UPDATE: I checked the front page of the L.A. Times to see if this was there. Imagine my surprise to see it was not. What was there instead? Stephen Colbert!
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
Yup, kinda sad really that a president of the united states would sanction this sort of thing. As it’s turning out, it’s becomming very clear that Obama is basically a house negro for the democratic party plantation.
james conrad (c96373) — 9/25/2010 @ 7:34 amI’m from Philly…and there is not a hint of this in the Inky or the Daily news. Did not the NBPP scandal break in Philly?
I wonder why there is no coverage in the mainstream media?
rudytbone (30c9bf) — 9/25/2010 @ 7:50 amSo is he still a “good man” or maybe sitting in a racist church for 20 years kinda rulin that one out?
mr pink (32571a) — 9/25/2010 @ 7:58 amCorrection, I had to use the search function on Philly.com but I did find one article in each paper. AP only and one did not alllow comments.
rudytbone (30c9bf) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:05 amMr. Pink,
He is what I always said he was: someone who seeks to implement destructive policies.
Does this example negate the lesson I taught my eight year-old daughter about separating politics from the personal?
No.
If you’re looking for a blog that insists on personally demonizing its political opponents, this may not be the blog for you.
Patterico (f79cec) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:09 ammr. pink – We are officially frowning on the willful distortions of the original “good man” post such as yours. Swordfish sideways, as they say.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:11 amHey, Mr. P beat me to it.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:12 amWillful distortion? Nah just a disagreement.
A question: the people in the NBPP, would you consider them “good people” and seperate the personal from the political or would that rule be waived for them?
mr pink (32571a) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:17 am“Willful distortion? Nah just a disagreement.”
mr. pink – Nah, just willful distortion. There’s a difference.
INTENTIONALISM!!!!!!
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:19 amJust to get things straight, it is fine to pummel
paul atreides (6709ab) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:20 amone’s own political partisans, no, because they
are being derided everywhere else
I really don’t see why you insist on being rude in every comment but hey if it makes you feel good knock yourself out.
mr pink (32571a) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:21 am“A question: the people in the NBPP, would you consider them “good people” and seperate the personal from the political or would that rule be waived for them?”
Different question. If Patterico had written a post on the NBPP that you had distorted and kept coming back to the site to repeat your distortions we might have a comparable situation. We don’t. Swordfish sideways.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:23 am“if it makes you feel good knock yourself out.”
mr. pink – Rude, just like your “good man” comment out of the box today? Thank you. Good day.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:24 ammr pink
And your point is what exactly?
EricPWJohnson (5295cd) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:24 am14
Point is anyone that advocates for “justice” being dependent on race, is not a good man and I would figure the political not being personal rule would be waived.
I really don’t see how contending that would be considered rude and a willful distortion.
mr pink (32571a) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:31 amme pink,
black voters is a political not personal decision – its incorrect, but trying to make an attack of disengiousness of the editor of this blog is incorrect especially based upon a post he authored where it was crystal clear that the substance was explaining the title.
EricPWJohnson (5295cd) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:36 amDisingenuousness – sorry
EricPWJohnson (5295cd) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:38 amI mean I think it goes without saying that Obama agrees with this, justice being dependent on the color of ones skin, and that in doing so the normal “rules” of political discourse would be waived somewhat. I know outright socialists I am good friends with, also Dems, but if someone literally told me that laws should only apply to whites, ie that lady justice should be a racist bitch, I would consider them an ahole.
I just figure that we shouldn’t suspend common sense just to observe the principles of decency in a democracy. Not that they are mutually exclusive.
mr pink (32571a) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:40 amIt was not only his remarks, but the way he sought
paul atreides (6709ab) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:43 ampower through fraud, in his early races, intimidation, through ACORN, and let’s just say
‘financial mismanagement’ at the CAC.
Really I am not trying to distort the “good man” piece mr P wrote, I get his point in it. Basically what I am getting at would better be summed up in a question, what action would Obama have to take for the normal “political not being personal” rule to be waived?
In asking that ill admit I reached the point where it no longer applied once I saw the Rev Wright vids.
mr pink (32571a) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:45 amThe Washington POst did carry the story of the Coates testimony on the front page so the LA Times seems to have been even more catholic than the pope in this instance.
The Colbert story also seems to be harming the Democrats as his foolishness was really demeaning to Congress as a whole. Even Conyers, whose mental faculties are no supercomputer, wanted Colbert to submit written testimony and leave.
Mike K (568408) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:53 amI agree that the Colbert strategy is backfiring, on all cyclinders. People see some idiot lefty clown testifiying in bunch of congressional lefty idiot clowns and draw their own conclusions, just not the ones that the MFM desires. They’re thinking to themselves that with this country in such dire economic straits, this is what their leadership really thinks about the whole situation.
Nancy Peelosis (84da91) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:58 amWhoops, last one was mine. Sorry.
Dmac (84da91) — 9/25/2010 @ 8:58 amGive it a rest “pink”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/25/2010 @ 9:04 amThe body of evidence is beginning to point to a reality, some truths. Obama is deeply flawed personally and those flaws reflect into his politics.
I’m not going to attack him as a father or a husband; but when he acts as a lying, blameshifting, lawless stooge for the far left… I’ll have to say he’s being an asshole…. since the coopting of good man means I can’t use it without it being construed as a slight.
Surely the host has thicker skin than that?
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 9/25/2010 @ 9:08 am____________________________________
what action would Obama have to take for the normal “political not being personal” rule to be waived?
I think of the phrase of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” If Obama would like to take us on that pathway, I guess if he sees the destiny as paradise and others see it as hell, then the moment that the political should (or should not) be personal ends up a case of Rashomon.
Mark (411533) — 9/25/2010 @ 9:17 amWhoops, last one was mine. Sorry.
LOL. I didn’t think such a tuned-in and realistic assessment could ever come from the mouth of Nancy Pelosi (or Peelosis).
Mark (411533) — 9/25/2010 @ 9:21 amHi everyone. Missed y’all.
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/25/2010 @ 9:37 amSo now the cat is out of the bag …
The next time Republicans need to suppress a bunch of white liberal voters, they just hire a bunch of Blacks to go over an harass them .. the DOJ won’t protect their sorry asses.
Republican wins .. Black unemployment goes down .. a win-win.
Neo (7830e6) — 9/25/2010 @ 9:42 amLet’s see if this ‘Snow Ball’ get’s larger, or melts.
Charles Curran (94823c) — 9/25/2010 @ 10:45 amThe founders called people like Obama “tyrants”.
SGT Ted (ac46d8) — 9/25/2010 @ 10:47 amIt was on Page A14 of the Saturday print edition, fairly well covered. No obvious lying. At least it wasn’t back with the two-headed-dog snips from the wire service.
So, do you think we’ll see the same kind of coverage regarding DoJ hiring that we saw in the Bush Administration? You know, back when they were trying to hire a few conservatives for diversity?
Kevin M (298030) — 9/25/2010 @ 11:04 amA couple cases, seems insignificant, libs want us to blow it off. But the attitude it reveals as policy, that some are more equal than others, that those on high pick and choose when and where to enforce laws, is horrendous. If that attitude applies at DOJ, in which departments does it not apply?
Libs would laugh at applying the word ‘tyranny’ to this, but the attitude is tyrannical. Huge.
jodetoad (7720fb) — 9/25/2010 @ 11:34 amThey did have an article buried inside the paper and one of the points they made was that the US Civil Rights Commission is Republican controlled (it is BTW, but that’s not a point they would have made in any other case except as a means to discredit the commission from taking action the paper doesn’t like).
airedale (8c0c09) — 9/25/2010 @ 11:44 amFrom the LA Times article:
To me, the implication is this is merely partisan matter which the Obama Administration pursued almost as vigorously as the Bush Administration.
Plus, is this correct? I was under the impression the Obama Administration withdrew/failed to pursue the civil default judgment.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/25/2010 @ 12:17 pmI checked the websites (Friday during the day and the evening) of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox. With the exception of Fox the only coverage of committee hearings was Colbert. In some cases the front page of their news websites had two or three stories about his appearance. I even drilled down into the political section and the “more news” sections (where they like to bury things) and found nothing on the testimony of the DOJ whistle blower.
The fact that the committee that this fellow was testifying in front of was Republican controlled means nothing and it should have been the major story of the day, not some second rate cable comedian (abetted by Democrat members of the house for god’s sakes) trying to draw attention away from the real story. The editors and the reporters of the main stream media should be ashamed (although I believe that they have now lost that ability). It seems that Colbert served his purpose.
scr_north (3da40b) — 9/25/2010 @ 12:18 pmIts because we have a right wing controlled media (oops – thought i was at the huff post)
Joe (6120a4) — 9/25/2010 @ 12:56 pmNothing in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal. That is weird.
William deLorimier (a89514) — 9/25/2010 @ 1:01 pmWell a few notes. according to instapundit it WAS on the front page of the WAPO. Which is actually not surprising. WAPO is very liberal but they are much more honest than most of the other liberal rags.
second, its interesting that according to coates, the career lawyers as as much of a problem as the political appointees. so much for the “this was made by career officials” defense. Plus, this wasn’t done by career officials, anyway.
Btw, also breitbart notices that one of the defendants in the case, or a man matching his name, visited obama in the white house. Of course if you are paying attention, there have been many cases where controversial figures have been in the guest book only for the White House to claim that its coincidental–they are like totally different people. then when asked to give enough information to verify that, they refuse.
Mohammed (f97997) — 9/25/2010 @ 1:39 pmSorry for the accidental sock puppetry. the “mohammed” in the last post was me. that was the last name i posted under in the official sock puppetry thread.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/25/2010 @ 1:40 pmWhat about the time that the male prostitute/fake news journalist Jeff Gannon/James Guckert made many, many trips to the Bush whitehouse to visit someone, even for some apparent overnight stays… Did anyone ask any questions about that here when it happened? Do you remember Jeff Gannon? We still don’t know who he was visiting. Mehlman? Rove? ??? Look up “Jeff Gannon” before you talk crap to me.
Chris Hooten (47013d) — 9/25/2010 @ 2:14 pmWhat’s this idea of a dichotomy between “career officials” and “political appointees”? In the Civil Rights Division? Really? As if the “career officials”, who are after all drawn from an essentially self-selected pool, would be politically disinterested? Why after all is a professional with many options, drawn to a career in civil rights? It’s not like an orthopedic surgeon choosing between doing hip replacements and knee replacements.
Our host, being an attorney, can speak to the issue with far more insight than I can (viz. I’m not an attorney so maybe I’m wrong), but my assumption would be that the vast majority of those who pursue a career in the Civil Rights Division have already made a great many, um, “political” decisions.
Politically-motivated career choices based on a priori tenets and “des idees recus”. Heh. As if none of us had ever met a journalism student.
d. in c. (5e2cbe) — 9/25/2010 @ 2:33 pm“The department investigated complaints that New Black Panther Party leaders King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson…”
Jerry Jackson is a member of the Democrat Party as well as a member of the ultra-racist NBPP (one of whose members has called for the murder of white babies).
The Dems have the same relationship with the NBPP that they used to have with groups like the KKK…and the “liberal” swine are NOT going to go after their own thugs.
Simple as that.
Dave Surls (3ca709) — 9/25/2010 @ 2:42 pmWell, at least DOJ is willing to protect the rights of conservatives who are African-American. The rest of us conservatives will have to wait for Congress to pass a color-blind law. What’s that you say? Congress did pass a color-blind law? Hmm. Maybe Congress should have used ALLCAPS? Or maybe someone should have checked Holder for crossed fingers when he took the oath.
Andrew (3854a3) — 9/25/2010 @ 2:43 pmAre you suggesting that The Times’ political beliefs decide what stories they cover and where in the newspaper they are placed? Shocking!
mhr (cda2df) — 9/25/2010 @ 2:50 pmDRJ at 35: That impression is accurate.
The Bush administration DOJ determined against pursuing criminal charges, because the elements of any such charges were missing. That is actually worse than it appears superficially, because it distorts the proper approach: the DOJ is not supposed to go looking to make out charges, but to cause proper investigations to be made of coherent and potentially legitimate complaints.
The complaints here might have been legitimate in some sense (I can see how pictures make the two men look potentially intimidating to some; not to me, but that’s in my nature.), but they were simply not coherent. Yet, the Bush DOJ pursued investigation anyway, without any coherent framework or foundation (I suppose in the hopes of overcoming the foundational flaws, but that’s a surmise based partly on my reading about and seeing testimony from some of the Bush administration political appointees in the Voting Rights section).
That investigation filled in some important, even vital technical gaps in what would constitute some sort of case for at least pursuing legal redress against the two Black Panthers — but the complaint was STILL not coherent; that is
It certainly looked as if these two men might have committed such acts, if the occasion or opportunity arose; and it certainly looked as if those acts that might have been done, but not done, if done could have been characterized as intimidation; and it certainly looked as if it would be open to argue that such acts, the one’s not done, if done would have been capable of intimidating potential voters out of voting, if any potential voters had in fact been intimidated out of voting, though none were. But the fact is the evidence was missing to such an extent that necessary and essential predicates were not made out.
There are a lot of potential reasons for pursuing a civil complaint, but the usual ones include that it allows for depositions of the defendants to determine what was in their minds by way of intent and it can act as a deterrent to those particular defendants (who would now have the potential for criminal sanctions hanging over their heads, of they were to break the terms of the injunction, as well as something of a wider deterrent to others who might be like-minded, from the publicity). That is, one can compel the two men to answer questions under oath to determine whether either or both might admit to some intention or conspiracy aimed at breaking some law.
The usual concern in that scenario is that the prosecution might face embarrassment at its case being dismissed before getting to pursue depositions, which can happen when the suspects or potential defendants exercise their constitutional rights to decline to answer questions from investigators and the rest of the evidence is too thin — which is what (at least arguably) was the case here. Worse, the two deterrent motivations might backfire from such an outcome — the directly affected individuals might think they had been somehow vindicated, and people unfamiliar with the details might be encouraged to rather than deterred from doing something like the same in future.
Mr. Coates had, and still has, this conception about the role of the CRD in voting rights cases particularly, and prosecution generally, which is, to say the least, controversial. It brings to mind the cartoon of the two starving vultures sitting on a cactus branch in a desert and one says to the other: To hell with scavenging; Im going to go kill something. There is an impression that historically this conception was common or at least tolerated in the CRD from even before it existed, from when President Kennedy appointed his brother US AG; and maybe that was so when it came to that administration investigating organized crime, including organized crime in unions; but there’s actually no evidence to support it was behind the formation of the CRD – rather, the idea was, now we have a CRD, so there is a place for these complaints to go to and be considered, as opposed to just being left to fade out and expire with the expiry of the limitation period.
(I’m not saying that conception has not ever motivated particular prosecutions. We know from the hearings Congress held in 2007 into the Bush administration CRD Voting section that it did. Other can suggest it’s naive to think it never happened under Democratic administrations, but the burden of proof is on them and I have yet to see any case that makes out that position.)
It’s clear that Mr. Coates felt (still feels) strongly that, if he and his office were granted the chance to pursue the civil action authorized under the Bush administration, there might have been some success, such as an injunctive order. He cannot say more than that; no lawyer can. It’s the young or idealistic prosecutor’s curse to believe every case one feels strongly about is righteous and capable of being out and will work out if he is just left alone and allowed to pursue it (Hopefully you grow out of that before you get properly labelled a zealot.). So when the Obama administration started having at least some influence over the DOJ, and pulled from Mr. Coates this opportunity, it’s natural and understandable (though not necessarily circumspect or mature) for him to react in protest. I know the feeling; I went through it myself (and grew up, and got over it).
But looking at the case through different eyes did not change what was there — which was, in terms of a case sitting there all ready made to go, was nothing, or nothing yet, quite possibly nothing ever, and very likely a looming defeat in summary disposition. It was those outcomes, and the potential media and public response to pursuing the civil action further, that was looked at differently.
Differently, but not necessarily wrongly; after all, if the original set of supervisory eyes were blinded to the impending public approbation due to lack of sensitivity to how pursuing the case would be seen widely as a dog whistle (or worse, kind of looked forward to it), it’s not easy to point fingers away from those original eyes as being jaded, not the fresh eyes coming in.
But I note that a large number of commenters here, who have not the first clue about how the CR Act works and what evidence is and of prosecution ethics, and have not the first clue about court process and trials, instinctively know everything they feel they need to know from having consulted the microbes in the their own entrails; and out it has come.
shooter (32dc25) — 9/25/2010 @ 2:59 pmBefore I forget: true greatness is rare, and what Stephen Colbert did in Congress was truly great.
