Solving Jigsaw Puzzles With Reason

Jesse Walker of Reason wonders why the New Black Panther case is such a big deal and turns to Dave Weigel for guidance.  Dave Weigel, who never met a fringe right wing nutjob he couldn't promote as emblematic of all conservatives, explains that this is "Megyn Kelly's Minstrel Show":

But why is she doing so many stories on the Panthers? It's because Fox News uses the Panthers the way that Phil Donohue used to use the KKK or G.G. Allin. They're good on TV. The difference between the Panthers and other freakish groups that look good on the air, of course, is that that they threaten white people.

Because we are all racist, natch.  As an alternative view, set the New Black Panthers to one side and switch the focus to the Department of Justice.  This is a case about a run-amuck, politicized DoJ pursuing Eric Holder's left wing fantasies rather than keeping us safe.  What about the unpopular Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial in New York City?  What about the unpopular decision to Mirandize the Underpants Bomber on Christmas Day?  What about his unpopular decision to sue the State of Arizona for their new illegal immigration enforcement law while giving a pass to sanctuary cities and states like Rhode Island?  The new Black Panther case fits that template quite nicely.  (Outside of Holder's job responsibilities but well within his political sensibilities would be the New Haven firefighters case associated with Sonia Sotomayor.)

And why is the outrage now, as opposed to May 2009 when the decision was made to scale back an already-won case?  I will guess that the resignation and drumbeat of criticism from former DoJ attorney J. Christian Adams is helping to fuel the fire.  And do recall - righties have been going on about this case for over a year.  Why does a dam break when it breaks?

The WaPo has a story noting the controversy. They explain the outrage and misrepresent the facts; first, the outrage:

A 2008 voter-intimidation case has become a political controversy for the Obama administration as conservative lawyers, politicians and commentators raise concerns that the Department of Justice has failed to protect the civil rights of white voters.

...The matter caught the attention of some Republican lawmakers, who held up the confirmation of President Obama's assistant attorney general for civil rights for months asking for a congressional review of the case.

The conflict intensified last week when former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, who was hired during the Bush administration and helped develop the case, told the Commission on Civil Rights that he believed the case had been narrowed because some of his colleagues in the civil rights division were interested in protecting only minorities.

On to the misrepresentation:

Conservatives complained last year when Justice officials narrowed the case, dropping the party and one of the men and focusing only the bearer of the stick. Department officials have said since then that they did not have sufficient evidence to pursue the case against the other defendants. Justice officials who served in the Bush administration have countered that the department had enough evidence to pursue the case more fully and called the decision to narrow it political.

"Pursue" the case?  The DoJ had already won a default judgment, so we are not talking about preparing for trial or anything like that; the "pursuit" would have amounted to filing some follow-up motions with the court.

That said, the DoJ attorneys have an ongoing obligation to charge fairly, regardless of what they can sneak past a judge.  Invoking that criteria and under new management, the DoJ backed away from their seeming victory.

Comments

[Clarice]

USCRC Vice-Chair has a piece at NRO cited by Hot Air arguing that this case is small potatoes and the Post notes the small potatoes bit. What the Post ignores is that she says it's small potatoes compared to the Holder DOJ's attempt t strip states of their rle in redistricting.

[fdcol63]

One militant black guy intimidating voters at a single precinct is small potatoes.

What's HUGE is the damage in confidence created by the DoJ's failure to act in this case because of the change in culture wrought by Obama, Holder, et al.

Liberals minimize this point because they want to.

[Janesquaredance]

It is simply endless, isn't it Clarice?

[Dave (in MA)]

this case is small potatoes

As a member of the Hibernian-American community I'm offended at this callous, insensitive reference to the great famine that affected my people.

[MayBee]

I'm still trying to figure out how we ended up with hearings on Bush's perfectly legal firing of US Attorneys. How long was that a huge news story?
Even if people don't care about the voter intimidation case, can't we at least agree that it isn't unprecedented to be upset with the DOJ?

[Captain Hate]

I'm still trying to figure out how we ended up with hearings on Bush's perfectly legal firing of US Attorneys. How long was that a huge news story?

Especially when Clinton fired them all upon becoming President. I was incredulous at how hypocritical the MFM was on that story.

[bgates]

This is a case about a run-amuck, politicized DoJ pursuing Eric Holder's left wing fantasies rather than keeping us safe. What about...
the Ike Brown case, reversing the OLC's stance on DC voting on political grounds, the witch hunt against John Yoo, Holder's inability to even suggest radical Islam as a contributing factor to terrorism, his role in keeping money flowing to ACORN after Congress thought it turned the spigot off, the fact that he condemned the racism of the Arizona law without reading or even being briefed on it, before filing a suit that didn't mention discrimination (but did expressly put the interests of Mexico above the interests of an American state)....

[MayBee]

Coverage of this story becomes a bit of a catch-22, doesn't it?
The story about the NBP party does start to feel racist. But then, that's the kind of case the Holder DOJ is supposedly not going to go after. So what can you do? Complain when the DOJ doesn't pursue such cases and look racist, or not complain?

