The DOJ/Obama war against the states
The Southern states, that is. Or any other state that has the temerity to tighten up its own voting regulations in ways that would appear to make perfect sense.
A mere month ago, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that Obama and the DOJ didn’t like when the Court struck down the part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was used to identify which states were covered by that law. The president, Holder, and other Democrats have already voiced their dissatisfaction with that ruling, and now we have the administration’s tactical response:
:
In the coming weeks, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to announce that the Justice Department is using other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits or take other legal action to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present certain kinds of identification in order to vote. The department is also expected to try to force certain states to get approval, or “pre-clearance,” before they can change their election laws.
[NOTE: Cross-posted at Legal Insurrection.]
“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary,” Holder said in a speech Thursday morning in Philadelphia. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.”
There’s this action by the DOJ as well, directed for the moment at Texas but almost certainly, if successful, to be aimed at other states trying to implement similar rules (and maybe even if not successful, in order to harass them anyway and rev up the liberal/left base):
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Thursday that the Justice Department would ask a court to require Texas to get permission from the federal government before making voting changes in that state for the next decade. The move opens a new chapter in the political struggle over election rules after the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act last month…
In a statement, Gov. Rick Perry cast Mr. Holder’s remarks as an attempt by the Obama administration to weaken what he called the state’s voter-integrity laws and said the comments demonstrated the administration’s “utter contempt for our country’s system of checks and balances.”
“This end run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state’s common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process,” Mr. Perry said.
Well, of course. Did anyone really think Obama and Holder would merely swallow the will of the Supreme Court, when they could get creative?
Will Obama/Holder win this battle? Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has his doubts:
Holder’s problem here, though, is that it’s the pre-clearance criteria in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down as irrational and outdated. The court left Section 5 in place, which has the enforcement mechanisms for the DoJ to use if Congress provides a rational formula for singling out states and other jurisdictions for the intrusive level of scrutiny pre-clearance imposes. However, with Section 4 invalidated, the DoJ literally has no jurisdiction at all to use Section 5 any longer anywhere, not until Congress provides it.
What Holder proposes to do is to tell Texas to get DoJ approval for its voting (and redistricting) laws before putting them in force, right after the Supreme Court told Texas and the other Section 4 states that they don’t need to do so. Holder can file a lawsuit to attempt to force compliance, but that’s just bluster. Texas isn’t going to comply, and it’s doubtful a federal court would do anything but laugh at the filing after the ruling last month. The DoJ has no more jurisdiction to tell Texas to get pre-approval for laws passed under its own sovereignty. This is grandstanding on a particularly demagogic scale.
Holder’s statement is nonsense on another level, too. The DoJ can enforce anti-discrimination laws under the Voting Rights Act, especially under Section 2 ”” but just like with the parts of the US that didn’t fall under Section 4 the last 50 years, the DoJ has to wait until actual discrimination takes place. That shifts the burden of proof to the DoJ to prove guilt, where it belongs, instead of onto the handful of jurisdictions to prove themselves innocent of discrimination before a law even gets applied.
Make no mistake about it, this is no side issue. It is one of the most important elements of the Obama administration’s agenda, because it affects future voting, and winning the battle would not only help the Democratic Party, but would represent an expansion of the power of the federal government to place a heavy hand on states whose actions it doesn’t like—and/or to get around SCOTUS rulings it doesn’t like.
[NOTE: Cross-posted at Legal Insurrection.]
“What Holder proposes to do is to tell Texas to get DoJ approval for its voting (and redistricting) laws before putting them in force, right after the Supreme Court told Texas and the other Section 4 states that they don’t need to do so.”
Back in the day, I think this would have resulted in what is known as a “Constitutional Crisis”. But now with a compliant Congress, what crisis can exist with an Executive branch that essentially does whatever it wants?
Obama is essentially mimicking Pres. Jackson’s response to the 1832 Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
If the Sheriff is a crook, the town fathers will do nothing and half the townspeople are complicit, then there is no legal mechanism for redress of grievance and we have in effect been made into indentured servants.
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, it appears it is up to individual states and their governors to fight this sort of thing.
Note, also, that if (heaven forbid) Obama gets to appoint a successor to a single conservative SCOTUS justice (or even swing justice Kennedy) it’s all over in the Supreme Court, because the liberals would have a majority.
neo, I remember you pointing out that danger before the 2012 election. If I recall correctly, it may have been your primary reason for encouraging everyone to coalesce around Romney, once he had the nomination sewed up. That is the single thing that might persuade me to vote for a Republican nominee in 2016.