Here you go: chew on my right ankle a while; the left one has a bandage on it and I would not want you to get infected.
shooter (32dc25) — 9/25/2010 @ 3:06 pmSomewhat off topic: many of you may already be subscribers or frequent readers of this publication so know about it already, but this is one great headline:
http://tiny.cc/75wqi
shooter (32dc25) — 9/25/2010 @ 3:10 pmIndeed, Mr. Shooter, true greatness is rare. Right you are.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 9/25/2010 @ 3:25 pmThis was my favorite quote:
Of course, Mr. Shooter, you have never opined outside your own personal expertise, am I right?
What is it with the Left and projection?
Laughable.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 9/25/2010 @ 3:27 pmEric Blair at 50: Glad you liked it; and thanks for strengthening my point.
shooter (32dc25) — 9/25/2010 @ 3:46 pmWhat about the time that the male prostitute/fake news journalist Jeff Gannon/James Guckert made many, many trips to the Bush whitehouse to visit someone
LOOK BUNNIES! (h/t JD)
instinctively know everything they feel they need to know from having consulted the microbes in the their own entrails; and out it has come.
Hilarious – I wonder if shooter bothered to read the parodies of his posts on the sockpuppet thread – his posts here are virtually identical to the ones masquerading as his usual inanity. They contained all the usual stuff – wall ‘o text, irrelevant topics, the whole nine yards.
Somewhat off topic:
i.e. once again, another threadack with an irrelevant link.
Can you actually be parody of yourself, I wonder.
Dmac (84da91) — 9/25/2010 @ 3:54 pmshooter,
I don’t think we’re on the same wavelength. The Obama Administration voluntarily dismissed a case it had already won as to all but one defendant, and that defendant got an unusually good deal:
Smart lawyers don’t abandon default judgments; Politicized lawyers do. Regarding your point that there was no evidence of wrongdoing — a claim you perhaps picked up from Civil Rights Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom — consider this response by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow:
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/25/2010 @ 4:06 pm“The Bush administration DOJ determined against pursuing criminal charges, because the elements of any such charges were missing”
Hmmmmmmmm…
“Indeed, the person who would have been responsible for making a recommendation on whether to file a subsequent criminal charge against the individual New Black Panther defendants was Mark Kappelhoff, the “career” chief of the Criminal Section and a former ACLU lawyer. Besides being a big contributor to Democratic candidates like Barack Obama and John Kerry, as well as the DNC, Kappelhoff was considered such a liberal loyalist that he was moved into the political position of chief of staff to the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights by the Obama transition team almost as soon as they came in the door.”
“Sources tell me that Kappelhoff never recommended a criminal case against the baton-yielding thugs, so the claim that the Bush administration is somehow responsible for “downgrading” this case is complete nonsense.”–Hans A. von Spakovsky
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/233143/downgrading-voter-intimidation-hans-von-spakovsky
No comment.
Dave Surls (3ca709) — 9/25/2010 @ 4:09 pmOh, on the contrary, Mr. Shooter. And you are very probably the only person in Terran space who can draw that conclusion.
You demonstrate again the power of projection.
You do know that you are…well, not looking very smart right about now? The funniest part is how you don’t get it. Especially after how you have railed repeatedly, about other people being so very stupid.
Delicious.
But then, humor never was your strong suit. Just anger and resentment.
November is going to sting you something fierce, isn’t it?
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 9/25/2010 @ 4:34 pmU.S. Code Title 18 29 § 594
“Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Criminal charges against the NBPP weren’t pursued, and aren’t being pursued, because liberal Democrats working for the DOJ aren’t going to press criminal charges against their fellow Democrats (Jackson – who is both a NBPP member and a member of the Democrat Party) or against their political allies (the NBPP).
That’s pretty much the whole story.
“The New Black Panther Party provoked a melee outside of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney’s campaign headquarters after she had lost a Democratic primary election to her opponent, Hank Johnson. The NBPP’s Chief of Staff, Hashim Nzinga, had been acting as security detail for McKinney when, in a volatile confrontation, he physically attacked reporters…”–wiki
The Demscum and the NBPP are joined at the hip, just like the Democrat Party and the Klan used to be, and the Dems are going to use the NBPP to threaten, intimidate, assault and maybe even murder people to get what they want…same as it’s ever been.
Dave Surls (3ca709) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:06 pmDRJ at 53:
That is over-drawn ignorant crap.
A lawyer for a private citizen or corporation is going to have to answer to his client for abandoning a default judgment, because it may cost his client an advantage in an adversarial context, and that advantage is owned by his client, not him. Its not a matter of smart; its a matter of ethics and responsibility. If the lawyer feels his private client has obtained an advantage wrongly and cannot convince his client to abandon it, that lawyer must withdraw from the case, without injuring his clients interests.
A lawyer working for the government must and is held to a different standard. The case in question involves a default judgment; that is, not a judgment on the merits, but a judgment obtained simply from the government having made a bare-bones allegation, properly serving the defendant with that allegation, and that defendant failing or neglecting to respond, for whatever reason. If on examination of all the relevant circumstances, including the available evidence and the policies of those who are answerable to the public for their conduct of the case, the government lawyer or lawyers determine that maintaining and standing on the default judgment reflects, works some actual injustice, or might possibly work some injustice, then that government lawyer or lawyers does not have any comparable responsibility to withdraw or resign, but instead has a responsibility to act to correct the wrong; and it is up to the political actors in the government either to tolerate that decision or fire the lawyer and bear the consequences of being held accountable by the public for doing so.
This has actually happened on many occasions, the vast majority of which we have never learned of nor ever will. A very public notorious example was when Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox issued a subpoena to the White House to preserve and turn over tape recordings of meetings and conversations conducted in the Oval Office in relation to the Nixon administrations decision making process bearing on its reaction to the burglary (really at least two burglaries) of the DNC offices at the Watergate complex. President Nixon brought about what has become known as the Saturday Night Massacre: he ordered the US AG to fire Cox, which the AG refused to do and resigned in protest against the order; then ordered the Deputy AG to fire Cox, which the Deputy AG refused to do and either resigned in protest against the order or was fired (The White House said it fired him; the later acting AG said he resigned.); and then got the Acting AG(then Solicitor General Robert Bork) to fire Cox.
(AG Elliot Richardson, could have forced the President to fire him, but chose to resign out of respect for the serve at the pleasure of the president aspect of his appointment. As I indicated, the record is not clear on whether DAG William Ruckelshaus was fired or resigned, but I suspect the latter because the White House was in full panic mode at that point and was probably incapable of reflecting on such subtleties, and also because Bork has always been cautious and careful and scrupulous on factual statements. But the point is, all three were political appointees, so were different from career DOJ lawyers — and indeed from Special Prosecutors. A career DOJ lawyer, like Coates, would be under no such pressure and would be perfectly within his rights to force the government to fire him rather than force him to do something against ethical standards … if this situation involved ethical standards, which begs the question. In this respect, I’m interested in Inspector General Glenn Fine’s take on this, especially given his extraordinary resilience and now-apparent near-absolute immunity from working in his job over 4 administrations. The Bush embeds on the Commission are putting up a predictable circus, like COD going on FoxNews for a grilling by Hannitty — college slacker to college drop-out.)
shooter (32dc25) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:12 pmShooter
> If on examination of all the relevant circumstances, including the available evidence and the policies of those who are answerable to the public for their conduct of the case, the government lawyer or lawyers determine that maintaining and standing on the default judgment reflects, works some actual injustice, or might possibly work some injustice, then that government lawyer or lawyers does not have any comparable responsibility to withdraw or resign, but instead has a responsibility to act to correct the wrong;
Actually shooter, the ethical responsibility kicks in at the filing stage. So if the lawyer is being ethical, there will never be a default that results in an injustice, because you wouldn’t have sought an injustice in the first place.
That’s how government lawyers are SUPPOSED to behave.
The fact is that these men were caught dead to rights. Coates, who has been awarded by the ink fund for his work in defending black voters—so he is not exactly a right wing shill—says that they are enforcing the law unequally. Simply put, you cannot dismiss a case, or reduce the charges due to race. Not only is it morally wrong, but it then endangers ALL of the other cases. The white defendants can now say, “see? There is a racial bias in enforcement. So set me free.” And they would have a good chance of winning.
Coates allegations are as serious as it gets. If Holder tolerated this crap, he should resign or be removed. If Obama knew, I would start considering impeachment.
And if you think that is extreme imagine this scenario. Imagine if George W. Bush said that the federal criminal would no longer be used against white defendants. What would you say then?
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:27 pm#57
Anyone read all the way through that gibberish.
I fell asleep about halfway through.
Dave Surls (3ca709) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:30 pmAW at 58: Superstring theory suggests an infinite number of various (current thinking: about 1,050) types of curled uptight universes. You appear to occupy one of those; whatever makes you happy.
shooter (32dc25) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:34 pmshooter,
As discussed above, the government had evidence supporting its charge of voter intimidation when it filed its lawsuit and it was entitled to a default judgment. No new evidence or information was brought to light that undermined the original charges or provided a basis for an after-the-fact dismissal.
In fact, the New Black Panther Party suspended the chapter because it does not condone voter intimidation. That statement probably helps the NBPP but I don’t see how admitting the conduct was voter intimidation justifies a dismissal of the lawsuit.
Further, if the Obama Administration’s decision is so defensible, why has it refused to turn over the relevant documents pursuant to this FOIA request and lawsuit?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:35 pmShooter
Yeah, i have no sense of humor when it comes to racism and racial discrimination. Guilty.
But once again, I methodically and logically hand you your a– and you fart in response. why don’t you run away again? its your m.o.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:39 pmshooter, in all your verbiage, I missed the part where you showed that there was no foundation for the initial charge.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:46 pmbtw, shooter, the DOJ reduced the injunction against these guys so that it didn’t even stretch into 2012. So these guys could literally do the exact same thing on Obama’s reelection, and not be in contempt of court.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/25/2010 @ 5:50 pmMy new favorite part was Mr. Shooter, um, shooting his mouth off (and being rude to the always polite DRJ, which says it all) about string theory. Reminds me of WC’s nonsense; trying to sound all smart and falling short.
It reminds me of Pauli’s famous line, which was picked up by Woit as the title of his anti-string theory book.
The concept can be applied to folks out of their depth, too.
Eric Blair (9ed73e) — 9/25/2010 @ 6:10 pm“In fact, the New Black Panther Party suspended the chapter because it does not condone voter intimidation.”
In fact they unsuspended the chapter the minute the heat died down.
“Malik Shabazz suspended Samir Shabazz and the Philadelphia chapter less than a week after the Department of Justice lawsuit was announced. Nevertheless, Samir Shabazz’s actions, which were consistent with the NBPP’s long record of confrontational and disruptive behavior, were apparently validated by the group in January 2010 when he was reinstated to his position.”–ADL
“I’m about the total destruction of white people. I’m about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy.”–Samir Shabazz
Shabazz doesn’t believe in intimidating white voters, he believes in killing ALL white people.
Typical for the NBPP.
Dave Surls (3ca709) — 9/25/2010 @ 6:15 pmIt is no longer possible to parody crissyhooten or shooter. It cannot be done.
JD (e9fcd5) — 9/25/2010 @ 7:19 pmExactly. Colbert was simply a smokescreen. I wrote a similar story at The Political Commentator today called “The tolerance of discrimination against white Americans is exposed and basically ignored by the mainstream media”
Keep up the great work.
Michael Haltman (168663) — 9/25/2010 @ 7:44 pmSuck it crackers.
Eric Holder (7858eb) — 9/25/2010 @ 7:53 pmI think y’all have lost sight of an important point in all this sniping back and forth with shooter.
(from the post at Hot Air)
Career attorneys in the Voting Section recommended that we not even go to Noxubee County for the primary run-off to do election coverage, but that opposition to going to Noxubee was overridden by the Bush Administration’s CRD Front Office. I went on the coverage and while traveling to Mississippi, the Deputy Chief who was leading that election coverage asked me, “can you believe that we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?”
That’s the real problem–an institutional attitude that was already rampant during GWBush’s first administration. This incident took place in 2003. The CRD already had a deeply embedded attitude among its attorneys at that point that the VRA should not be enforced on behalf of whites against blacks. I would assume this attitude predates the Bush years; and certainly the Bush administration was unable to root it out. All Loretta King did was give that attitude another green light to continue. (And my guess is that she was responding not to a decision made by her superiors, but to complaints aimed at Coates by the career attorneys. That is, however, only a guess guided by what I know of office politics.)
kishnevi (391c85) — 9/25/2010 @ 9:09 pmEven tho the papers have largely ignored it, this scandal will not die. It’s another brick in the liberal wall that this center-right country is taking apart.
Patricia (9c62d9) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:14 amWaiting for Shirley Sherrod’s outraged comment about this on HuffPo . . .
. . . hang on, this might take awhile . . .
Icy Texan (23d8ae) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:41 amThat is over-drawn ignorant crap.
The next time DRJ posts something ignorant or somehow “crappy” will be the first time. This comment shows you to be completely without intelligence or comprehension, since DRJ used to post subject matter here quite frequently until moving on to other things. If you had bothered to actually read any of the history of this blog, you would’ve known that, instead of outing yourself as the ingorant git we’ve all come to know.
BTW, you have no manners.
Dmac (84da91) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:41 amThis is interesting…
The Obama Justice Department isn’t keen on enforcing Section No. 8 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud. So ordinary citizens are doing what the Justice Department won’t — uncovering voter fraud. This report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/23/voter-fraud-houston-tea-party-truethevote-texas/?test=latestnews explains that 50 friends took up the effort after seeing what went on in Houston on Election Day 2008:
“What we saw shocked us,” [ Catherine Engelbrecht] said. “There was no one checking IDs, judges would vote for people that asked for help. It was fraud, and we watched like deer in the headlights.”
Their shared experience, she says, created “True the Vote,” a citizen-based grassroots organization that began collecting publicly available voting data to prove that what they saw in their day at the polls was, indeed, happening — and that it was happening everywhere.
“It was a true Tea Party moment,” she remembers.
They set up their own voter-fraud unit:
“The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them” Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. “Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic. …
“But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking.”
It was Houston’s poorest and predominantly black district, which has led some to accuse the group of targeting poor black areas. But Engelbrecht rejects that, saying, “It had nothing to do with politics. It was just the numbers.”
Perhaps the new Congress should privatize voter fraud investigations. These amateurs turned up an ACORN-like operation:
Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures. …
“The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized and systematic attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes,” the Harris voter registrar, Leo Vasquez, charged as he passed on the documentation to the district attorney.
And if that weren’t enough, the day after that announcement, “a three-alarm fire destroyed almost all of Harris County’s voting machines, throwing the upcoming Nov. 2 election into turmoil.” Imagine that.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/363151
ColonelHaiku (1546ed) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:52 amwhen grasshopper run
ColonelHaiku (1546ed) — 9/26/2010 @ 9:17 amwith ciccada then we have
true equality
when ant order dung
ColonelHaiku (1546ed) — 9/26/2010 @ 9:20 ambeetle to “move that rubber
tree pant!” have justice
when dog extend “paw
ColonelHaiku (1546ed) — 9/26/2010 @ 9:23 amof friendship” to cat we be
living in end times
Col. Haiku at 76 on the vicarious thrill of polling list vigilantism:
This huge structural threat to the republic could do with a little filling out by actual evidence that anyone who is not a citizen ever succeeded in getting registered to vote, or that someone managed to register and vote as Sharktopus. Until then, it kind of looks like an excuse to cage votes.
Pretty much on a par with arresting and jailing everyone who looks like they might be Mexican on suspicion of complicity in a claimed wounding of a Pinal County Deputy during a massive firefight with a mythical marauding gangs of drug smugglers and invisible beheaders.
My favorite part is where Sheriff Babeu is supposed to have changed his office’s policy in response this supposed massive fire fight, to prohibit deputies from patrolling remote areas alone. Yup: who could ever expect strange things to happen in a remote desert when one of your expert highly trained deputies suddenly ups and decides to patrol a supposedly notorious smuggling corridor all by his lonesome.
shooter (32dc25) — 9/26/2010 @ 10:07 am“It’s admirable that we have citizens like Engelbrecht who take their civic responsibilities seriously, but there’s no excuse for the Obama Justice Department’s indifference to voting fraud. If Engelbrecht could uncover a massive voter-fraud operation, imagine what a contentious Justice Department could turn up. You’d almost think that they don’t mind that the voting rolls in heavily Democratic districts are bloated with imaginary voters.”
ColonelHaiku (1546ed) — 9/26/2010 @ 10:16 amShooter
still can’t even dispute what I said? Good to know.