The same was true for the Acorn stuff. Why do Republicans hate a group that gets minorities to register to vote? they asked.
But how can you go after illegal registrations/voting without bumping into these accusations?

[Rob Crawford]

But how can you go after illegal registrations/voting without bumping into these accusations?

Make it clear your issue is with vote and registration fraud. Make it clear that the intent is to increase the confidence EVERYONE has in the results of elections.

[MayBee]

Yeah, Rob. I just despair that everything can and will be be subject to demagoguery.

[Rob Crawford]

I understand, and know how you feel.

[boris]

I understand, and know how you feel

Okay you two.

[MayBee]

ha ha ha haha!

[Neo]

Perhaps the NAACP should get back to being a National Association that is Advancing "Colored People"

[Neo]

MR. BLACKWOOD: Do you know whether anybody was consulting as to whether to proceed or the merits of the case with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
MR. ADAMS: Well, listen. This is not firsthand. But I was told by section management that NAACP members or staffers were talking with the Voting section attorney in March of 2009 and asking, "When is this case going to get dismissed" which, of course, is interesting to hear for the first time that someone's even thinking about dismissing the case that you're in the middle of building. And that was -- It seemed strange. But it didn't really give me much pause other than to think that's a really strange request.

[LouP]

It would also have been "small potatoes" for the DOJ to have prosecuted the NBP case.

No, what is HUGE, is the fact that the Holder DOJ has demonstated over and over again that they have the unilateral right to decide what laws to enforce (and not enforce).

[quillanra]

i have never solved a single puzzle game in life so i don' have experience in puzzle game .
Cho Yung Tea

[bunkerbuster]

Tom asks:
``What about the unpopular Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial in New York City?''
KSM is entitled to a fair trial and that should include situating it at the location of the alleged crime. A fair trial is not a privilege doled out by the government. It's an unalienable human right. One reason America is the envy of the world and a role model for so many is that it is committed to justice for all and it has a tradition of understanding human rights as intrinsic, rather than a gift at the government's behest. Ensuring that KSM has a fair trial will strengthen America and serve as further discourage potential terrorists by contradicting their claims about America waging an unfair war against Muslims. Linking this to the NBP kerfuffle is absurd.

``What about the unpopular decision to Mirandize the Underpants Bomber on Christmas Day?''
Suspects have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer. Why should anyone want to deny any suspect those rights? Our Founding Fathers knew well that jurisprudence would in some cases make it easier for criminals to escape justice and, thereby, put the public at further risk. But they were wise enough to understand that maintaining the integrity of the system was more important than trying to eliminate all risk of criminals escaping justice. And they understood that in order to maintain the integrity of the Justice system, the opportunity for law enforcement and prosecutors to abuse their powers must be limited. This is a bright line that separates totalitarian from free societies. Totalitarian societies all target zero risk of criminal escape. They all frame their justice systems on this basis, forgoing individual human rights in order to eliminate the possibility that a criminal would escape justice. Americans have always been too wise to let that happen here. Identity conservatives seem unable to understand that preserving the institutions that safeguard liberty of necessity entails risk. They argue as if any risk is unacceptable, unless that risk involves harming brown-skinned people in far away places.

``What about his unpopular decision to sue the State of Arizona for their new illegal immigration enforcement law while giving a pass to sanctuary cities and states like Rhode Island?''
Sanctuary cities do not usurp federal power because they do not require any action on the part of the state government. Rather, sanctuary cities do the opposite: they prevent non-federal involvement in immigration law enforcement. In practice, the action of creating a sanctuary does not interfere with the ability of the federal government to enforce the law. SB1070 does interfere, however, by compelling otherwise law-abiding undocumented workers to avoid any and all contact with law enforcement, including investigations of serious criminal activity by members of the immigrant community. SB1070 also interferes because it requires action on the part of local government and local law enforcement and does so in ways that significantly complicate the federal enforcement task.

``The new Black Panther case fits that template quite nicely.''
Only if the "template" you're talking about is the one inside identity conservative brains. The only thing these issues have in common is that they enflame the paranoia of resentments of identity conservatives.

[Rob Crawford]

Does anyone with an ounce of sense believe that reporting a crime complicates enforcement of the law?

[Rob Crawford]

And, as it turns out, federal law REQUIRES the ICE to provide "government entities" with information about the legal status of any individual.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose
authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

LUN for more.

[bunkerbuster]

The problem with SB1070 isn't that it compels law enforcement to report information they obtain about illegal aliens, it's that it compels them to obtain the information and to do so in ways that make it more difficult to prevent crime by illegal aliens and to enforce laws against hiring illegal aliens and which virtually insures an expanded role for the most violent and lawless elements in the human smuggling business. If SB1070 were merely a re-statement of Federal law it could be dismissed as a massive waste of taxpayer money that serves no purpose and changes no law and has zero effect on immigration.