain of events when a state passes a law ? That is, a law is properly passed by a state legislature, signed by the Governor, and then, eh, the DOJ says “sorry, no can do.”

williampeck1958 on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I believe that just started with this administration.

silvernana on December 30, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Holder is dumb like a fox. If you haven’t already done so, check out Beacon’s links at 1:45 PM.

IrishEi on December 30, 2011 at 2:48 PM

So, explain to me how a video featuring 2 cartoon characters in one precinct, who committed no crime became a national news story, three times, if there was not systematic attempt by sections of the conservative media to implicitly, and often explicitely, link Obama with anti-white policies and attitudes?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM

So, explain to me how a video featuring 2 cartoon characters in one precinct, who committed no crime became a national news story, three times, if there was not systematic attempt by sections of the conservative media to implicitly, and often explicitely, link Obama with anti-white policies and attitudes?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM

1. These “cartoon characters” had billy-clubs.

2. Conservative media FFS….LMAO – probably the weakest strawman ever to leave your keyboard.

LMFAO

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:54 PM

It’s perfectly clear…..you just don’t want to hear it.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Really? This is a clear and understandable paragraph?

Tipical racist Lib-tard argument – so I guess that absolutely NO-ONE in that district is “other than black” correct my racist pal -and everyone just loves “black” thugs with billy-clubs…cuz hey we’re all “black”?

And in your little world it JUST MUST BE OK for people in klansman garb to police “white” neighborhoods…..cuz hey they’re all “white”

I’m so tired of weak minds and weak arguments on this issue.

Urbanelitest is the king of both.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

None of us here are professional writers, so I usually don’t complain, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, so yeah we’re done.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM

None of us here are professional writers, so I usually don’t complain, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, so yeah we’re done.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Consider stopping by the local high school….many offer adult reading comprehension classes for little or no charge.

Good Luck!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

THIS HAS TO STOP; WE MUST WIN 2012 OR OUR COUNTRY IS TOAST.

CatyMac on December 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Can you envision the “downtrodden” plundering the galley while the Titanic was sinking? Now envision the ship’s officers and possibly the Captain leading the pilferage instead of saving the ship.

That’s where we are.

Some will always be seeking a bigger mouthful at the public trough, regardless of the future of the trough.

rwenger43 on December 30, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Really? Fox, rush, the WSJ, talk radio generally, all those blogs? I thinks it’s hard to argue that conservatives don’t have a strong media presence.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

On the off chance that urban elitist shows up here …

peski on December 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM

This would be a good time for Urban Elitist to explain why such prosecution would be racist.

Bishop on December 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Considering the much-deserved, and very fine whupping you and others gave the Elitist in the headline thread, I doubt very much that he/she will be coming back for more whupping anytime soon.

Rod on December 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM

I had to go out for a couple of hours so missed all the final carnage on that thread. Well done to all.

BTW I added a final coup-de-grace to the Noob in said thread. Sorry it came out looking crappy but I couldn’t preview it before I posted it (pesky Headline thread, y’know?)

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 3:08 PM

DFCtomm:

Tim was assuming that you would find a hypothetical case of the KKK policing mostly-white voting precincts to be outrageous and offensive.

You are studiously avoiding agreeing with him, so maybe he’s wrong to assume that about you.

rwenger43 on December 30, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Really? Fox, rush, the WSJ, talk radio generally, all those blogs? I thinks it’s hard to argue that conservatives don’t have a strong media presence.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Compared to Democrat Outlets ABC, C-BS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the NY Times, the LA Times, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, their media presence is relatively tiny.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Really? Fox, rush, the WSJ, talk radio generally, all those blogs? I thinks it’s hard to argue that conservatives don’t have a strong media presence.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Please google “new black panthers intimidate white voters”

Let’s look at some of the sources for the top “hits”

WaPo
LA Times
Daily Beast
Wikipedia
The View
ABC

All notorious “right-wing” sources correct?