Now I know why you call yourself shooter. You come here, shoot your mouth off and then run when called on it.
Barrack Obama (f97997) — 9/26/2010 @ 10:35 amGrrr, accidental sock puppetry, again. i accidently posted as “Obama.”
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/26/2010 @ 11:27 amHello DRJ. I really missed your wise and kind words on this blog. Hope it is well with you and your family. Thank you for all you do. Cheers.
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/26/2010 @ 11:35 am“Have Gun Will Travel” and “Gunsmoke” on Netflix, or Shooter and Emperor comments. Such hard choices.
nk (db4a41) — 9/26/2010 @ 11:43 am@Comment by Aaron Worthing — 9/26/2010 @ 11:27 am
Is Aaron Worthing the same person as A.W.?
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/26/2010 @ 11:45 amLook at how desperate “shooter” is to avoid the actual topic.
JD (206902) — 9/26/2010 @ 11:45 amHello nk. 😉
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/26/2010 @ 11:49 amElection season so Soros is paying you to spam again, Emperor(s)?
nk (db4a41) — 9/26/2010 @ 12:04 pm@nk. lol, what do you think?
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/26/2010 @ 12:18 pmI think that I have seen three Love20008/Emperor7/Emperor, here. Derailing threads.
nk (db4a41) — 9/26/2010 @ 12:32 pmnk call the bluff
ColonelHaiku (1546ed) — 9/26/2010 @ 12:51 pmemperor have no clothes but
wear Soros knee pads
I can assure you nk, my intentions here are very noble. Just coming to see my friends on this blog. It’s been quite a long while. 🙂
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/26/2010 @ 12:54 pmHope you are good.
Pretty much on a par with arresting and jailing everyone who looks like they might be Mexican
Blah, blah, blah – expectorate on keyboard ad nauseum. No links, nothing of substance, no support whatsoever. God, but you’re one lame – o, no question about it.
Dmac (84da91) — 9/26/2010 @ 2:19 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE Safe for work.
nk (db4a41) — 9/26/2010 @ 2:29 pmAfter all the fraudulent rhetoric from Democrats about how the Bush administration was so “lawless”, we are seeing that the Obama administration is even more “lawless” than the Bush administration in its cavalier and thinly veiled contempt for the law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/26/2010 @ 3:05 pmIt’s an odd form of originalism. You see it people who think the 14th amendment is only about black people.
imdw (8a8ced) — 9/26/2010 @ 6:42 pmThe DOJ’s actions show us how thoroughly we have been indoctrinated to believe in the Marxist collectivist view of racism: White people cannot be discriminated against because, as a whole, they are prosperous and in positions of power.
I can even see myself saying, or could a couple of years ago, can you believe we are going to Mississippi to defend white people. Just like the enviro wackos who refuse to admit that a river is now clean, these racialists refuse to believe that racism is a multi-ethnic failing.
Patricia (9c62d9) — 9/26/2010 @ 7:03 pmYou see it people who think the 14th amendment is only about black people.
Did you already make a 1,000% profit on that car you bought a few days ago?
Dmac (84da91) — 9/26/2010 @ 7:20 pmObama is a virulent racist, as is his America-hating wife.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:15 pmStill haven’t gotten over how hard it is to imagine a hypothethical huh? This one ain’t though. There really are people that don’t think the 14th amendment is for everyone.
imdw (14df54) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:20 pmLOOK BUNNIES !!!!!!!!!!!!! AND SOMETHING SHINY !!!!!!!
JD (3b62be) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:21 pmEmperor
Yep, A.W. = Aaron Worthing.
For a while I put (A.W.) after my nick, but after a while I assumed everyone knew.
imdw
> It’s an odd form of originalism. You see it people who think the 14th amendment is only about black people.
Um, imdw, the Fourteenth Amendment is not at play on any level. For instance, are you talking about state discrimination in the franchise? Well, that is not a Fourteenth Amendment issue, but a Fifteenth Amendment one.
Or do you mean that federal prosecutors are discriminating according to race, which arguable is not a per se Fifteenth Amendment violation (I am a little dubious of that, but it is arguable). But then if the federals are the discriminators, and it is not about the vote, then the Fifth Amendment applies, with the equal protection component of the due process clause (which, let’s face it, was bullsh-t, but oh well).
The point is the Fourteenth Amendment is not at issue at all.
But as a point of fact, the founders of the Fourteenth Amendment were against all racial discrimination and indeed were against more than just discrimination based on race.
Kevin
I would need much more powerful proof than what has been offered so far to believe that the man hated his own mother.
I mean its possible, but unlikely.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:21 pmA.W. – It does not want an actual discussion. It just wants to divert from the actual topic.
JD (3b62be) — 9/26/2010 @ 8:26 pm“But then if the federals are the discriminators, and it is not about the vote, then the Fifth Amendment applies, with the equal protection component of the due process clause (which, let’s face it, was bullsh-t, but oh well).”
Yeah the originalists telling us the 5th amendment forbade discrimination on the basis of race was a good one.
“But as a point of fact, the founders of the Fourteenth Amendment were against all racial discrimination and indeed were against more than just discrimination based on race.”
Could be. I just think this one sided voting rights act stuff is just as silly as the folks advocating a narrow 14th amendment.
imdw (150cd7) — 9/26/2010 @ 9:05 pm83. “Have Gun Will Travel” and “Gunsmoke” on Netflix, or Shooter and Emperor comments. Such hard choices.
Comment by nk — 9/26/2010 @ 11:43 am
— A list of similar hard choices:
Icy Texan (fc131b) — 9/27/2010 @ 2:11 amDom Perignon, or black tar heroin.
Mercedes Benz, or Kia.
Aretha Franklin, or Celine Dion.
Johnny Carson, or any pretender to the late-night throne.
Losing a foot to diabetes, or seeing Madcow naked.
Executing a guilty murderer, or terminating an innocent fetus.
Imdw
> Yeah the originalists telling us the 5th amendment forbade discrimination on the basis of race was a good one.
I am sorry, what originalists are we talking about? Aside from Hugo Black, I haven’t met a one that things that Bolling v. Sharp was correctly decided, although they hasten to add that it was right policy-wise, but that meant congress should have done something, not the courts.
As for the narrow reading of the 14th, sorry, what a complete non sequiter.
Icy
> Dom Perignon, or black tar heroin.
Definitely the second.
> Mercedes Benz, or Kia.
For free or to pay for?
> Aretha Franklin, or Celine Dion.
For singing or sex?
> Johnny Carson, or any pretender to the late-night throne.
Mmm, well, there was Conan…
> Losing a foot to diabetes, or seeing Madcow naked.
Well, now, how long would he be nekked?
> Executing a guilty murderer, or terminating an innocent fetus.
Hey, we in Virginia executed a woman the other day. Balls in your court, Texas!
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 6:43 amWhen the New Black Panther Party thugs were caught on tape during the 2006 presidential election, their activities prior to the arrival of the cameraman were observed and reported by one of the poll watchers, Bartles Bull.
Bull stated that the intimidation tactics were worse than anything he’d seen in Mississippi during the 1960s while he was working as a civil rights lawyer. Bull was once the publisher of “The Village Voice” and he was campaign manager in NY for Robert Kennedy and later for Jimmy Carter.
Bull reported the target for intimidation was initially the polling officials. ACORN had registered tens of thousands of fraudulent voters and the NBPP thugs were there to make sure no obstacles would prevent a massive effort to stuff the ballot boxes.
Which is the reason why Eric Holder’s DOJ was willing to reveal the heavy hand of official misconduct in arbitrarily shutting down the NBPP case. The NBPP thugs were only the tip of the iceberg, behind them were multiple unindicted co-conspirators deeply involved in a widespread and highly organized effort to subvert the 2006 presidential election.
Bull said, “The difference” between what he saw in Philadelphia now and what he had seen Mississippi back then “is that now for the first time in our lifetime the Department of Justice, the weight of the federal government, is not being used to support voters and poll watchers, now the weight of the federal government is being used to support the intimidators. That never happened before not even in the darkest days of the 1960s.”
ropelight (fd7cc6) — 9/27/2010 @ 7:40 amWho is Shooter?
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/27/2010 @ 7:56 am“I am sorry, what originalists are we talking about?”
Have you read Adarand v. Pena?
imdw (842182) — 9/27/2010 @ 8:01 amimdw
oh, geez, is THIS why you are going on and on about the 14th A?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/09/was-it-racially-insensitive-to-say-to.html
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 8:09 amemperor
shooters is an atheist jerk who has a habit of coming here, shooting off his mouth and then when we refute him enough he turns tail and runs.
Beyond that i don’t think anyone knows.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 8:11 am“oh, geez, is THIS why you are going on and on about the 14th A?”
Please. Coulter is a hack — she knows it, everyone knows it. I was thinking more Scalia.
imdw (914dae) — 9/27/2010 @ 8:42 amAW, more like a sockpuppet of a previous commenter… DSCASCA??
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/27/2010 @ 8:43 amimdw
Well, i don’t believe scalia has said that either. And he certainly hasn’t said original intent supported the 5th A equal protection argument.
care to give a quote to back you up.
And mind you Scalia saying that the 14th A was primarily about the rights of newly freed slaves doesn’t count. it was primarily about them, but you are asserting exclusivity.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 10:03 amemperor
i don’t know about sock puppetry. i know patterico has smacked him down personally at least once. i think patterico would be in a unique position to recognize it, so he didn’t say anything, which suggests the answer is no. but that is just a guess and i really don’t know.
it ultimately doesn’t matter. i mean an internet nick is generally useless as information. For instance, i am going to go out on a limb and guess you are not actually the ruler of a country. 🙂 you chose the nick because you like it for some reason.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 10:16 amAW, anything is possible. But no, I am not a ruler of a country. A little clan? well, maybe. Who knows? lol! 🙂
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/27/2010 @ 11:21 am“it was primarily about them, but you are asserting exclusivity.”
How’s this for ‘exclusivity’:
“Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination”
imdw (914dae) — 9/27/2010 @ 11:27 amimdw
> How’s this for ‘exclusivity’
Saying it was not intended to do X is not the same as saying it WAS intended to only Y.
Nice try, though.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 11:38 amAnd, btw, scalia is wrong about the coverage of women. In fact Thaddeus stevens, father of the 14th A, said several things that indicated that he indeed considered gender discrimination to but outlawed by his proposed equal application clause (later changed in to the equal protection clause).
Plus the history of its draftmanship clearly incidates it was meant to apply to more than black people. this is because the original version actually had two clauses–one very specifically applying to race discrimination and the other applying generally to the equal application of the laws. the racial-discrimination specific language was cut, because they felt it was implied in the general clause, and equal application became equal protection. The clear implication is that there were no implied modifying limiting the issue to race alone.
i would add that a book, “Women at War” published in 1867 stated that this book was designed to aid the debate about women’s right going on at the time.
So Scalia was wrong. but his comment still doesn’t equate to exclusivity.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 11:44 am“And, btw, scalia is wrong about the coverage of women.”
Sure. It’s only part of the argument against originalism that they get their original intent wrong in ways that conveniently match up to contemporary conservative policy preferences.
“So Scalia was wrong. but his comment still doesn’t equate to exclusivity.”
Maybe its the words that you’re using, but I’m not following how excluding gender isn’t “exclusivity.”
imdw (8bb588) — 9/27/2010 @ 12:06 pm“And, btw, scalia is wrong about the coverage of women.”
It’s only part of the argument against originalism that they get their original intent wrong in ways that conveniently match up to contemporary conservative policy preferences.
“So Scalia was wrong. but his comment still doesn’t equate to exclusivity.”
Maybe its the words that you’re using, but I’m not following how excluding gender isn’t “exclusivity.”
imdw (a544ba) — 9/27/2010 @ 12:08 pmBecause, maybe, men and women are equal, so, gender would be exclusive…it would leave out the other gender…
See how easy it is for you to think in a discriminatory manner?
reff (b996d9) — 9/27/2010 @ 12:28 pmImdw
> It’s only part of the argument against originalism that they get their original intent wrong in ways that conveniently match up to contemporary conservative policy preferences.
Except in the same speech, scalia said that he was opposed to gender-based discrimination. And, I might add that he dissented in Lawrence while expressing the view that any jurisdiction that locked up people for “merely” having gay sex was wasting its time on a triviality. So what you claim is convenient is not so convenient in Scalia’s case.
> Maybe its the words that you’re using, but I’m not following how excluding gender isn’t “exclusivity.”
Well, think about it. For instance, here’s connecticut’s version of the EPC:
> No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability.
Notice, “sex” and “race” are only two of 8 different named categories.
And then there are the fundamental rights approach to the EPC. Discrimination in voting, for instance, was subjected to strict scrutiny in Bush v. Gore. If you think the EPC can only be read to be about either race or sex, you have a remarkably limited worldview. Indeed, you don’t know of every category that the supreme court has provided protection to.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 12:29 pm“Except in the same speech, scalia said that he was opposed to gender-based discrimination. ”
Well I doubt he’d say he’s FOR discrimination. But what’s the conservative line on, say, VMI ?
“Notice, “sex” and “race” are only two of 8 different named categories.”
And the 14th amendment doesn’t include any categorical limitations. But some people talk about excluding some categories from it, and even get that talk wrong! That’s ‘exclusivity.’
imdw (a544ba) — 9/27/2010 @ 12:39 pmImdw
> Well I doubt he’d say he’s FOR discrimination.
He could have been silent on the subject entirely. But its pretty pathetic to try to prove your point by just baldly asserting he is a liar.
The fact is you attacked Scalia for advocating an interpretation of the constitution based on his policy preferences rather than an honest reading of the constitution. But his actual words say otherwise.
> But what’s the conservative line on, say, VMI ?
Well, on the supreme court alone we had two conservatives for and two against.
> And the 14th amendment doesn’t
I am sorry, where is the concession that I am right, by the way?
Excluding X is not the same as saying its only Y.
The fact is that Scalia himself has applied the EPC to more than just racial discrimination. Bush v. Gore. End of subject.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 12:51 pmAgain, aggressive efforts to talk about anything other than the DOJ scandal.
JD (bc2d86) — 9/27/2010 @ 1:05 pm“The fact is you attacked Scalia for advocating an interpretation of the constitution based on his policy preferences rather than an honest reading of the constitution.”
Speaking of words saying otherwise: I did not say it was based on his policy preferences.
“The fact is that Scalia himself has applied the EPC to more than just racial discrimination. ”
And I don’t recall much originalism in that opinion either.
imdw (b79151) — 9/27/2010 @ 1:32 pmimdw
now you’re just dissembling. yes, you did assert that he was driven by his policy preferences.
And whine all you want about bush v. gore, but the fact is you can’t just steal an election under our constitution. Sorry about that.
Oh, except the obama administration is making it clear you can, as long as you steal it from white people.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 1:36 pmimdw
and notice you still can’t admit you were wrong about scalia believing the 14th A.’s EPC was about race exclusively.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 1:46 pmColbert: I sometimes wonder if he does that ultra-“conservative” schtick because he really is a moron, or because he has to keep his nose pressed firmly up Stewart’s ass for a paycheck…
mojo (4e4a98) — 9/27/2010 @ 1:52 pmAaron Worthing,
> Dom Perignon, or black tar heroin.
Definitely the second.
— That leaves more booze for me!
> Mercedes Benz, or Kia.
For free or to pay for?
— Last week I rode in a Kia for free; I still want my money back.
> Aretha Franklin, or Celine Dion.
For singing or sex?
— One could o.d. on that much chocolate. As for the other one, stuffing something in her mouth so she can’t sing is considered a public service.
> Johnny Carson, or any pretender to the late-night throne.
Mmm, well, there was Conan…
— And Craig Ferguson rocks. Really burned-out on Jay & Dave, though.
> Losing a foot to diabetes, or seeing Madcow naked.
Well, now, how long would he be nekked?
— Two seconds of seeing Rachel Maddow naked and you’ll turn gay like her. [“The horror . . . the horror . . .” — Col. Kurtz]
> Executing a guilty murderer, or terminating an innocent fetus.
Icy Texan (fc131b) — 9/27/2010 @ 1:53 pmHey, we in Virginia executed a woman the other day. Balls in your court, Texas!
— Show-offs!
icy
craig fergusson’s best moment is when he met palin, long before she got the nod, and he pegged her right then and there, as a “naughty librarian” type.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 2:02 pm“now you’re just dissembling. yes, you did assert that he was driven by his policy preferences.”
Please don’t twist my very simple words. My statement was about ‘contemporary conservative policy preferences’ not Scalia’s. I said ‘they’ — not Scalia — and did not follow this with ‘their policy preferences.’