I am uncertain what legal mechanism the state Governors might use to fight this sort of thing.
Pivoting away from jobs to racial politics in one day. Well, he did give a speech, so that is pretty much all he knows to do about jobs.
Geoffrey Britain:
Indeed. I have never understand conservatives who discount this factor. SCOTUS justices tend to be seated for a long, long, time, and each nomination can have an enormous effect. I believe it is almost suicidally irresponsible for conservatives to ignore this when voting, because of anger at the Republican “establishment” and RINOs.
Let me help you understand neo. I too felt your way, until the abomination of ‘Comprehensive Amnesty’ arose. If that passes, it is literally the death knell for conservative America.
At that point, it’s basically over as the proverbial fat lady will have begun her song with the final countdown to the tyranny of a highly regulated socialist state in view because we will have, with 11-33 million ‘undocumented democrats’, the unavoidable beginning of one-party political rule in the US. And based on what I see, it’s at best, 50/50 whether Boehner is going to covertly cooperate with or actually resist amnesty.
If it passes, then IMO those who have claimed that there is essentially no difference between the two parties will have been proven right. In which case, our choice is between the quick death offered by the dems or the slow, agonized death offered by the repubs.
It won’t matter then whether SCOTUS is fully or only ‘partially’ in the tank because the game will now be essentially rigged, a case of heads we win, tails you lose. Robert’s vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare’s individual mandate forcing the purchase of insurance or being fined is a perfect example of what I mean.
If you’re inescapably headed for the gallows, does it really matter whether it’s tomorrow or next week?
But that alone is not the whole of the matter. When the entire house of cards collapses, Republican compliance has set the stage for bi-partisan responsibility for the coming debacle. How can conservatives make a credible argument against the policies of the left, to critically important low-information voters, when the left can claim that “Bush (i.e. the republicans) did it too”?
Only if conservatives offering an answer to America’s decline can provably state that they bear no responsibility for the mess, will the public view the change they offer, as worthy of consideration.
And it was the immigration bill that passed the senate with the Republican’s help, that caused me to revoke my GOP status last month. As Zell Miller said of the Democrats, the Republicans have left me, I haven’t left the Republicans.
Don’t forget that a vote for a RINO like McCain or Romney is a vote for bipartisanship. And we know that bipartisanship means capitulating not reciprocity.
Democrats didn’t leave Zell behind. They kicked him out because he was a dangerous influence on their members.
John Roberts’ decision in the Obamacare case pretty much put paid to the idea that it’s important to have Republican Supreme Court nominees.
We need a true opposition party, and the Republicans ain’t it. Right now what we have are two pro-big government parties.
I’ve repeated this ad nauseam, but the Republican Party has become like the “conservative” or “right” parties in Europe. They never seriously challenge the status quo, and merely argue that they can administer the welfare state better than their opponents. I don’t hear England’s Tories advocating the privatisation of the National Health Service, or restoring the right of people to possess firearms. All they want is a seat at the table of power.
These politicians are not going to give up their power voluntarily. Both Ds and Rs regard genuine small-government conservatives as the enemy.
And let’s not forget the infamous Kelo decision, which occurred before Obama nominated anyone. By my count at Wikipedia, seven of the nine justices at the time were nominated by Republican presidents.
rickl:
Your argument makes no sense.
First of all, Roberts had decided quite a few cases perfectly fine before that; that one was an anomaly for him, although a highly crucial one.
Second of all, because every now and then a Republican nominee turns out to be less conservative than hoped or planned (such as, if I recall correctly, Earl Warren), it has nothing to do with whether in general getting Republican nominees is extremely important. It is.
Really, are you kidding me? Do you really think that Scalia, Thomas, etc. are not the result of Republicans nominating them? And do you really think that, without Republicans nominating those people, there would be anything but liberals on the Court?
Sotomayor and Kagan, and the rest of the liberals, would not be on the Court today if there had been a Republican president at the time they were appointed. And the entire tenor of the Court would be far more conservative, Roberts or no Roberts.
Anybody who believes we can get past race and live in a color-blind society is delusional. They (Obama, Holder, et al) haven’t even begun to exact the payback they are intent upon exacting.
“…………it’s doubtful a federal court would do anything but laugh at the filing after the ruling last month.”
They’re already Judge shopping in Texas.
Neo: No, I’m not kidding.
“Highly crucial” is putting it mildly. He had the chance to largely strike down Obamacare. That he didn’t essentially negates every other decision he has made. This is the one he’ll be remembered for, and not kindly.