You are one-big-fifty-five-gallon-drum of FAIL today.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

All I know is that various random conservatives have been accused of MUCH more nefarious actions and intentions on MUCH less indication of untoward behavior.

If they want their Black Panthers so badly, they can have them back and let them wave their batons at whomever they please, on the condition that they stop going around saying Sarah Palin told Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Rep. Giffords.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 3:15 PM

rwenger43 on December 30, 2011 at 3:08 PM

We’ll thanks for the translation, but I’ve said my part, and I’m done with it.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM

I’ve seen the project where this occurred, and I’m pretty it’s virtually all black. But, that’s beside the point because investigators, including those hired during the bush administration, couldn’t produce a single intimidated voter.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I bet you don’t even think it’s possible that the (potentially) intimidated voters know just how they’d be treated by those in their own neighborhood after they were outed as witnesses against the black panther party.

I bet you think the panthers would just shrug it off and do the jailtime with happy smiling faces.

I bet you haven’t spent 5 minutes in such a neighborhood and have no idea how things work in the real world.

Until you do, you will always be a leftist. Such a waste.

runawayyyy on December 30, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Really? Fox, rush, the WSJ, talk radio generally, all those blogs? I thinks it’s hard to argue that conservatives don’t have a strong media presence.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Your evidence for a strong media presence is one cable news station, one national newspaper, an 80-year-old form of media, and the nebulous tag of “all those blogs”? It seems you’re having a harder time arguing that they DO have a strong presence.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 3:19 PM

I bet you don’t even think it’s possible that the (potentially) intimidated voters know just how they’d be treated by those in their own neighborhood after they were outed as witnesses against the black panther party.

runawayyyy on December 30, 2011 at 3:18 PM

And hey, don’t forget all those domestic abuse calls in which there was no intimidation since the wife didn’t report her husband or press any charges.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Urban, why are you studiously avoiding the KKK comparison? Let’s compare apples to apples, except it’s white boys doing exactly the same thing, and in a majority white area (in the south, an area covered similarly by section 5).

Is it worse? Is it the same? Why are you giving a pass to the black guys who did it but not the white guys potentially doing the same thing (and let’s face it, you wouldn’t).

Your view of the entire fiasco is racist and bigoted. And you either don’t recognize this ugliness in you or you don’t care that it’s there.

Oh, and my previous comment applies as well. The KKK would have been just as intimidating to any potential witnesses, white or black, during their (long past) heyday.

In both cases, it is blatant racism. You only see it in one of them. Bigot.

runawayyyy on December 30, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Your evidence for a strong media presence is one cable news station, one national newspaper, an 80-year-old form of media, and the nebulous tag of “all those blogs”? It seems you’re having a harder time arguing that they DO have a strong presence.

The Schaef on December 30, 2011 at 3:19 PM

It’s half a newspaper. Outside of their editorials the WSJ is just as left as your average ivy league hedge fund manager.

DFCtomm on December 30, 2011 at 3:25 PM

runawayyyy on December 30, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Perfect.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM

runawayyyy on December 30, 2011 at 3:24 PM

He already implicitly admitted he thinks minorities are too dumb to obtain a photo ID.

NotCoach on December 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.

xler8bmw on December 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.

xler8bmw on December 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

This law also only applies to select states. I think a literacy test in any state today would be considered unconstitutional. So it seems to me this law has pretty much no value in today’s world.

NotCoach on December 30, 2011 at 3:33 PM

I had to go out for a couple of hours so missed all the final carnage on that thread. Well done to all.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Yes, well done.

However, I was wrong. The Elitist is back for more.

I had forgotten that some trolls, in addition to being masochists, also see themselves as liberal evangelists and we conservatives as unenlightened primitives in need of salvation.

Rather than being like most trolls (who, for the most part, are ignorant fools looking to inflate their ego and bring a bit of perverse excitement to their otherwise dull and worthless lives) I suspect that the Elitist is one these self-appointed saviors.