“And whine all you want about bush v. gore, but the fact is you can’t just steal an election under our constitution”
By now you may have noticed that mentioning a lack of originalism is not, for me, a “whine” about an opinion.
“and notice you still can’t admit you were wrong about scalia believing the 14th A.’s EPC was about race exclusively.”
Nope all we have is a paraphrase of him thinking the only concerns should be what was on teh minds of the framers, and being wrong about gender being in there. Which leaves us to ask, what else, could J. Scalia be concerned about ?
imdw (095c5d) — 9/27/2010 @ 2:05 pmWe absolutely must not discuss DOJ not applying the law based on the race of the parties involved.
JD (5a5e2d) — 9/27/2010 @ 2:19 pm“Please don’t twist my very simple words.”
— No prob. We’ll just leave you to your own devices.
Icy Texan (fc131b) — 9/27/2010 @ 2:26 pmImdw
> My statement was about ‘contemporary conservative policy preferences’ not Scalia’s. I said ‘they’ — not Scalia — and did not follow this with ‘their policy preferences.’
Lol, nice try. More lies.
> By now you may have noticed that mentioning a lack of originalism is not, for me, a “whine” about an opinion.
I apologize. I didn’t realize that you had no problem with a corrupt approach to deciding a presidential election. My bad.
> Nope all we have is a paraphrase of him
Nope, you still won’t admit it that you can’t prove it?
> Which leaves us to ask, what else, could J. Scalia be concerned about ?
Well, he certainly has not limited it to race. End of game.
JD
> We absolutely must not discuss DOJ not applying the law based on the race of the parties involved.
Doesn’t bother me too much. He is still keeping this thread alive, and there really isn’t much to discuss. If Coates is telling the truth, then its indefensible. And the only question is how far does this go up?—something we also can’t answer right now.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/27/2010 @ 2:33 pm“More lies.”
Fascinating. Quoting the actual words i used!
“I apologize. I didn’t realize that you had no problem with a corrupt approach to deciding a presidential election. My bad.”
I will say, however, that my least favorite part of the opinion is the one where they try to claw back their 14th amendment jurisprudence and issue a narrowly limited opinion.
“Well, he certainly has not limited it to race”
No he just limited it to what the framers had in mind, and excluded gender.
imdw (604a8a) — 9/27/2010 @ 2:58 pmOh good Allah. How did it become objectionable to follow what the Framers intended?
How many different names have you used, imdw?
JD (6ca166) — 9/27/2010 @ 3:14 pm“How did it become objectionable to follow what the Framers intended?”
Sometime around the time we figured out we wanted the 5th amendment to prohibit racial discrimination, but realized that would mean we’d have to argue with a straight face that in 1791 that’s what they were intending to do. Or maybe earlier. Or maybe later.
Another reason it would be unfashionable is when people are wrong about what the framers intended — as AW, grad from a top law school — shows re: Scalia and gender.
imdw (b79151) — 9/27/2010 @ 3:52 pmImdw
> Quoting the actual words i used!
The lie is what you said about them.
> where they try to claw back their 14th amendment jurisprudence and issue a narrowly limited opinion.
Another lying liberal talking point.
> No he just
The words you are looking for is “you were right Aaron…”
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/27/2010 @ 4:00 pmIf we strictly followed what the Framers intended, we would not have amended the Constitution.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 9/27/2010 @ 5:12 pmmicheal
it depends on what you mean by framers. i consider the radical republicans of the 1860’s as much the framers of the constitution as james madison and company.
So you can mean “framers” as in the guys who were around in 1789, or you can mean anyone who wrote any part of the constitution, and i would tend to imply into that that you only mean to follow them on the subjects of the amendments they wrote. That is Thaddeus Stevens is important to study when talking about the civil war amendments, but not when talking about the bill of rights, or even the 19th Amendment.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/27/2010 @ 5:51 pmJD,
btw, when you talk about allah, aren’t you supposed to say “pbuh” right after? Which i think stands for pedophilia be upon him. or is that just mohammed?
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/27/2010 @ 5:52 pmA.W. – There is no evidence that Allah buggered children or goats. Unlike Mohammed, PBUH.
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/27/2010 @ 6:10 pm“The lie is what you said about them.”
It’s almost as if I could remove the quotes.
“Another lying liberal talking point.”
It is a point and you can talk about it. It’s also right in the opinion.
imdw (8bb588) — 9/27/2010 @ 6:34 pm“Hey, we in Virginia executed a woman the other day. Balls in your court, Texas!”
So then she must have been transgender?
I am for the death penalty, but I think delivering body parts across state lines to taunt another state is kinda low
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 9/27/2010 @ 9:38 pmJeez, lefties, try and stay on topic.
The subject isn’t what Scalia did, the subject is the genarations long institutionalized racism and thuggery of your favorite political party.
Get with the program.
Dave Surls (58a5d2) — 9/27/2010 @ 11:59 pmSteveG
Heh. We sent her head to cali as a warning to the hippies out there.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:39 amLOL, SteveG
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:41 amBack on topic
In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA. Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and prosecution of the Ike Brown case.
This seems more like a personal opinion of a member of Obama’s administration. Unless of course people are no longer allowed to have their own opinion. This hardly sells as evidence that Obama’s administration is racially biased. Unless this is not the intent of this particular post. I stand to be corrected.
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:28 amemperor
it was NOT just her opinion. it was an opinion followed with directions to conduct oneself in a specific manner.
She decided that the man should not ask a person if they will engage in equal enforcement, because they don’t plan to do so.
That is not just her opinion, but an official act. and the only question is how high up the food chain responsibility for it goes.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:42 amAaron’s right, Emperor.
When you bolded this:
you should have noticed that this is more than an expression of opinion.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:52 am@AW
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:04 amRead the post again and you will see that this was borne out of her personal feelings about the former situation. A feeling she has had long before her appointment, it seems. The question should be did the administration know she had such personal sentiments before appointing her. That is arguable.
Emperor, you already granted that this person IS a member of the administration.
Sure, the directive was ‘borne’ out of an opinion. So?
It’s a directive.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:06 amSeems like the ‘we didn’t know this person was an utter lawless kook’ excuse doesn’t work when so much of the administration is exposed as utter lawless kooks.
And she hasn’t been fired yet.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:08 amTeh Chimperor lurvs its Barcky.
JD (f89659) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:10 am@Dustin
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:18 amAre you saying that an administration officer does not have power to exercise his or her own authority based on their initiative or freedom? Dont they have power to decide or act without the actual involvement of the President or some superior authority? Please educate me on how this thing works.
And she hasn’t been fired yet.
Comment by Dustin — 9/28/2010 @ 7:08 am
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:26 amExactly my point, Dustin. I expect that to be the next thing. She must have over stepped her boundaries. Causing her boss such an embarrassment. She allowed her personal feelings to get in the way of her judgement. Under the bus with her!!
Emperor, by your own words, this was the Obama administration. And anyone can see this is racially biased.
Your excuse that this wasn’t the “actual involvement of the president” is absolutely pathetic. This is the Obama administration’s racist policy. It’s not merely some person expressing an opinion… that’s a red herring.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you’re trying to pretend someone can apply the laws differently because of “freedom”. Are you aware of the Equal Protection Clause?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:29 amAnd why hasn’t this person been fired? By now, the President has considered this policy and ascertained whether it’s in effect. I think a lot of people were well aware of this issue a year and a half ago, btw. Of course Obama is responsible for this.
I’m getting pretty tired of the same people who blamed Bush for the weather forgiving Obama for his own policies.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:32 amEmperor
> The question should be did the administration know she had such personal sentiments before appointing her. That is arguable.
No, the issue is whether anyone above her knew she was doing this. the exact date of the origin of this racist attitude is irrelevant unless you want to accuse her of malfeasance before she accepted that DOJ position.
> Are you saying that an administration officer does not have power to exercise his or her own authority based on their initiative or freedom? Dont they have power to decide or act without the actual involvement of the President or some superior authority? Please educate me on how this thing works
Under controlling supreme court law no one in the administration is allowed to discriminate based on race unless that discrimination can survive strict scrutiny. You can count on one hand how often the supreme court has found any racial discrimination to be kosher since Brown. Most lawyers agree, the moment your conduct is under strict scrutiny, you are usually screwed.
> Causing her boss such an embarrassment.
And jeopardizing every single case the Civil Rights Division has brought since Obama has taken office. Any white defendant accused of a violation of the voting rights act can now plausibly claim that he is the victim of racial discrimination.
Serious, imagine if a United States Attorney said, “from this day forward, we will only prosecute murders committed against white people.” Do you really believe that this is a matter of the United States Attorney freedom and personal opinion? Or do you see a constitutional problem, there?
Dustin
> I’m getting pretty tired of the same people who blamed Bush for the weather forgiving Obama for his own policies.
Or more specifically the people who blamed Abu Ghraib on Bush. These jailors acted on their own, etc. but the NYT struggled mightily to find some way Bush caused it. The best they could come up with was to say that since Bush et al were not as solicitously nice to the prisoners as Clinton, that they thought they could get away with what they did, which is thin gruel to say the least and idiotic as a matter of policy.
Myself I apply one standard, but it is more reasonable. You cannot blame a supervisor for the conduct of a subordinate when you can’t say the supervisor knew or should have known about it.
But we are crossing that threshold pretty quickly. Where is the announcement that they are at least investigating Coates’ claims and so on? I haven’t heard anything.
The only defense is to call Coates a liar. And if the administration is not even interested in looking into it, they we can say at this point they should have known what was going on, and lay the blame right at Barky’s feet. As much as we joke about various people being thrown under the bus, sometimes you do have to fire people. And if these allegations are verified, she richly deserves it.
And again, if they were acting like this, in a racially biased fashion, and Obama knew and didn’t do anything about it, I consider that an impeachable offense. I know that sounds extreme but to me the classic impeachable offense was Watergate. What the guys breaking in tried to do was tamper with our very system of elections. If they were able to get away with it, it could literally threaten democracy.
The right to vote is equally something you absolutely do not screw with, because free and fair elections are the bedrock of this republic. There could be no higher crime than allowing your biases to f— up an election.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:36 am@Dustin.
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:38 amDustin I don’t support any policy that seems racist or promotes racism, no matter who is behind it. My issue here is can you really make the argument that this is an Obama policy? Can we prove that yes Obama supports this policy? Is it even a policy of this administration? I need links or proofs that show that yes Obama sent her to say that or make such directives. Once I see that, I will be the first to condemn it and denounce this administration.
Except where you rush to defend the racist policy of Teh One’s administration. This is typical Chimperor BS.
JD (c623a2) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:40 amemperor
if it is not his policy then why isn’t this woman’s job at least in jeopardy?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:45 amCompare and contrast the Obama administration policy when it looks like the criminal activity is being directed at (possible) Obama supporters and the perps don’t like Obama any too well…
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/09/10/whites-accused-of-beating-blacks-after-obama-victory-sentenced/
They threw the book at these clowns (and rightly so…they almost killed some guy), but when it comes to a flagrant crime committed by Obama supporters and Democrat/NBPP “poll watchers” their no tolerance policy suddenly becomes…a we can’t be bothered to prosecute policy.
Same as it ever was. One set of rules for the Dems and their pals (like the NBPP nowadays, or the Klan in the old days), and another set of rules for eveyone else.
Dave Surls (533a0c) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:50 amYou’re being reasonable, Aaron. In my opinion, this has been publicized long enough that there is no doubt Obama is responsible for the policy. If, at some stage this policy was overridden, of course it wouldn’t be reasonable to blame Obama for it.
Not only did Bush not support Abu Ghraib, but the people who abused prisoners were prosecuted. The same should occur here with this abuse.
No one cares what you claim about yourself. Ad hom arguments are useless.
Do you know why people use the word “Obama administration” and not Obama? Because Obama ran for a job where he’s supposed to behave as a responsible leader. He has known about this scandal for some time. He should do something about it. It’s not good enough to play this Nixon game that he didn’t specifically threaten voters at a polling station, or personally take any particular of these obviously racist DOJ measures.
You need “links and proofs” of something that is totally irrelevant.
You already said this wasn’t a policy by an administration member, and I already *proved* you were absolutely wrong in that claim. Your ad hoc rebuttal just comes across as shilling for your political party, but regardless of what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Obama is supposed to be the President, that means he is supposed to eventually lead these departments. no one is expecting him to do so perfectly, but letting this policy go on for months? Yeah, I blame him for that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:51 amHaven’t you guys and gals learned yet that to attempt a serious discussion with the passive/agressive personality currently known as “The Emperor” is about as rewarding as banging your head repeatedly against the wall, and much more painful.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:57 amdave
i honesty didn’t know about that racist beating. and you are correct to condemn it. but the irony here is that this behavior claimed by Coats might jeopardize that righteous conviction.
Dustin
Well, certainly obama has a matter of days at best to demonstrate at least an interest in investigation. i am generous, but not endlessly so.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:59 amAD, it is pretty amazing how it’s Emperor who made the radical and incorrect claim, only to demand ridiculous proof of something nobody was talking about (A proof that Obama personally did something). All I did was hold him up to his own words. If the best that can be said for Obama is that he doesn’t personally conduct the racism of his administration, then God help us.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:01 amExcellent point, Aaron.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:02 amAW, lets wait and see what happens. I don’t like rushing into conclusions based on one person’s side of the story. Everything will unravel with time.
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:08 am#168….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Laugh, I thought I’d never start.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:11 amMore problems for the DoJ….
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601533,00.html
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:13 amWhat really irritates me about this situation is that the Administration is ordering whistleblowers not to testify.
Obama promised us transparency. He has an obligation to take steps to increase transparency. Instead, we get orders not to testify.
Emperor can go on forever demanding proof. But part of the problem is that the administration is doing its best to obstruct the truth from coming out. All the proof a reasonable person needs about Barack Obama himself, and his lack of character and leadership.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:25 amIf the best that can be said for Obama is that he doesn’t personally conduct the racism of his administration, then God help us.
Comment by Dustin — 9/28/2010 @ 9:01 am
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:30 amBut you do agree that his presidency is definitely going to be one with a lot of allegations of racism whether true or false because of the very nature of his presidency.. This is not unexpected. He is the first black president of this country. Stuffs like this are bound to happen. My point is lets not cry “wolf” over nothing..
@AD
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:35 amSo nice to meet you again. Glad that I have given you something to laugh about. 🙂
Emperor,
You should admit your earlier claim was disproven. You said that this was simply an expression of freedom, not a policy of any administration member.
You playing the ‘but he’s black’ card is another completely irrational distraction. Your claim was in error, and you’re flailing wildly in every conceivable direction. Why not try sexism? Or the illuminati?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:38 amDustin, I think it has a greater familiarity with “little green men from Mars” than either of your examples.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:39 am“One set of rules for the Dems and their pals (like the NBPP nowadays, or the Klan in the old days)”
This is one of the more amazing sentences out there.
imdw (150cd7) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:47 amAmazing only because of its’ accuracy – which can only be denied by those who have no sense of history, only their “feelings”.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:51 amAD, that kind of attack is horrible and awful and evil, even if it’s the truth. Meanwhile, the GOP = the Taliban because some guy looks down on divorces.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:54 amEmperor
> AW, lets wait and see what happens
They have a matter of days to start taking this seriously. An investigation at the least. And I am being generous. The moment that slam dunk case was thrown, there should have been an investigation.
> But you do agree that his presidency is definitely going to be one with a lot of allegations of racism whether true or false because of the very nature of his presidency.
You mean less often than Bush? I am waiting for Kenye West to say that Obama doesn’t care about white people (maybe while interrupting Taylor Swift).
Really, seriously, the claim that a black man is more likely to be ACCUSED of racism is more than a little silly. if there is an increase in claims of racism, it is now by liberals directed toward anyone who opposes the self-evident awesomeness of Obama. And generally the louder those liberals are in proclaiming opposition to Obama is based on racism, the more likely it is that those liberals are themselves racist. I have bagged and tagged three already as racists: Olbermann, Matthews and Maher.
Indeed these days the left loves to claim that a black man cannot be a racist, automatically, based on the color of his skin. I always wondered how that worked, exactly. For instance, since Obama is 50% white, does that mean that half of him can be racist? Or is this the one drop rule revived from the days of Jim Crow?
Point is, if anything, liberals are falling all over themselves to give him a free pass on racial issues.
Now I myself don’t even think it is about race per se, so much as the desire to increase democratic power. And I am open to the possibility that Obama is such a sh-tty executive that he doesn’t know how to control his administration. But this is management 101. If there evidence of serious malfeasance, you look into it, find out the facts and discipline as appropriate. And that evidence has existed almost from day one. I am being really generous to even give him until the end of the week to get started on the investigation. A person can reasonably argue I am being too generous.