No. “Far more conservative” is wishful thinking. All the recent historical evidence indicates that a court made up of Republican nominees would be moderate at best, and liable to go either way in a given decision.
The Republican Party had better get their act together right quick, or I predict they will lose the House in 2014. After which this discussion will be moot, as we will be living in a permanent one-party state.
rickl:
You are incorrect.
Look at the Republican nominees on the Court right now: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy. The rest: Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, are Democratic nominees.
The Democrats never waver (or virtually never waver) from the extreme liberal party line. If there were nine of them like that (Democratic nominees), the Court would be FAR more liberal than it is now. Far.
Three of the five Republican nominees are reliably and consistently quite or even very conservative. The other two, Roberts and Kennedy, are mostly conservative (Roberts, at least till recently) and a swing justice who’s conservative in about half his decisions. If all nine SCOTUS justices were similar in proportion and ratio of very conservative to somewhat conservative to these five Republican-nominated justices, the Court would be very reliably conservative.
I am tired of people reflexively knocking Republicans and Republican nominees as just the same as Democrat and/or liberal ones. They are not. They are actually very different; not every single one, not every time, but in the vast majority of cases. And it would make a huge difference. A Republican-nominated Court would hold the line against Obama’s worst excesses. Whether that would be enough to stop him—I doubt it, but it would help.
You are angry at RINOs and what you consider squishy nominees. I’m not happy with that myself. But you are letting your anger get in the way of your thinking, IMHO.
G Joubert Says:
July 25th, 2013 at 8:57 pm
That is absolutely correct. The term “social justice” means one thing and one thing only: Revenge.
It is essential that white people begin to think and behave in explicit terms of White racial pride and White racial solidarity. We have no choice, because everybody else is doing it.
The Left has spent decades demonizing white people and blaming us for all the evil in the world. Generations of nonwhite people have been systematically taught to hate and resent us. And plenty of whites have fallen victim to the propaganda of self-hatred and self-debasement. Obama could never have been elected otherwise.
Immigration “reform” seems to have the object of reducing the political power of whites. I constantly hear predictions that we will be a minority in America by mid-century. That is not inevitable. If it happens, it will be the result of deliberate policy.
If white people ever do become a minority, we will be stripped of our property, our rights, our freedom, and ultimately our lives. It will all be done in the name of “social justice” by people who will be convinced of their own righteousness.
As Artfldgr has said, white people are not the Volk in the New Order that is being built.
neo-neocon Says:
July 25th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
Well, there you are. Since Obama has nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, it wouldn’t be enough to stop him. He would simply ignore any decisions that go against him, and issue executive orders to get his way. And Congress seems incapable of reining him in. They are supine, and are becoming increasingly impotent and irrelevant.
I believe we are past the point of being able to fix this with elections. Or, to quote Artfldgr again, we crossed the event horizon in 2008.
rickl:
Whether a conservative Court could stop Obama at this point is not the issue. I don’t know what could stop him at this point. But a conservative Court would have a fighting chance of stopping him and a good chance of at least slowing him down or making it harder for him. But none of that is the issue you and I have been discussing on this thread.
The issue we have been discussing is whether Republican appointees to the Court would make for more conservative decisions. There is no question that they would. And it could very well end up mattering very much.
So far, fortunately, Obama has not appointed any SCOTUS justices in his second term. But there is a good chance he will, and if he does, there is no question it will be a liberal rather than a conservative or even a swing-vote.
Slowing down the pace of our destruction is useless? Like hell. It buys us time.
History shows, over and over again, that no trend or regime lasts forever. People were saying we should normalize relations with the USSR and stop fighting them — they were Here To Stay — then the whole house of cards collapsed. In a matter of days.
Besides why make it any easier for the rat bastards?
Rickl – we already are a minority in states such as California (where I live). I think it’s time to start an advocacy group as ‘the latest minority’ and start to agitate for our rights openly, just as all the other minorities do. They seem to know instinctively that the greater their numbers, the greater their power. Well, why not play that game and claim our power as the biggest minority. One law for all, no more favoritism, no more self-abasement, no more playing dead for predators. Start here and now, in California. And (unless immigration is changed) in other states as needed.
It’s not an instinct. It’s an indoctrination plan based upon valid war strategies.
Those who attempt to utilize agit prop for human rights, as if such a thing exists, will be crushed by the TSA, SEIU, ATF< IRS + everybody else combined
Certainly if people have power enough to fight the government, they can. But they don't. So they won't.