In any case, and speaking as a reformed liberal for 35 years, I can testify that they, these group-think, mindless sheep, have it backwards: they are the ones in need of saving from the cult of liberalism.

Rod on December 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I’ve never lived in the projects but I have spent much of my adult like living in neighborhoods where I was in the distinct minority, and dealt almost daily with some surprisingly polite buy pretty menacing — before you got to know them — urban youths. And I spent three months on a political who base was the inner city, going to places like North Philly and Jamaica, Queens every day. So, do have a pretty good idea how these neighborhoods work.

I actually think the KKK might be more menacing to white people, than these guys to blacks, because the whole pretense of serving the black community embraced by the panthers and he fact that the Klan has had a longer and much more violent record (and offerd a few urban elitists in their prime).Again, though, legally you have to actually intimidate a voter to be charged with voter intimidation. Just getting in costume and ranting doesn’t rise to the level of a federal production.

Finally, I’m not saying that the consevativr media is as powerful as the all-powerful and utterly corrupt and communist MSM, just that it has significant influence on the political and the subjects coveted by other outlets, as well. When Breitbart — not to mention Fox — breaks a big story, NBC and the Times cover it, too.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Just tying up a few loose ends while otherwise bored. Cheers.

I was a little surprised at how an offhand comment about the media got the sander up

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM

When Breitbart — not to mention Fox — breaks a big story, NBC and the Times cover it, too.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Some credible and multi-sourced examples would be nice.

Let’s take a look at Holder’s Fast and Furious program.

Last month, Breitbart reported on a F & F Friday Afternoon Document Dump. 1,000 pages on how DOJ lied about what they were telling people. I’ll let Breitbart’s Mary Chastain tell the rest:

The Associated Press broke the story at 6:16PM EST. Since then, Old Media has been slow reporting. I would usually give them a day, but I decided to check them out tonight. SHOCKER: The majority posted the AP story–NOT A SHOCKER: The majority buried it.

Before I start I need to give credit to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News. Once again she shows what we need in the Old Media: She didn’t just copy and paste the AP article. She actually wrote an original piece on it. Thank you so much Mrs. Attkisson. (I also prefer her piece over the AP’s article.)

It’s honestly sad I am not shocked The New York Times didn’t have it anywhere on their website. I searched “Justice Department” and “Eric Holder” and there were no results for the document dump. Not one single word. [Update: New York Times published a piece on this Friday night around 9:30 pm EST several hours after this post published.]

The other media outlets (ABC, NBC, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Huffington Post) did copy and paste the AP story, but there is one major problem: you have to search for the story. It’s not on the front page. I couldn’t find it under US, National, Politics sections. Instead I went to the search box and punched in “Justice Department” and the first hit was the AP article.

I also need to note AP got an important fact wrong. Brian Terry was NOT a customs agent. He was a Border Patrol Agent.

http://bigjournalism.com/mchastain/2011/12/03/msm-ignores-obama-admins-fast-and-furious-friday-afternoon-docu-dump/

Need another Shovel? You really should have one for each hand.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Fast and Furious is potential wrongdoing by DOJ. However, voting rights is something there is a statute for so it is not unreasonable for Holder to use it against voter-ID. Nobody said that the government was always nice, rational, and resonable.

It would fall into the progressive paradigm that voter ID in southern states is inherently race based with the intent to deny minorities the vote.

It may be time for the Supreme Court to put paid to the PRESUMPTION and require the DOJ to show that the State law as it was applied was in violation. It would be easier to show that minority voting was supressed through procedures for issuing IDs than for a state to show that there was none (i.e. can’t prove a negative). This is especially true when it is presumed that the motivation was to supress minority voting (and just because there is no evidence of it just shows that the state is real good at hiding stuff).