Imdw
> This is one of the more amazing sentences out there.
Yep, amazing but true. but honestly, I am less amazed by the chicanery each passing minute.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:26 amDustin
if you are referring to Grayson calling Webster “Taliban Dan” it is even worse than you said.
Greyson played audio of Webster quoting where the bible said women should be obedient to their husbands, right?
Except the full quote was to tell men to IGNORE that part of the bible. So literally that was a lie.
As IMAO once said, Greyson is pretty much exactly what you would have if you took your average liberal troll and made him a congressman.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:29 am“Amazing only because of its’ accuracy”
I do think that NBPP and others have had the same rules applied to them — but not so much by “dems.” Really just because the case that angry fox people wanted brought was real hard. And has always been so.
I’m curious if our friend can identify when this perceived switch to paling with the NBPP from paling the Klan occurred?
imdw (b79151) — 9/28/2010 @ 11:24 amDustin here is fact check on the grayson thing:
http://factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/
That is no the “Taliban Dan” ad.
then there is this:
http://factcheck.org/2010/09/patriotism-falsely-impugned/
which is on the claim that he was a draft dodger. the fact was that Webster has something screwy with his feet, they tried to correct it so he could go into military service, but it didn’t work.
God, Grayson is such a tool
if i was webster, i would do a simple ad, if his messed up feet are visually obvious in their handicap.
So he comes out and shows his feet and says this, “like alot of Americans, i have struggled with a handicap. This handicap makes it hard for me to stand for very long and as a result when i was called for service, the military decided it didn’t want me. I was disappointed, angry even, but i understood.
“But my opponent, Alan Greyson, has attacked me for having this handicap. He has accused me of draft dodging, even though i was willing and ready, but not able to serve.”
Stick it in his face and show the world what a tool Grayson is.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 11:34 amimdw
> I do think that NBPP and others have had the same rules applied to them — but not so much by “dems.”
Yeah, so let’s break this down. You feel that republicans did treat the black panthers (and unspecified others) equally.
But did the dems treat the Black Panthers equally? According to you, “not so much.”
Well, what do you call that when you say a person is being treated “less equally?” You call that UNEQUAL TREATMENT.
So by your own words you have conceded that the black panthers were treated equally by the republicans and unequally by the dems.
So once again, I think the words you are looking for is “you were right, Aaron.” For the second time in this thread, no less.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 11:40 ami should clarify that the phrase “less equally” is not imdw’s words, but sort of a common phrase used. sort of like the phrase: we are all equal but some are more equal than others.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 12:02 pm“So by your own words you have conceded that the black panthers were treated equally by the republicans and unequally by the dems.”
Are you sure you read these words: “Really just because the case that angry fox people wanted brought was real hard. And has always been so.”
?
Where did you say you went to school again?
“i should clarify that the phrase “less equally” is not imdw’s words, but sort of a common phrase used.”
So, to clarify, you want to know what I mean when I say words that you put in quotes but are not the words that I said?
imdw (a544ba) — 9/28/2010 @ 12:11 pmAngry fox people racists are clearly the bad guys here.
JD (cd49be) — 9/28/2010 @ 12:30 pmimdw
> Are you sure you read these words
I read those words. but your grammatical structure was so awful, i had trouble figuring out what you meant. i mean i am not trying to pick on you, but i really couldn’t parse that thing it was such a mess. Either that or you have absolutely no idea what was going on or its significance. And on further examination I am guessing actually you are just really, really clueless. So my apologies for my failure to address that incredibly clueless statement.
I mean look at these words…
> Really just because the case that angry fox people wanted brought was real hard. And has always been so.
So I think that the phrase “the case that angry fox people wanted brought” means the black panther case. okay so let’s substitute those words in for clarity and we can see what was in your sentence. And let’s clean up some of the other messy things in the sentence (missing commas, the use of the world “real” when “really” is proper.)
> Really[,] just because the [black panther] case … was real[ly] hard. And has always been so.
So are you actually trying to say that the reason why the Democrats were treating this situation unequally was because the black panther case was “real hard?” Because if you are, then you are literally clueless about what happened there.
Let me explain to you what happened, which if you were paying any attention at all, you would already know. First, these guys were caught on tape attempting to intimidate voters. I mean its weird to say that when you have them caught red handed on tape, that it is a “hard” case. I mean it is clear as day what was going on. So the best you can do is claim that these guys were engaged in street theater or something like that. Because unless you can plausibly claim they were just playing pretend, then they are otherwise caught red handed.
But they didn’t go after them criminally—mind you, this was under the bush administration. They went after them civilly, seeking in part an injunction saying that they could not go anywhere near a polling place next time there is an election.
So the DOJ sent out the complaint and summons and the day came for them to answer it, and… the defendants didn’t show up.
So what happened next? The DOJ won BY DEFAULT. That is, they won AUTOMATICALLY. That is what happens when you file a civil lawsuit and the other side doesn’t show up—you win by default.
That is the absolute opposite of a HARD case. That is literally as easy as it gets in law. The men could have come to court and confessed and it wouldn’t be easier.
Then after they won, in comes the Obama administration and suddenly they are dismissing most of the defendants, and putting a weak sauce injunction on one that wouldn’t even prevent him from literally doing the same thing, at the same polling place, when Obama is up for reelection. The judge was going to give them everything they wanted and they chose not to do take it. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
So the inequality, which you already conceded, cannot be traced to the merits of the case.
And that means you have to explain it another way. Some say racism. I say its about preserving democratic power. Either way it is corrupt.
> you want to know what I mean
i didn’t say i wanted to know what you meant by those words.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:00 pmdustin
hey check it out. according to hot air, this is video of greyson being taken to the woodshed… by msnbc. that is right even they couldn’t stand him.
whodathunkit?
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/28/video-grayson-taken-to-the-woodshed-by-msnbc/
At least that is their characterization. i can’t watch it now, but i trust hot air enough to link to it and believe them until i can see for myself.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:19 pm“i had trouble figuring out what you meant. ”
That’s a bit more equivocal than earlier. What happened?
“So I think that the phrase “the case that angry fox people wanted brought” means the black panther case.”
The criminal case. It wasn’t brought. That decision wasn’t really made by “dems.” It was made before obama was even inaugurated. There was also a further decision in the civil case, also made by a career person. NBPP got equal treatment and it wasn’t really due to “dems” but actually a more objective reason — that cases like this are hard.
“I mean its weird to say that when you have them caught red handed on tape, that it is a “hard” case. I mean it is clear as day what was going on”
The case against the guy caught on tape with the stick was not dropped.
Are you sure you’re aware of what the claimed problems are? There are several things going on here and I think you are not aware of them.
“i didn’t say i wanted to know what you meant by those words.”
Ah well that certainly clarifies things.
imdw (0fb633) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:34 pmI stand to be corrected.
Comment by The Emperor — 9/28/2010 @ 6:28 am
— Stand, sit, lie down, curl into a ball, stand in the corner, hide under the floorboards; whatever. In return for assuming a position, ‘assume the position’.
Icy Texan (1cdac1) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:36 pmA.W. – tilt at windmills often? Dimwit runs around with the goalposts, claiming superior knowledge and understanding. It is what it does.
JD (5e2cbe) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:39 pmWhat it does not want to talk about is the DOJ policy about only applying the law based on the race of those involved.
JD (5e2cbe) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:42 pmShe must have over stepped her boundaries. Causing her boss such an embarrassment. She allowed her personal feelings to get in the way of her judgement. Under the bus with her!!
Comment by The Emperor — 9/28/2010 @ 7:26 am
— She embarrassed her boss by allowing this to become public knowledge. As far as you know, her actions were within the boundaries established by her boss.
Icy Texan (1cdac1) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:43 pmimdw
> That’s a bit more equivocal than earlier.
No I am unequivocally calling your sentence structure a complete suck @$$.
> The criminal case.
Which you only mention for the first time at comment 189. Mmm kay.
> There was also a further decision in the civil case, also made by a career person.
Actually documentary and testimonial evidence directly contradicts that claim. And besides the bias is in career people, too.
> NBPP got equal treatment and it wasn’t really due to “dems” but actually a more objective reason — that cases like this are hard.
No, they got unequal treatment. You said it yourself.
And again, the case was not hard. The government had won it already when they were told to dismiss it for two defendants and to neuter the injunction for the third. you admit that the republicans treated the issue equally. But the bush administration brought the case, and the obama administration dismissed most of it, and neutered the rest.
> The case against the guy caught on tape with the stick was not dropped
Have you even seen the tape?
> Are you sure you’re aware of what the claimed problems are?
Enlighten me, because right now I doubt you have even seen the tape.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 1:44 pm“I’m curious if our friend can identify when this perceived switch to paling with the NBPP from paling the Klan occurred?”
What’s this perceived business?
Are you denying the direct relationship between the KKK and the Democrat Party in the “good old days” (when the Democrat Party murdered thousands of innocent people in order to rig elections), or the current relationship between the NBBP and the Democrats?
Jerry Jackson is a member of both the Democrat Party and the NBPP. It’s not a matter of perception. It’s a simple fact.
Case closed.
Dave Surls (533a0c) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:05 pmRegarding the motto on the DOJ seal: “Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur;” the DOJ explains it thus: the most authoritative Department opinion suggests that the motto refers to the Attorney General (and thus to the Department of Justice), “who prosecutes on behalf of justice (or the Lady Justice).”
— It seems that these days not only is Lady Justice no longer blind, but she isn’t even color blind.
Icy Texan (1cdac1) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:07 pmIt’s all good, though. He DID warn us that he was out to remake America, ya know.
“No, they got unequal treatment. You said it yourself.”
Hrm. Now you’re back to certainty from “i had trouble figuring out what you meant.”
“Have you even seen the tape?”
I saw it on fox news. If it werent for them, would the NBPP ever have a platform?
“And again, the case was not hard. ”
Looks hard when you don’t really have much evidence against a big defendant. What’s the evidence to enjoin both the people in the video? What’s the evidence to enjoin the organization as a whole? Was there evidence of the organization engaging in this practice elsewhere?
imdw (150cd7) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:13 pmoh, and malik shabazz visited the white house.
http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/09/24/which-malik-shabazz-visited-white-house-in-july-2009-mr-president/
of course that is not the same guy they dismissed the case agaisnt. no, not, that is a different shabazz.
Ditto with the Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Michael Moore. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/31/2009-10-31_big_names_on_white_house_visit_list.html
Nope, the white house assures us, they are not the same people. But they won’t give us enough information to verify who they really are.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:14 pmLOOK BUNNIES !!!
JD (d9926c) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:15 pm“Are you denying the direct relationship between the KKK and the Democrat Party in the “good old days” (when the Democrat Party murdered thousands of innocent people in order to rig elections), or the current relationship between the NBBP and the Democrats?”
I’m just curious as to when you see the switch occurring. Was it when LBJ went on TV and said ‘we shall overcome’ ?
imdw (150cd7) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:15 pm“But they won’t give us enough information to verify who they really are.”
Let me guess, when you saw “office space” you didn’t get the joke about the guy being named “michael bolton.”
imdw (150cd7) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:18 pmImdw
> Now you’re back to certainty
I was certain about the first sentence in that paragraph. The second was a clusterf—. What is hard about that?
> If it werent for them, would the NBPP ever have a platform?
Well, apparently they can do whatever they want in front of a voting place.
> Looks hard when you don’t really have much evidence against a big defendant
Except the big defendant didn’t even show up to present a defense. I mean there is that.
> What’s the evidence to enjoin both the people in the video?
They were IN THE VIDEO. If you don’t see at least an attempt at voter intimidation, I am calling it: you didn’t watch it.
> What’s the evidence to enjoin the organization as a whole?
Documentary evidence that they planned it from the top. Look just because you never bothered to learn anything about the case doesn’t mean they had no evidence.
And you didn’t need evidence, because they didn’t even show up to defend themselves.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:23 pmI admire your efforts, A.W., in the face of iamadimwit’s relentless pursuit of asshattery.
JD (eb1dfe) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:29 pm“Except the big defendant didn’t even show up to present a defense. I mean there is that.”
And that is all they have? seriuosly?
“They were IN THE VIDEO. ”
I saw a guy wave a stick. What did the other guy do wrong? Did they introduce any affidavits from voters who were intimidated?
“Documentary evidence that they planned it from the top. ”
I saw the claim in the complaint. But are you saying the planned it from the top to…have two guys to 1221 fairmont st? Or was there more here?
“And you didn’t need evidence”
So your overall problem is that dems expect to have evidence ?
imdw (0275b8) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:31 pmhey its keeping the thread alive. he is performing a service.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:31 pmHow disingenuous can you get. He did not state that, nor imply that. His point was that there is already a default judgment.
The simple fact is that iamadimwit wants to distract from the topic, that the Barcky DOJ is applying the law differently based on the race of the people involved. Imdw approves.
JD (eb1dfe) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:37 pmYes all those voter suppression cases that they’re… not bringing? What? How many 11(b) cases have there been anyway?
imdw (a544ba) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:43 pm“I’m just curious as to when you see the switch occurring.”
The northern Dems started to lose their enthusiasm for what their southern pals were doing when large numbers of blacks started moving to the northern and western states where there was no Jim Crow system and where no Jim Crow system could be created (because those regions blacks were moving to were Republican…and, generally speaking, Republicans won’t play that crap).
“The Great Migration was the movement of 2 million African Americans out of the Southern United States to the Midwest, Northeast and West from 1910 to 1930.[1] Estimates of the number of migrants vary according to the time frame used. African Americans migrated to escape racism and seek employment opportunities in industrial cities. Some historians differentiate between the First Great Migration (1910–40), numbering about 1.6 million migrants, and the Second Great Migration, from 1940 to 1970.”
“In the Second Great Migration, 5 million or more people relocated, with the migrants moving to more new destinations. Many moved from Texas and Louisiana to California where there were jobs in the defense industry. From 1965–70, 14 states of the South, especially Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, contributed to a large net migration of blacks to the other three Census-designated regions of the United States.”
Now, there are millions of blacks in the non-southern regions of America, and they can’t be kept from voting, so the “liberals” did the next best thing…they started pandering to blacks (trading free handouts from the government for votes)…which is what they’re still doing.
Dave Surls (533a0c) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:47 pmThe quote I cited is from wiki, btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)
Dave Surls (533a0c) — 9/28/2010 @ 2:50 pm“Now, there are millions of blacks in the non-southern regions of America, and they can’t be kept from voting, so the “liberals” did the next best thing…they started pandering to blacks (trading free handouts from the government for votes)…which is what they’re still doing.”
So when do you think the switch happened? Were dems paling with both for a while? Or was there a time when they were paling with neither? Was my LBJ guess on the money?
Thanks for the little bit on the great migration.
imdw (9cfbd8) — 9/28/2010 @ 3:23 pmBUNNIES!!!
SOMETHING SHINY!!!
JD (a30317) — 9/28/2010 @ 3:33 pmimdw
I am going to say this one more time.
If you get sued, and you don’t show up, you lose AUTOMATICALLY.
In the eyes of the court, the failure to response in a timely fashion is equivalent to an admission of all claims against you.
The means the plaintiff DOESN’T HAVE TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE. You can show up later and you still can’t present a defense. You have effectively admitted all charges to be true.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t have more evidence, just that we never had to see it BECAUSE NO MORE EVIDENCE WAS NEEDED. If they TRIED to present evidence, the court would STOP THEM because it would be a waste of time.
And no, that doesn’t mean that they can just allege anything. If the court finds that there was no evidentiary basis for their claims, they can be sanctioned.
So don’t go, “I am not sure they were guilty”—especially given it is obvious that you haven’t bothered to even look at the video or any of the other evidence. Either that or you literally can’t remember the evidence you saw.
The black panthers lost because they didn’t even try to defend themselves.
And the Obama administration literally took that victory and threw it in the garbage.
This was a result you admitted was unequal. Your exact words: “I do think that NBPP and others have had the same rules applied to them — but not so much by ‘dems.’” Deny it all you want, but those are your words. The only excuse you ever offered was that it was a “hard” case. Except it was actually really easy, and they had actually won it when the obama administration stepped in and threw that victory in the toilet.
And it is only your willful ignorance that keeps you from admitting that this was an indefensible dismissal.
> Were dems paling with both for a while?
Jesus, imdw, don’t you know that if you are saying they are pals with them you spell it with two L’s? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/palling
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 3:56 pmThe KKK, like the SEIU/ACORN is today, was the para-military wing of the Democrat Party.
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 4:15 pmObama is a racist, white-hating black-loving president who will use his DOJ to arm-twist the voting process to favor blacks over whites. Got it!
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:03 pmObama is a worthless Chicago hack. An empty suit. Mayor Daley’s dog whom Emanuel and Axelrod have been assigned to hold his leash. Who plays golf because he is not capable of doing anything else. Who got the Presidency because he ran against some whispery deadwood from Arizona. And refused public money. And spent ten times as much as the deadwood. And nobody knows where the $800 million came from.
nk (db4a41) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:19 pmPalin should run for President just to show what she can do when she’s not tied down by the beer-seller’s daughter’s husband.
nk (db4a41) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:22 pmDitto that. I think Palin should run for President.
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/28/2010 @ 5:33 pm@196
kishnevi (db1823) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:01 pmWhich also suggests that no one in the DOJ knows Latin any more. “sequitur” means following, not prosecuting, as in the phrase “non sequitur” to describe a piece of illogic or absurdity. The words “sequel” and “sequence” are derived from related Latin words.
Emperor
I will need more proof than has been offered before I call Obama an anti-white racist, if only because his mother was white and I tend to assume that all men love their mothers and will not hate people “like” their mothers. That is a presumption that can be overcome with evidence, but it is my presumption.
That being said, the man sat for 20 years in an anti-white racist church. He called his grandmother a “typical white person.” And his justice department dismissed most of this case and neutered what was left, after it was won. If Obama didn’t have a white mother, I would be seriously questioning whether he judged people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:28 pmnk
john mccain is a genuine american hero. we could have done alot worse than him as president and in fact we did. And he will never run again. Yes, he had serious flaws, not the least of which is mccain-feingold, but that was a bit cheap in my book.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:30 pmnk:
Didn’t they say Bush was a worthless Daddy’s boy and so stupid Dick Cheney had to tell him what to say? As I recall, they also said he wasn’t capable of much more than playing golf and only won because Al Gore was too wooden.
How politics repeats itself.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:38 pm“If you get sued, and you don’t show up, you lose AUTOMATICALLY.”
Default judgment was only entered against Shabazz.
imdw (3a7ce5) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:47 pmBUNNIES!!!!!!!!!!
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/28/2010 @ 6:55 pmSo just at what point am I to conclude that Democrats approve of gang thugs intimidating voters?
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:06 pmSPQR – It is quite apparent that imdw approves.
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:15 pmAW…IIRC, Teh Won kind of threw his Grandmother under the bus at one point in the campaign…
AD-RtR/OS! (57c107) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:20 pmA White-woman who raised and nurtured him, and provided a first-class education for him when her daughter defaulted on her parental obligations, not to speak about what his father, and step-father did (but that might be more a reflection upon his mother and her selection process in finding men to share her life with).
Imdw
> Default judgment was only entered against Shabazz.
That is not what I have been told. http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=5561
So care to back up your factual assertion?
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:28 pmAaron,
That I did not realize. An effective smear, so thanks for debunking it. Infuriating. I realize sleaze is not exclusive to the left, but anyone who stands with Grayson is a POS.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:34 pmDustin
Hey if you haven’t already go to hot air. They have video of greyson being raked over the coals… by MSNBC. no, you didn’t misread that. even msnbc has some standards of honesty, apparently. who knew?
i mean she really holds his feet to the flames. I think the only way should could have improved is if she said outright the ad was a lie.
I said to my wife, its exactly as if I said to a man with a gun, “don’t kill anyone” and they quoted me as saying, “kill anyone.”
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:43 pmWow, MSNBC actually acting like a reputable news org. The video is absolutely damning. It’s amusing that Grayson keeps making up attacks after such a major lie is exposed.
Hopefully that terminates Grayson’s viability, but I know better. I love how he complains that Webster’s wife was ‘given time’ and this was ‘off track’, when he’s willing to slander her family. That kind of moral compass aligns a lot better with the power-hungry Taliban than anything Webster will ever show.
Democrats are acting so desperate lately, and they are doing a lot of damage. I think the way they are compromising faith in our elections is far worse and could lead to a terrible situation.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:54 pm“So just at what point am I to conclude that Democrats approve of gang thugs intimidating voters?”
I think you’ll be saddened to see that actually the problem may be that the law doesn’t forbid this. The civil rights division wrote up a memo on what constitutes an 11(b) violation and the case history they go through isn’t very good. But they do embellish 1 guy with a club into a ‘gauntlet.’ And that guy got a judgment against him.
“So care to back up your factual assertion?”
Your article says that default judgment was entered on April 1. However, motion for default judgment was only filed later, on May 15. Your article is incorrect.
Where did you say you went to school? Did they teach you to use PACER?
imdw (522aa3) — 9/28/2010 @ 7:59 pmGrayson is disgusting. That is all. It was really cute when he tried to blame MSNBC for selectively editing his commercial.
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:00 pmHow many names have you used here, imdw?
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:02 pmImdw
> Where did you say you went to school? Did they teach you to use PACER?
Pacer costs money. If you want to piss it away on this, that is fine.
Anyway, so all you are offering is your word. Not good enough. back it up.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:09 pmWhat it is offering, A.W., is a complete smokescreen, a diversion from the topic. It approves of this.
JD (cc3aa7) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:10 pm“Pacer costs money. If you want to piss it away on this, that is fine.”
School costs money too. How much did you say you paid for it?
You’d think this would be on RECAP by now. Or that you could find the motion for default judgment:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/BlackPanther.php
“Anyway, so all you are offering is your word. Not good enough. back it up.”
Also, you mentioned that “If you get sued, and you don’t show up, you lose AUTOMATICALLY.”
It’s come to my attention that this is not automatic. It is still up to the court’s discretion whether you lose. But maybe you can “Back it up” since “all you are offering is your word.”
imdw (14df54) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:15 pmimdw’s attempt to argue with Aaron is just plain hilarious
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:24 pmImdw
I stand corrected. They had the RIGHT to see default judgment, and they did not. And that decision was clearly made under the obama administration by your own sources.
Which makes it a difference without distinction.
> It’s come to my attention that this is not automatic. It is still up to the court’s discretion whether you lose.
Its automatic if the plaintiffs only ask for it, barring truly extraordinary circumstances.. As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about. Ask any of the lawyers here.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:29 pm“And that decision was clearly made under the obama administration by your own sources.”
They still have to support default judgment. The Obama administration decided they could not support it against the other defendants.
“Its automatic if the plaintiffs only ask for it, barring truly extraordinary circumstances.”
The court still has to determine whether it is a legitimate cause of action. The 3rd circuit also has a 3 part test for whether to issue a default. These don’t sound like ‘only ask for it.’
How much did school cost again?
imdw (2020d4) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:47 pmI’maDillWeed
> They still have to support default judgment. The Obama administration decided they could not support it against the other defendants.
Now you are just making crap up.
There is no justification for dropping this case. But this was about sending a message, that however blatant the violation of the voting rights act, however little defense was offered, they still wouldn’t prosecute if the people intimidated where white.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:51 pm“Now you are just making crap up.”
You didn’t read the materials at the link, did you?
“But this was about sending a message, that however blatant the violation of the voting rights act, however little defense was offered, they still wouldn’t prosecute if the people intimidated where white.”
Doesn’t it mar this message that someone actually was prosecuted?
imdw (53b665) — 9/28/2010 @ 8:54 pmimdw, we had a different administration on January 7, 2009, when the NBPP voter intimidation case was filed (in civil court).
But you already knew that you were making a dishonest argument.
It’s obvious from the way you talk to others, the way you insist facts are presented in links, without actually noting what facts you’re talking about, etc.
I know the guidance from on high is that I shouldn’t attack the arguer, just the argument. Well, your argument sucks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:09 pm“imdw, we had a different administration on January 7, 2009, when the NBPP voter intimidation case was filed (in civil court).”
In may, under obama, the government moved for and got a judgement against one of the defendants — the guy with the club. This is what leads me to say “Doesn’t it mar this message that someone actually was prosecuted?”
imdw (7b0243) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:31 pmI’maDillWeed
> You didn’t read the materials at the link, did you?
I read enough. Unlike you, I know something about the law.
> Default by Jerry Jackson, New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Malik Zulu Shabazz, Samir Shabazz for Failure to Appear, Plead or Otherwise Defend (entered 4/1/09)
So once the default is entered, the default judgment is, absent unusual circumstances, pro forma.
> Doesn’t it mar this message that someone actually was prosecuted?
Actually, NO ONE was prosecuted. It was a civil case. So don’t lecture me about the law when you don’t even know basics like that.
And given that they had three people caught in default, only getting one is inexcusable. That is the point of this scandal, or at least a major point.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:21 pm“So once the default is entered, the default judgment is, absent unusual circumstances, pro forma.”
So when you researched and found that this was “pro forma,” did you run into the 3 factor test that the 3rd circuit uses when deciding whether to grant default judgment? Because that didn’t look “pro forma.” Nor is it “pro forma” for a court to ascertain whether there was a legitimate cause of action.
It seems like you imagine default to mean that the defendant admits to the law and facts as stated by the plaintiff. But it’s really only the latter, right?
“Actually, NO ONE was prosecuted. It was a civil case. So don’t lecture me about the law when you don’t even know basics like that.”
I thought you were talking about the civil injunction. The decision to not file a criminal case was made under Bush. If lack of criminal prosecution is important, do you think Bush meant to send a message, “that however blatant the violation of the voting rights act, however little defense was offered, they still wouldn’t prosecute if the people intimidated where white.” ?
imdw (043f60) — 9/29/2010 @ 4:52 am“And given that they had three people caught in default, only getting one is inexcusable. That is the point of this scandal, or at least a major point.”
But the thing is, if you read their memo describing this case (and what 11(b) law looks like, what other cases have been lost) it becomes clear all they really have is the club.
imdw (043f60) — 9/29/2010 @ 4:54 amI’M Dead Weight
> I thought you were talking about the civil injunction
Proving you literally don’t even understand what was wrong with calling it prosecution. So again, don’t try to tell me what the law is. You are literally clueless.
I mean crap, you could pick up the difference just watching law and order, or the OJ trials.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:45 am“Proving you literally don’t even understand what was wrong with calling it prosecution.”
I get it. I got confused because you said that this sends a message that there are circumstances where people won’t be prosecuted. The decision to not criminally prosecute was made under Bush. You see how this messes up your message, right? Is that what you mean was the problem? You think that message was sent under Bush?
Have you yet researched how default judgment works in the 3rd circuit? or do you still think its pro forma or AUTOMATICALLY or whatever? I can see how in top schools they don’t really teach actual skills.
imdw (2020d4) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:57 amI’M Dead Weight
> I get it.
No, you don’t. Because saying you thought the issue was a civil injunction doesn’t excuse you calling it a prosecution.
And i have obtained default judgments. I know the process, and you obviously don’t.
Don’t call a civil matter a prosecution and expect me to have any respect for your opinions on the law.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:07 am“No, you don’t. Because saying you thought the issue was a civil injunction doesn’t excuse you calling it a prosecution.”
I used the word you used. I’m sorry if this is causing confusion. But it has. Because you said this sent a message that people would not be prosecuted. But that message was sent by the Bush admin deciding not to criminally prosecute, and I did not think this was your beef here.
“And i have obtained default judgments. I know the process, and you obviously don’t.”
That’s very nice. Because when i read the memorandum in support of the motion for default judgment in this case, it doesn’t look pro-forma.
imdw (2946bf) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:19 amimdw
> I used the word you used.
in a different context. you referred to a civil suit as a prosecution. WRONG.
> I’m sorry if this is causing confusion.
I am not confused. I am very clear in my belief that you are literally clueless about the law.
As they say in daoism, know what you know, and don’t know what you don’t know. Or take Socrates: the beginning of wisdom is “i don’t know.”
You would be a much wiser man if you didn’t pretend to know something about a subject that you obviously know nothing about.
Idjit.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:28 amотличное настроение испорчено безвозвратно
Kirra (f7c1ec) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:11 amimdw – Clearly you are outmatched here and your dilatory tactics betray your lack of knowledge of the facts and the law. The decision not to pursue a criminal course of action in the NBPP matter was made by a DOJ functionary not willing to enforce voting laws on a color blind basis. That was made clear earlier in the thread.
After obtaining a default judgement in early April against all three defendants, the DOJ moved for an unusual extension of the time required for them to move to enforce that judgement while they scrambled to figure out what to do. Contrary to the testimony of Thomas Perelli, Chris Coates has clearly stated political appointees were involved in the decision to drop two of the defendants from the motion to enforce the default judgement, outside pressure from the NAACP and others, as well as pressure from inside the DOJ from those opposed to the color blind application of voting rights laws. Any doubt about the merits of the case were mere smoke screens raised by opponents of the case to protect the biases of the opponents. Attack the testimony of Coates or Adams, not some concepts you made up in your head.
The absence of 11(b) case history does not mean the case is without merit and is just another smokescreen. How many unsuccessful 11(b) cases were pursued and how many cases were pursued by other channels instead?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:47 amA.W. – This thingie, I suspect, is focusing on when a defendant in a civil case is fighting to have a default judgment set aside. Essentially, it is arguing about a set of circumstances unrelated to this topic. It has proven itself to be so mendoucheous, over time, that I did not bother to click on its links, because in the past its links have been positively gleenwaldian.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:50 am“in a different context. you referred to a civil suit as a prosecution. ”
So when you talked about people getting the message of not being prosecuted, you were talking about the Bush admin decision to not prosecute?
Cuz the message isn’t that you’ll get away — in this case the guy got an injunction against him.
“After obtaining a default judgement in early April against all three defendants, the DOJ moved for an unusual extension of the time required for them to move to enforce that judgement while they scrambled to figure out what to do”
Default Judgment was only obtained against one defendant — the DOJ only moved for default judgment against one. I think you’re confusing the clerk entering default against all of them with default judgment. The DOJ, when they asked for more time, explained why they needed it — they had not conducted any discovery, and they weren’t expecting default — so they needed more time to prepare the remedy they would seek.
You can learn these things too by just reading the documents in the case.
“How many unsuccessful 11(b) cases were pursued and how many cases were pursued by other channels instead?”
These are in a memo written by the Bush DOJ. You’ll see that it takes quite a bit to get an 11(b) win.
“focusing on when a defendant in a civil case is fighting to have a default judgment set aside.”
No I’m talking about what standards the DOJ cited to the court in its 16 page memorandum in support of its motion for default judgment.
imdw (604a8a) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:01 amNo, now you are quite clearly trying to deflect and distract from the actions taken by the Barcky DOJ.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:12 amI’M a DillWeed
> So when you talked about people
I know this is complicated, and you are a slow man, but if there is a statute that allows for civil and criminal action, and you act lenient in the civil action, it also sends a signal about your attitude about the criminal actions, too.
And seriously, why do you keep lecturing people about the law? You obviously know nothing.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:16 amLet us make this really simple for dimwit. Do you, and all of your various aliases, approve of applying laws based on the race of the parties involved. Yes or no?
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:17 am“I know this is complicated, and you are a slow man, but if there is a statute that allows for civil and criminal action, and you act lenient in the civil action, it also sends a signal about your attitude about the criminal actions, too.”
Oh I get it. So then I just disagree — I say getting an injunction sends a message. True, it is weakened by the fact that you didn’t file a criminal complaint in the first place, but on both cases, I think the message is plainly in the 11(b) law.
“And seriously, why do you keep lecturing people about the law? You obviously know nothing.”
You know, the documents in this case are available from the US commission on civil rights. They sort of contradict a few of the things you’ve said — like how default judgment is pro forma, or AUTOMATICALLY or how default judgment was won on April 1.
“approve of applying laws based on the race of the parties involved. Yes or no?”
No. The DOJ finally did the right thing and followed 11(b).
imdw (604a8a) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:22 amI’M a DillWeed
> Oh I get it.
Took you long enough.
> True, it is weakened by the fact that you didn’t file a criminal complaint in the first place
My God, you are clueless. I bet you don’t even know what you said wrong in that sentence.
> You know, the documents in this case are available
And all the documents in the world won’t help you if you are so clueless that you have no idea that you don’t prosecute a civil case. Learning about the law is not just about learning rules.
And you also don’t understand that what is written in the books often doesn’t match reality.
> The DOJ finally did the right thing and followed 11(b).
That’s not what Coates and Adams said they did. but I am glad you are now certain of the facts.
Indeed, would you care to point toward the language in 11(b) that required them to dismiss the other parties?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:35 am“My God, you are clueless. I bet you don’t even know what you said wrong in that sentence.”