Russ808 on December 30, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Again, though, legally you have to actually intimidate a voter to be charged with voter intimidation. Just getting in costume and ranting doesn’t rise to the level of a federal production.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM

And again rocks-for-brains they had Weapons. Let me stand over you with a billy-club and “explain” to you how this can be intimidating. Particularly when I’m in uniform and claiming to be “Security”. Uniforms and weapons are MEANT to intimidate….notice they weren’t wearing clown costumes and making balloon animals.

Why do you avoid this very obvious point?

Honestly….a sack of hair has more common sense than this.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I said influence, not determine . Yeah, nobody’s buying Fast an Furios but there are plenty of other Acorn, the need to kill entitlement programs, out Philadelphia friends, Common at the White House…

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM

One guy had a billy club. And, let me say this slow: federal agents and the media and a congressional committee that held hearings failed to find intimidation. Apparent two guys on a video scare you. But you were not trying to vote. Therefore, your apparent alarm(and eagerness to make a wooden stick sound as lethal as a glock) are not relevant. I’m saying these are good people. I’m just saying that they’re not as scary as you think and that the goverment, for better or for worse, had no case.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Therefore, your apparent alarm(and eagerness to make a wooden stick sound as lethal as a glock) are not relevant. I’m saying these are good people. I’m just saying that they’re not as scary as you think and that the goverment, for better or for worse, had no case.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 4:05 PM

LMFAO – Come on by lib-tard…..I’ll show you EXACTLY how “lethal” a “wooden stick” (i.e. a police baton designed specifically for stopping you cold) can be. I’m pretty good with one.

As far as alarm? As far as Scary?

I’m betting you’ve never even been in a tustle…let alone a life-threatening sitch….so we’ll let this one pass

As far as no case?

That’s a lie and you know it……this one was sewn-up before your racist hero of an AG dropped it….but please continue to live in fantasy land.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Yeah, nobody’s buying Fast an Furios

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM

“nobody’s buying” is just Left-Speak for “the Democrat Media is covering up the story”.

If F & F had taken place during a Republican Administration, you and I both know it would be front page news everywhere.

2 months ago, a subpoena from the House was issued to the entire top tier of the Obama Administration regarding F & F. As a blogger noted at that time:

As evidence, ladies and gentlemen of the jury of history, I present the undisputed fact that on the evening news shows of NBC, ABC and CBS this week not one — NOT ONE — mentioned the unprecedented subpoena by a Congressional committee of information regarding the entire top echelon of the Justice Department in the Gunwalker Scandal.

Had this scandal involved John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration, does anyone doubt that the story would have led the nightly half-hour “puppet theater”? Or, that it wouldn’t have been covered like a blanket by all news departments from the moment the blood of Brian Terry dried in the desert sands of Rio Rico?

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Let’s face it, Holder has a racial chip on his shoulder. As for his “Department of Justice” – that’s only if you’re “a person of color”. You’re white and have a problem with discrimination – go find someone who cares.

GarandFan on December 30, 2011 at 4:16 PM

They can’t uphold the DoJ’s interpretation without relying on Section 5, but overruling the DoJ on this would all but eviscerate that section — and return the states under its aegis to the same voting-rights standards as every other state in the union…

Sounds… perfect? Logical?

Midas on December 30, 2011 at 4:16 PM

urban elitist

crr6tard returns?

Midas on December 30, 2011 at 4:19 PM

One guy had a billy club. And, let me say this because I’m slow: federal agents and the media and a congressional committee that held hearings failed to find intimidation.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Not one of those three (media especially) could ‘find intimidation’ if they tripped over it…because doing so would incriminate a black-superiority organization.

If they’d been white nationalists, it wouldn’t have taken them five minutes to ‘find intimidation’.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 4:05 PM

And O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder.

You have no point. It is not incumbent upon the government to provide victims for cases like these. It is only necessary to demonstrate that a hostile environment for voting had been created. And these douche-nozzles were also well on their way to being convicted. Yet Holder pulled the plug.

BTW, why do you think minorities are too stupid to obtain photo IDs? Do you think they are born inferior?