Yeah now you’re going to tell me again about how what sends a message about weak prosecution is not the decision to not prosecute, but the decision to get an civil injunction against the guy that violated the law.
“And you also don’t understand that what is written in the books often doesn’t match reality.”
Written in the books? I’m following the documents in this case. They are the reality of what happened.
“That’s not what Coates and Adams said they did.”
I know. I think they’re wrong. I think the law would not find 11(b) violations against all the defendants. In their memo on this case — which describes the 11(b) law — they even at a point talk about a ‘gauntlet’ of clubs. That’s factually wrong. If you read their memo, you’ll see that the case is really only good against the guy with the club.
imdw (4829b2) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:48 am“Default Judgment was only obtained against one defendant — the DOJ only moved for default judgment against one. I think you’re confusing the clerk entering default against all of them with default judgment.”
imdw – Oh, you’re just quibbling over language, not substance, as usual. Here is a link requesting the clerk enter the default of Jerry Jackson into the record and another link requesting the entry of default for the NBPP. A third order obviously exists for Malik. Here is the link to the court order for the DOJ to file its motion for default judgement against all three defendants.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:48 amNo. The DOJ finally did the right thing and followed 11(b).
So no, you are not in favor of applying the law based on the race of the parties involved, but approve of the DOJ applying the law based on the race of the parties involved.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:50 am“My God, you are clueless. I bet you don’t even know what you said wrong in that sentence.”
Yeah now you’re going to tell me again about how what sends a message about weak prosecution is not the decision to not prosecute, but the decision to get an civil injunction against the guy that violated the law.
“And you also don’t understand that what is written in the books often doesn’t match reality.”
Written in the books? I’m following the documents in this case. They are the reality of what happened.
“That’s not what Coates and Adams said they did.”
I know. I think they’re wrong. The law would not find 11(b) violations against all the defendants. In their memo on this case — which describes the 11(b) law — they even at a point talk about a ‘gauntlet’ of clubs. That’s factually wrong. If you read their memo, you’ll see that the case is really only good against the guy with the club.
“imdw – Oh, you’re just quibbling over language, not substance, as usual”
Not that’s quite substantive — as i mentioned — that’s the clerk entering default, which is different that default judgment. Aaron with his schooling can tell you the difference. There are standards for the clerk entering default and standards for default judgment. They are different, and it is not automatic.
imdw (8a8ced) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:51 am“You know, the documents in this case are available from the US commission on civil rights. They sort of contradict a few of the things you’ve said”
imdw – O could not have said it better myself. You should read some of those documents and the testimony of the individuals before the commission, because they do contradict many of the things you claim.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:53 amdaley – Coates and Adams were wrong. dimwit said so, therefore, they are.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:55 am“Not that’s quite substantive — as i mentioned — that’s the clerk entering default, which is different that default judgment.”
imdw – Why don’t you tell me the difference, since you clearly seemed to know what I meant. The clerk was ordered by the court to enter an “order of default” by all three defendants at the beginning of April. The DOJ was subsequently ordered to file a motion by the court with their recommended remedies or enforcement of the default. I do not think we disagree on the facts, so why are you quibbling? I called the first action a default judgement but you would rather it be called a default order – so what. It was entered against all three. The relevant part is what happened next, two defendants were dropped when penalties were considered. Those facts are not in dispute. What is being obfuscated and stonewalled by the DOJ is who decided and the rationale for dropping those two defendants. Those facts are also not in dispute. Otherwise, the DOJ would let its personnel testify before the commission.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:04 am“If you read their memo, you’ll see that the case is really only good against the guy with the club.”
imdw – Actually, if you read their memo, that is not what it says.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:05 amI’m talking about the memo supporting the original complaint. I have no idea what memo imdw is talking about.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:07 amI’M a DillWeed
> Yeah now you’re going to tell me again
Wow, so you don’t. The United States Attorney does not initiate a case by “filing a criminal complaint.” If it is a capital or otherwise infamous crime you seek an indictment. If it is not, then the United States Attorney can filed an “information” to get it started.
Again, why do you think you are in a position to correct anyone on the law?
> but the decision to get
The problem isn’t what they got, but what they didn’t get.
> I’m following the documents in this case.
And discussing case law like as if you know something.
> I think they’re wrong.
You have to say more than that. you have to say they were lying. Were they?
> If you read their memo, you’ll see that the case is really only good against the guy with the club.
There is nothing in the relevant statutes requiring a person to carry an actual weapon—although it helps.
As for the memorandum, do you mean the one on this site you linked to before? http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/BlackPanther.php
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:15 am“imdw – Actually, if you read their memo, that is not what it says.”
Oh yeah. I meant, read their memo on the law, and came to your own conclusions about how they apply to the facts. Like I did when I noticed they start talking about ‘gauntlet’ of clubs when the facts only show one.
You’ll see even in their discussion, they know the club is a major part of the facts — without that, the case is weak compared to other 11(b) cases.
“The clerk was ordered by the court to enter an “order of default” by all three defendants at the beginning of April.”
Are you sure the clerk was ordered to enter default?
“The DOJ was subsequently ordered to file a motion by the court with their recommended remedies or enforcement of the default.”
They were told to move for default judgment. Doing this still requires a showing that you win on the law. And since they don’t win on the law against the other defendants, they didn’t move for default against them.
imdw (cf562d) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:20 amYou guys are admirable in your efforts, but getting this clown to be honest would be more difficult than nailing jello to a wall.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:23 amimdw
so just to be clear. you mean the “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion” linked to at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/BlackPanther.php
am i right?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:23 amJD
its not complicated. first, you freeze the jello…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:24 amAW – It will not answer a simple yes or no question.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:24 amA.W. – The nail would crack or shatter the frozen jello, or it would eventually thaw out.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:27 am“so just to be clear. you mean the “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion” linked t”
There’s a memo they wrote before the case was filed — that one discusses 11(b) law. From Dec 08. There’s also a memo in support of the motion for default judgment. Both of these are at the US Commission of Civil rights website.
“imdw – Actually, if you read their memo, that is not what it says.”
Oh yeah. I meant, read their memo on the law, and came to your own conclusions about how they apply to the facts. Like I did when I noticed they start talking about ‘gauntlet’ of clubs when the facts only show one.
You’ll see even in their discussion, they know the club is a major part of the facts — without that, the case is weak compared to other 11(b) cases.
“The clerk was ordered by the court to enter an “order of default” by all three defendants at the beginning of April.”
Are you sure the clerk was ordered to enter default?
“The DOJ was subsequently ordered to file a motion by the court with their recommended remedies or enforcement of the default.”
They were told to move for default judgment. Doing this still requires a showing that you win on the law. And since they don’t win on the law against the other defendants, they didn’t move for default against them.
imdw (8a8ced) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:34 amimdw
> There’s a memo they wrote before the case was filed — that one discusses 11(b) law.
Care to link to it?
and that is the one that had the guantlet line in it?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:36 amI am sure, AW, that the law outlaws gauntlets, but clubs are okay.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:40 amThis is just vintage iamadimwit. Anytime someone wonders why it is mocked, this thread should be linked. Those goalposts must get heavy.
JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:42 am“Are you sure the clerk was ordered to enter default?”
imdw – Read the links I provided and tell me.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:48 am“imdw – Read the links I provided and tell me.”
I see the plaintiff writing to the clerk asking that htey enter default. I don’t see the court ordering the clerk to enter default.
“and that is the one that had the guantlet line in it?”
Yeah. Have you looked at the US Commission on Civil Rights website for this? Daley is linking to documents from it.
“I am sure, AW, that the law outlaws gauntlets, but clubs are okay.”
I don’t think it works that way, but as I said before, I think the case against the guy with the club was good. Calling it a ‘gauntlet’ helps to make the case against the others, but it has the unfortunate deficiency in not being supported by the facts.
imdw (0d2487) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:15 amI’M a Dumb Wackjob
so your whole argument is because the second guy didn’t hold a club, that he was not guilty of violating 11(b). The problem is that holding a weapon is not an element of the offense. The statute says in relevant part:
> No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person.
So to make out an offense, you have to show:
1) intimidation/threat/coercion
2) directed at any person
3) for voting or attempting to vote.
And of course you can make out a cause of action for the attempt, or if it is directed toward any person urging or aiding a person in voting. Nowhere in that is a requirement that the person carry a gun. Nor can it be implied in the concept of intimidation, threats and coercion. You can intimidate, threaten or coerce a person without holding a weapon. Obviously it is EASIER to do so with one than without one, but people can intimidate, etc., with their fists.
So in fact your whole stupid argument falls apart when you actually look at the statute. Which assuredly why you never answered when I asked you to point at the language in the statute that required a weapon.
Further, you assert that the mere word gauntlet indicates that this meant that they believed that both men were carrying weapons. In fact if you check into all the definitions of the term a mere “trial” or “ordeal” can be considered a gauntlet. And in fact on page 3 and in repeated spots throughout the piece, they stated that only Shabazz was carrying a weapon. And by the time they filed the complaint, the next month (http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/COMPLAINT-USAvNBPP.pdf) they made it clear that they knew only Shabazz had a weapon.
I would add that is a strange kind of hair-splitting you are engaged in. If I am standing there unarmed, and I have a friend with a visible gun, and I say to you, “hand me your wallet or lou here will shoot you,” how am I not “intimidating” you? I mean forget the legal definition, how is it not intimidation in the ordinary use of the English language?
So nice try, but you continue to lose. Which given that you think that the Feds use criminal complaints, that seeking a civil injunction is a prosecution and so on, is hardly surprising. The first rule of holes, DillWeed, is to stop digging.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:44 amI want to hear more about nailing Jell-O to the wall!
[Nailing imdw to the wall of facts is getting a little bit boring and repetitive]
Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:14 pm“The problem is that holding a weapon is not an element of the offense. The statute says in relevant part:”
I’m more going by comparing it to other cases, as discussed in their memo. You can’t just read the statute, you have to also look at how courts apply it. Did you read the part where they say that 11(b)cases have been uniformly unsuccessful? They follow up by showing why some other cases failed. Without the club this case is like those failed cases.
“If I am standing there unarmed, and I have a friend with a visible gun, and I say to you, “hand me your wallet or lou here will shoot you,” how am I not “intimidating” you? I mean forget the legal definition, how is it not intimidation in the ordinary use of the English language?”
That sounds pretty coercive. What evidence is there that the other guy said anything like this?
imdw (8a8ced) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:27 pmI’M a Dumb Wanker
> I’m more going by comparing it to other cases,
Good, can you point me toward the case where the judge implied into the statute an element that the person must carry a weapon.
And don’t say “well a bunch of cases involved it.” as I said, intimidation is easier to prove if a weapon is there. but it is not necessary.
> Without the club this case is like those failed cases.
No, that is not the distinction. They pointed out the cases pivoted on other issues. And some, if you notice the date, were probably more about judicial resistance than anything else.
> That sounds pretty coercive.
Then once again, you gave the game away. Actually having a weapon is not necessary. so once again, your attempt to move the goalposts have failed.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:39 pmimdw, do you see what Aaron’s law school was busy teaching him yet?
I think it had something to do with how to think about various rules, interpret arguments he reads, and react with better arguments. If they covered PACER, it was a waste of his money.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:48 pmHas anyone seen imdw and The Emperor in the same room?
AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:54 pmI’M a Dumb Wanker
Not only has none of the cases made the distinction you made, but further there is a presumption in the interpretation of statutes that the same term is interpreted the same way in all statutes. So for instance in United States v. Hopkins, 703 F. 2d 1102, the court said that:
> A jury convicted Hopkins of attempted bank robbery by intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He appeals…
> Hopkins first argues that his conduct and demeanor were not sufficiently intimidating to support a conviction for robbery. Although the evidence showed that Hopkins spoke calmly, made no threats, and was clearly unarmed, we have previously held that “express threats of bodily harm, threatening body motions, or the physical possibility of concealed weapon[s]” are not required for a conviction for bank robbery by intimidation.
So being unarmed and not even implying that he was armed didn’t get him off the hook when he was accused of using extorting money. Why should we lower the bar when it comes to extorting our votes? Especially when seeking prospective relief only–that is, telling him not to do it again?
Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about. So back away from the keyboard.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:54 pmdustin
i actually knew about pacer before i went to law school. i actually took the people who run the LSAT to court because they apparently didn’t believe they have to follow the ADA. Long story short, we handed them their behinds, though it was mainly the work of my excellent lawyer.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:58 pm“Good, can you point me toward the case where the judge implied into the statute an element that the person must carry a weapon.”
Nope. Can you point to where I implied that?
“No, that is not the distinction. They pointed out the cases pivoted on other issues. ”
I know. I think the case against the other guy is as strong as the case about the people that the evidence showed actually intimidated a voter, but yet still was unsuccessful.
“Actually having a weapon is not necessary.”
Right I just see is part of the threat. Obviously exercising one’s second amendment rights outside of a polling station is not what makes one intimidating. It’s not just the presence of the club, but the way it was being used, as described in the memo. In your hypo, you had the other guy clearly connected to the use of a weapon as a threat. What did the other guy do that was a threat in this case?
imdw (14df54) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:59 pmA man after my own heart. One of my favorite pieces of legislation: the ADA. And here you are a plaintiff in that.
imdw (14df54) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:01 pmI’M a Dumb Wanker
> Nope. Can you point to where I implied that?
Yes, every time you said that they need to prove that or that the fact the second guy didn’t have a weapon meant he didn’t do anything wrong.
> I know
Then the words you are looking for are “you are right, Aaron.”
> Obviously exercising one’s second amendment rights outside of a polling station is not what makes one intimidating
Look there is this new invention. Its called fists. And much like a club, they can be used to break bones, bruise skin and so on. They are weapons, too.
Jesus you are an idiot.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:03 pmI used it once. Didn’t need a law degree, either. My dishwasher is more complicated. It was hilarious that imdw thinks that’s what law school is for.
Even with the way he’s argued, it’s been very helpful reading you reason through the cases. I’m glad imdw isn’t banned anymore for his antisemitism and child rape jokes and whatever else. Nice to know someone like him can contribute to the cause, in his own strange way.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:07 pmimdw
ah, so you love the ADA, but have no problem with the undermining of the VRA. i mean you have no problem then with two neo nazis, in full military uniform, one carrying a weapon, standing outside of a voting place saying, “the whites will take back this country!” if you were a black guy would you be at least intimidated? i am not saying you would be cowed. but would your heart race a little. would you tense as you approach them, ready for a fight? would you want to have your own gun?
maybe you have lived such a charmed life that you have never been the focus of discriminatory hate. But i have, and i have zero tolerance for it, even if it is a black man doing it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:10 pmdustin
well, the dirty secret with lawyers is that lawyers are, on average, worse with computers than many other groups. i could tell you a long story to explain, but it is exceedingly clear to me that law is right brained profession. and anything related to computers is a left brained activity.
I myself am weird in that where most people lean toward being left or right brained, i am actually both as the same time. and bluntly, i am pretty sure that is why i am a kick @$$ researcher. i mean i hate to toot my own horn, but no one can work lexis or westlaw like i do.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:14 pmLawyers, and Doctors, also have a very poor record for complying with the tax laws ISTR.
AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:18 pm“Yes, every time you said that they need to prove that or that the fact the second guy didn’t have a weapon meant he didn’t do anything wrong.”
Not just having — its how its used. I did not see facts that show intimidation from the second guy. The use of the weapon is part of the intimidation.
“Look there is this new invention. Its called fists. And much like a club, they can be used to break bones, bruise skin and so on. ”
I didn’t see any facts showing him using his fists as intimidation in the memo.
“i mean you have no problem then with two neo nazis, in full military uniform, one carrying a weapon, standing outside of a voting place saying, “the whites will take back this country!””
Whether I have a problem with it is different than whether the law forbids it. I hope you’re getting this straight, right? Do I have a problem that the case where someone was actually intimidated didn’t work? Yeah. Do I think that’s what the law is? Yeah.
“But i have, and i have zero tolerance for it, even if it is a black man doing it.”
But the problem is that we can’t make discriminatory hate illegal, because to a certain point, people have a first amendment right to stand next to a voting booth shouting racist epithets and taunts. That point ends when they become threats, coercion, and intimidation.
But do tell me more about the ADA. I mean, just love the basic policy idea!
imdw (0275b8) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:18 pmHere’s a factoid for you:
AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:28 pmThe ADA has done much for many lawyers and some unscrupulous characters who use its’ provision more for personal gain than for advancing the state of society;
what it has done for the Disabled Community is problematic.
I blame George Herbert Walker Bush and his Preppy-guilt.
I’M a Dumb Wanker
> I did not see facts that show intimidation from the second guy.
Then go read up. Its there. And I would add that since he didn’t defend himself, it is legally conceded. Remember that?
Look, you can keep arguing that because you haven’t learned enough about the case that you aren’t convinced. But that seems to be your problem not mine.
> I didn’t see any facts showing him using his fists as intimidation in the memo.
Why do I get the feeling that you have now moved the goalposts to the man actually having to make a fist and say, “I am going to hit you” for it to count?
They were both doing the same thing. The fact that one had a club and the other had his bare hands is what we call a difference without distinction.
> people have a first amendment right to stand next to a voting booth shouting racist epithets and taunts
Actually they don’t. Its called electioneering, too.
Seriously, just walk away. I have handed you’re a– to you so many times, my fingers smell like sh-t.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:31 pmAD
Before the ADA i was a high school drop out.
After i was a graduate of Yale Law School. There are literally millions of stories like my own. Okay and then i became a lawyer, which probably on balance is a harm to society. 😉
Now i will concede that alot of the lawsuits based on the ADA are dubious at best. That is because the easy cases are never litigated.
Logically we can do two things with the handicapped. we can either leave them in a state of dependancy, or we can give them the chance to be contributing members of society. To mangle an old reaganite phrase: if you give a paraplegic a fish, he will eat for a day; but if you make the docks wheelchair-accessible, he will eat forever.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:35 pmAwesome.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:38 pmI think the origin of that phrase predates Mr. Reagan by a few-thousand years, though he was fond of it.
AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:40 pm“Then go read up. Its there. And I would add that since he didn’t defend himself, it is legally conceded. Remember that?”
I think it’s factually conceded. The conclusions of law aren’t. But again, this gets us to the question of whether we ought to be concerned that the case is correct, not just focus on default wins.
“Why do I get the feeling that you have now moved the goalposts to the man actually having to make a fist and say, “I am going to hit you” for it to count?”
That seems like it would count. Importantly, not to me but to the law.
“The fact that one had a club and the other had his bare hands is what we call a difference without distinction.”
But actually having the club is a huge part of the intimidation facts!
“Actually they don’t. Its called electioneering, too.”
Maybe you can define electioneering more, but I understand that as work for a candidate or party. If you’re out there telling people you hate their race, then you’re not working for a candidate or a party.
imdw (7c85b9) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:45 pmAD
I don’t know how old it was, but yes, it predated him, but it was the kind of thing that was central to this thinking. Independence and the dignity of living off your own labor v. living on hand outs.
I’M a Dumb Wanker
Here’s the cutest part of your response.
> Importantly, not to me but to the law.
Like as if you know anything about the law. I mean you have failed to understand points that are in the constitution, I mean written in there in plain English and not implied in some penumbra. But you talk like as if you can tell me anything of value about the law.
> I think it’s factually conceded. The conclusions of law aren’t.
Whether it was intimidating is a fact. Thus conceded.
> But actually having the club is a huge part of the intimidation facts!
It helps, but ultimately just holding on to a billy club, or whatever it was, is not the issue.
I mean hell, who ISN’T armed at a Texas polling station?
> but I understand that as work for a candidate or party.
You don’t think these guys were trying to help Obama win? Mind you, what they were doing was idiotic and probably cost Obama a few votes. But their goal was to help the man in their brain-dead way.
They certainly weren’t just randomly standing there. They were there to influence the election. Thus electioneering.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:55 pmVintage imdw.
Quibble pivot
Quibble pivot
Goalpost shift
Quibble pivot
The facts are not in dispute. imdw’s interpretation of them are, but who cares?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:08 pm“Whether it was intimidating is a fact. Thus conceded.”
The facts are what happened. Whether this fits under the law of 11(b) is not conceded.
“It helps, but ultimately just holding on to a billy club, or whatever it was, is not the issue.”
No but its a key part of how he was menacing people. Read the facts again and remove the club and how it was used. Then what does it look like?
“You don’t think these guys were trying to help Obama win? ”
Nope. I think they were making misguided and baffling attempts to protect black voters. And express their racial contempt for white people. Attempts which were baffling to even those black voters.
imdw (b471f9) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:25 pmBtw, aaron, i have to say, some of these conclusions I reach? they don’t happen to have only been reached by me:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026796.php
imdw (017d51) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:34 pm“The facts are what happened. Whether this fits under the law of 11(b) is not conceded.”
imdw – What happened is that people with very extensive voting law experience were overruled by political hacks and career DOJ lawyers with little voting law experience and a bias against race neutral enforcement of voting rights. That is based on sworn testimony in front of the USCRC. Masturbate all you want over what is conceded or not, but that is what is currently on the table.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:37 pmUSCCR
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:38 pmI’M a Dumb Wanker
First, intimidation is a fact determined by the jury, however much you ignorantly deny it. This is well known to any lawyer. For instance off the top of my head I know that in Chinn v. Virginia (2004) they discussed whether a person was consenting freely to sex as follows: “Whether the act was accomplished by force, threat, or intimidation is a question of fact.”
In short, it really sucks when you fail to even respond to a complaint. So if you are ever sued, respond. Show up. That is true about traffic tickets. Many times if you show up, the cop won’t and you win almost automatically.
> No but its a key part of how he was menacing people.
It was evidentiary useful, but not required as a matter of law.
And how much do you think that Jackson’s conduct can be considered in isolation? What did he do to disassociate himself from Shabby, er, I mean Shabazz. They wore the same uniforms and said pretty much the same things. And indeed the intimidation of the baton by one is reinforced by the threat of pugilism from the other. Shabazz’s conduct renders Jackson’s more threatening, and Shabazz’s conduct renders Jackson’s more threatening as well. Your entire analysis depends on considering them in isolation when they are plainly in the video working as a team.
> Nope. I think they were making misguided and baffling attempts to protect black voters.
Which is why they were proclaiming to all the white people that they were going to be “ruled” by “the black man.” Give me a break.
Also your citation of power line is misleading. They were discussing how strong the case would look before a jury. That has only a tangential relation to the law.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:16 pm“First, intimidation is a fact determined by the jury, however much you ignorantly deny it”
Indeed, but what the law on 11(b) requires is not for a jury to decide. That’s why in their memo they don’t just analyze the statute and say “a jury will find for us.”
“It was evidentiary useful, but not required as a matter of law. ”
What’s required is intimidation — intimidation that rises to an 11(b) violation — and what i’ve been saying is the facts without the club don’t show that. They also don’t show the other dude being intimidating in a way that violates 11(b).
“Which is why they were proclaiming to all the white people that they were going to be “ruled” by “the black man.””
That part was covered by me saying “And express their racial contempt for white people.” It wouldn’t surprise me if these guys also express contempt for Obama, at the same time expressing their glee that white people are under a black president.
“Also your citation of power line is misleading. ”
Misleading what? They also talk about the club. They also reach similar conclusions to me as to the strength of the case:
“My conclusion is that the decision to drop the case against all defendants except the one who carried a weapon at the polling station is defensible. ”
…
“Without the deadly weapon (a long club), the memo fails to establish a strong case.”
…
“Under all of these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Obama/Holder Justice Department to conclude that the case against the second NBPP member, Jerry Jackson, lacked sufficient evidentiary support. ”
You know, when some lawyers write something, it doesn’t mean that someone else can’t disagree. As Powerline and I do.
“They were discussing how strong the case would look before a jury.”
I did not see the word “jury” in their post.
imdw (150cd7) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:40 pmI’M a Dill Weed
> Indeed, but
No buts. You don’t know what you are talking about. You are wrong.
> what i’ve been saying is the facts without the club don’t show that.
Yes, which means either you are lying or delusional.
> “And express their racial contempt for white people.”
See what I mean? Lying or delusional. Take your pick.
> They also reach similar conclusions to me as to the strength of the case
You were talking about law, not the “strength of the case.” Strength of the case is about whether the jury will be convinced, not whether 1) it is true, or 2) whether it is sufficient as a matter of law.
But then you are not only clueless about the law, but undaunted by that cluelessness in your attempt to prove your side right.
It is clear that you have started with the conclusion that the Department of Justice did nothing wrong and have been scrambling now through something like 100 comments to try to justify it, abandoning argument after argument as I have slapped you around.
At what point do you figure out that maybe you just can’t defend it?
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:50 pm“See what I mean? Lying or delusional. Take your pick.”
Wait why is this delusional? These guys hate white people.
“You were talking about law, not the “strength of the case.””
I used words like “strong” and “weak.” I was talking about whether there is evidence to violate 11(b) here. That involves analyzing what the law of 11(b) requires and what the facts show.
“It is clear that you have started with the conclusion that the Department of Justice did nothing wrong”
I started knowing there wasn’t a problem here based on what I knew about this situation. yes!
“At what point do you figure out that maybe you just can’t defend it?”
Maybe around the time I found myself agreeing with powerline.
imdw (017d51) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:58 pmI’M Deliberately Witless
> These guys hate white people.
Agreed. Which is why they were trying to drive them from the polls, unless they voted for the black man.
> I used words like
You were talking about the judge denying the motion for default judgment. That is about law.
> I started knowing there wasn’t a problem here based on what I knew about this situation.
Except it was clear you DIDN’T know about the situation or the law underlying it.
> Maybe around the time I found myself agreeing with powerline.
See what I mean? Delusional or lying. Pick one.
Anyway i will be hitting the hay. you have been wrong for two days now. everyone will know you are probably in anything you say afterward.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:05 pm“Agreed. Which is why they were trying to drive them from the polls, unless they voted for the black man.”
I really didn’t see any evidence that they were picking out non-obama voters. I did see evidence that black people weren’t liking their behavior.
“You were talking about the judge denying the motion for default judgment. That is about law.”
And whether the uncontested facts rise to a violation of the law. Jeez.
“See what I mean? Delusional or lying. Pick one.”
You didn’t get it, did you?
imdw (25d965) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:32 pmokay one more time before bed…
> And whether the uncontested facts rise to a violation of the law. Jeez.
So again the words you are looking for is… you were right, Aaron, i was talking about law.
You might also admit at that point that you don’t know what you are talking about.
And the rest of it is just you claiming that the video doesn’t show voter intimidation. anyone can look at the video and figure out you are an idiot.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:59 pm“And the rest of it is just you claiming that the video doesn’t show voter intimidation.”
Actually I said it was correct to get an injunction against the one guy. And he was in the video. That would indicate the video did show an 11(b) violation.
“You might also admit at that point that you don’t know what you are talking about.”
Did you read the powerline dude talking about the club?
imdw (14df54) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:13 pmimdw
> Did you read
yes. no club is legally required.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:20 am“yes. no club is legally required.”
You’re still misunderstanding how the club fits into the case then. Or you’re just sticking by this because it makes you sound smart to talk about what is ‘legally required.’
imdw (9a871b) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:11 amimdw
> because it makes you sound smart to talk about what is ‘legally required.’
No, its because it is what we have been talking about. seriously, who exactly do you think you are fooling? its not me.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:16 am“No, its because it is what we have been talking about”
We’ve been talking about whether what occurred was an 11(b) violation — more specifically, by which defendants. That requires looking at the facts, and at what 11(b) requires. That’s what I did. That’s what powerline did.
imdw (a544ba) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:33 am> That’s what I did.
When you say a weapon is required you are not. And that isn’t what power line said either.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:09 amAaron, what do you take for that throbbing migraine, and the ringing in your ears?
AD-RtR/OS! (5da4fc) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:14 amAnd, aren’t you concerned about a concussion from constantly banging your head against a brick-wall?
“When you say a weapon is required you are not. ”
I did not say it was required. Just like Powerline did not say it was required. You used the word “required.” We’ve had this problem before — where I say something and you choose to have it mean something else and argue against that. I don’t think its because you misunderstand. I think its because you find it easy to do it.
imdw (604a8a) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:15 pmimdw
Why are you telling stupid lies? you are fooling no one.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:33 pmI don’t think you’re fooled. I just think you find it easy to play like that. You know exactly how reasonable powerline is, and how my opinion lines up with theirs.
imdw (8a8ced) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:38 pmimdw – Do you think the Voting Rights Act should be used to protect the rights of white voters?
Do you have doubts concerning the veracity of the testimony of Chris Coates before the USCCR?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:39 pmimdw often does not make his claims directly, because then when his apparent claim is refuted, he claims you’re arguing in bad faith.
Even though anyone can see he keeps referencing the club as though that’s an essential element, now he claims he wasn’t doing that. That’s why people ask him yes or no questions, and he tends to ignore those.
It would be better for the debate if he would just stand on some position, directly, instead of vaguely hinting at something.
Now, it appears he wasn’t arguing anything at all. All his points have been refuted, and he denies having meant to make them. He was evaluating the power line blog’s reasonableness (oh wait, he didn’t say what his opinion was on that, just that ‘you know’ what it is… just another example of how he is afraid of his own views).
I’m glad imdw is so strongly admitting Aaron is right. It was lame that he kept insulting Aaron’s education and intelligence, earlier.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:45 pmNow iamadimwit is lying and projecting its SOP onto others.
JD (379efb) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:48 pmDustin
When you have learning disabilities, you stop caring whether a person thinks you are smart. People have called me dumb and worse my whole life. i know they are wrong, and learned not to care particularly much what anyone thinks of me.
imdw had his behind handed to him. he knows it. he is just trying to save face now.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:49 pmJD, Dustin and A.W. – I was not aware that imdw was such a fan of Powerline. Good to know.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:55 pm“imdw – Do you think the Voting Rights Act should be used to protect the rights of white voters?”
Of course! Though if you look at the memo in this case, it looks as if the DOJ was concerned about the reaction of black voters as well.
“as though that’s an essential element”
What’s the problem with how Powerline explained it? I think it plays a key role in these facts. That doesn’t mean the law requires it.
“JD, Dustin and A.W. – I was not aware that imdw was such a fan of Powerline. Good to know.”
Me neither. AW, on the other hand, won’t tell us how he likes them. He will however, mischaracterize what powerline said. Because it tends to make my position quite reasonable. And that don’t fit his narrative.
imdw (8a8ced) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:00 pmimdw
are you even fooling yourself right now? because you are not fooling anyone else.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:30 pmimdw – You skipped my other question.
Do you have doubts concerning the veracity of the testimony of Chris Coates before the USCCR?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:45 pm“Do you have doubts concerning the veracity of the testimony of Chris Coates before the USCCR?”
Haven’t read it.
imdw (150cd7) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:47 pm“Though if you look at the memo in this case”
imdw – Which nemo? Be specific.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:47 pm“Haven’t read it.”
imdw – Good thing. You have been sniping away on this whole thread without understanding the underlying bias issues raised by the dismissal of the case against two of the defendants.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:50 pmOther than denials of opinions, and vague hints as positions, can someone point out imdw’s concrete position on anything? He says ‘on the other hand, AW won’t tell us’. On the OTHER hand? When did imdw take a position on this or anything else?
I’ve seen a lot of simple yes or no questions to imdw. He ignores them or responds with some question or vague answer he can flee from, calling it bad faith to interpret him sanely.
I love how he admits to major differences between obamacare and the GOP plans he cited, even though this is the opposite of what he seemed to be claiming before. What did he mean initially? that he knew they were different? Then he didn’t make much sense.
Unless he’s just screwing around.
Soon, Aaron’s going to tire of the tedium of tearing imdw’s positions apart to the point where imdw admits Aaron’s points are correct. Then we’ll have to suffer through someone less patient trying to interact with such a clown.
the only position I can ever recall him concretely agreeing to us that he thinks child rape jokes are funny.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:51 pmimdw doesn’t actually take positions. He merely criticizes yours.
Icy Texan (cc5e5e) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:55 pm“imdw – Which nemo? Be specific.”
The one they wrote when preparing the case. Powerline links to it. It lays out the factual basis.
“imdw – Good thing. You have been sniping away on this whole thread without understanding the underlying bias issues raised by the dismissal of the case against two of the defendants.”
Instead I’ve been relying on the litigation documents that the decisionmakers had.
imdw (0275b8) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:45 pmDaleyrocks – it cannot be bothered with things like the actual topic. Plus, Coates is prolly a racist, or a Jooooooooooooooooo.
JD (9a2e5c) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:59 pmDustin
Oh no, he has taken a position. he says Jackson, the black panther who didn’t brandish a club, was not intimidating anyone.
Take that as seriously as it deserves to be.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:31 pm“Oh no, he has taken a position.”
I also said the 11(b) case against the guy who had an injunction placed on him was good. You believe this means I didn’t see an 11(b) violation in the video.
“Jooooooooooooooooo.”
Eventually someone had to come out with the slurs!
imdw (47899e) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:06 pm