NotCoach on December 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM

“Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits, another right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, for which all of these same fees would apply in South Carolina.”

Going to work? you provide ID, Criminal Background check, Drug screening to employers, consulting companies, Job shops. Once you get hired you must wear your ID inside most plants, Speeding ? License and registration. Flying? provide photo ID So are all of these ID checks racist also? Holder is a disgrace to the office of AG.

MSM why bother? Haven’t listened or turned them on for years, I can make my own informed decisions without the Lies so blatantly used by MSM. I suggest maybe they combine shows NBC Nightly News and some Reality shows, How about NBC Nightly News/The Biggest Loser seems they are made for each other. LOL !!!!

stormridercx4 on December 30, 2011 at 4:21 PM

what else do you expect, how one earth would they ever re-elect O, without massive vote fraud (i.e. vote by non-existent, dead or illegal people)…

jimver on December 30, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Midas on December 30, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Just as thick….but this one phrases differently.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 4:24 PM

If Republicans drooping subpoenas like confetti on Democrats is the best you”ve got, you got nuthin. Dog, man.

So, wait. The guy who threw one of the most famous black ministers in the country under the bus is so racist that he’ll risk a million swing state white votes to cover up for a couple if thugs. Never happen.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Just as thick….but this one phrases differently.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Yeah, I’m noticing that – entire words missing, incorrect spelling, incomplete sentences, etc. crr6 at least had *that* going for him/her.

Midas on December 30, 2011 at 4:27 PM

In a letter to South Carolina’s government, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez called the state law—which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo ID at the polls—a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec/96vr?countykey=ALL&D1=RACE

According to the above link, there are 1,881,233 white and 820,610 non-white registered voters in South Carolina. If 8.4% of the white voters and 10% of non-white voters lack photo ID, that comes out to about 158,000 white voters and 82,000 non-white voters without photo ID.

Assuming 100% turnout, if voters without photo ID were not allowed to vote, the South Carolina law would disenfranchise 76,000 more white people than non-white people.

Gee–Attorney General Holder is fighting a law that discriminates against white people–who’d a thunk it?

Steve Z on December 30, 2011 at 4:29 PM

So, wait. The guy who threw one of the most famous black ministers in the country under the bus is so racist that he’ll risk a million swing state white votes to cover up for a couple if thugs. Never happen.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM

No one here has accused Obama of being brilliant.

Midas on December 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Gee–Attorney General Holder is fighting a law that discriminates against white people–who’d a thunk it?

Steve Z on December 30, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Gee – maybe he’s worried it’ll disenfranchise more of the dead and fake voters planning to vote for Obama than it will the white folks?

Midas on December 30, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Let’s face it, Holder has a racial chip on his shoulder.
GarandFan on December 30, 2011 at 4:16 PM

And that might be the least of what we should be concerned about. He’s probably been told to go after that other 2% of the vote knowing the statistical probability of how it would be cast. With his ‘approval rating’ so high, what does he have to lose?

I’m more concerned that he is either a puppet or his patriotism should be called into question. His KSM trial-in-NY venture, the fact that his law firm defended Gitmo detainees, and trying to get people to believe that Fast & Furious was just another email that wasn’t important enough to be read is appalling to any red, white, and blue patriot. Combine that with the fact he never offered Mexico an apology, and didn’t even offer the Terry family a half-hearted apology (until his handlers told him to) and he is the quintessential embarrassment to the office.

Why he doesn’t step down is beyond me. I can only hope his actions adequately reflect on BHO’s campaign when people think what we could end up with for four more years.

VietVet_Dave on December 30, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Why he doesn’t step down is beyond me. I can only hope his actions adequately reflect on BHO’s campaign when people think what we could end up with for four more years.

VietVet_Dave on December 30, 2011 at 4:47 PM

The only thing I can figure is that he and li’l bammie are hoping this gets lost in the “noise” surrounding the ’12 elections.

A stupid strategy, but a strategy nonetheless.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4