New Black Panther case

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the info. Seriously. So what is the perspective of other side/ie the controversy? Can you explain that to me? I am not trying to put the onus on you--but this seems to be an issue that will not go away and I truly don't understand where the 'truth' lies. What is the argument that justice was not done and something has run afoul?

I am not clear on what an injunction is (I thought it was a beginning to a process, not a maximum penalty--would appreciate more info.) In any case, why are we excusing 'billy club's' behavior (some pp's above seem to work strenuously to justify it) if an injunction was already sought and received? Seems clear-cut that a wrong was done by 'billy club' if an injunction was granted?

The perspective of those who believe that justice was not done -- as I understand it -- is that the prior to the Bush Administration, the Civil Rights division worked primarily to the benefit of minorities who tended to vote Democratic. This resulted in voting fraud being ignored, the most emblematic cases involving ACORN (keep in mind, this is not my perspective). Therefore, Bush political appointees sought to remake the Civil Rights Division to concentrate less on implementing 1960s laws concerning voting rights (since the climate that led to those laws no longer exists) and more focused on voting fraud.

Because the New Black Panther Party publicly announced that it would station members at a number of voting stations, it is likely that voter intimidation occurred in more than the single televised instance (again, not my belief). Hence, the issue in this case is not the single billy club guy, but the Party as a whole. The "wrongs" in this case were:

1) while Billy Club Guy got an injunction, the injunction did not have many conditions that might have been attached;
2) the second guy got off without penalty even though a summary judgement could be had;
3) charges were dismissed against the New Black Panther Party even though a summary judgement could have been had.

Adams further charged in his Washington Times article that Perez perjured himself in his Congressional testimony about career professionals making the decision to dismiss the charges. He argues that Holder made the decision without even knowing the facts of the case and the decision was made because it would favor black people.

My understanding is that an injunction is the maximum penalty because Billy Club Guy really didn't do very much that was wrong. While the potential for wrong-doing was clearly there, actual wrong-doing was not. So, the injunction simply said "you have to leave in order not to fulfill your potential for wrong-doing". Since the election was long over by that time, the punishment was meaningless. The critics of this say the injunction could have been extended into the future so that Billy Club Guy couldn't show up for the next election. He could not be charged with voter intimidation because there was no evidence of intimidation.

I think everyone agrees that Billy Club Guy had no business being there. Further, I believe all of us are happy that he was removed. There are differences of opinion concerning whether what he did constituted voter intimidation (as opposed to simply showing the potential for committing voter intimidation). There are also some here -- including me -- who think that many of the perceptions of this guy being intimidating are based on his race and dress. The guy was pretty scrawny, and I say that as someone who is only 5ft, 5in. myself. Even with his billy club, I don't find him particularly intimidating. But, reading the comments about the video on various websites, it's apparent that a great number of white people find him absolutely terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this. In answer to a couple of your points--does it not seem like Holder is developing a track record of being dismissive? IE condemning the AZ law before (by his admission) actually reading it? That leads me to suppose he has a tendency to judge cases based on predisposition rather than merit--which is to me is unbecoming in a steward of democracy. Vice white people being made uncomfy by billy club guy--just have to say that my extremely unscrawny and measured black husband thinks his presence with billy club was clear-cut voter intimidation. He's more outraged than me in many ways.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this. In answer to a couple of your points--does it not seem like Holder is developing a track record of being dismissive? IE condemning the AZ law before (by his admission) actually reading it? That leads me to suppose he has a tendency to judge cases based on predisposition rather than merit--which is to me is unbecoming in a steward of democracy.

For a couple of years I was employed as a Congressional Relations specialist. During that time, I attempted to influence the drafting of legislation (with very limited success -- had it been any more limited, there would not have been success at all). One thing I learned is that laws in a vacuum are not particularly meaningful. To fully understand their impact, you need a lot more context including the existing laws being modified, laws that may be superseded or conflict with the new law, relevant case law, precedent, and legislative history, etc. For someone in Holder's position, it would be much more effective to have someone brief him on the full picture rather than sitting down with the primary sources himself.

[Anonymous]

Really? I can't imagine not reading a law of the AZ law importance if I were contemplating suing a state.

[Anonymous]

I get the gist of what you are saying however--I guess my impression (and Holder and I would not see eye to eye on much) is that he has quite the outlook he brings to bear in when to file, when to dismiss--perhaps to the expense of examining the 'facts'. But I get what you are saying as well.

I think it is an interesting point Jan Brewer brought up about why the Feds would sue AZ, but not sanctuary cities. Seems more the picking and choosing based on ideology rather than principle to me. Thoughts?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I think it is an interesting point Jan Brewer brought up about why the Feds would sue AZ, but not sanctuary cities. Seems more the picking and choosing based on ideology rather than principle to me. Thoughts?

I don't know all the details, but what federal law does Brewer believe sanctuary cites are violating? It is not the role of local government to enforce immigration laws. So, it would seem to me that the sanctuary movement is largely symbolic. They simply say that they are not going to enforce laws that they are not supposed to enforce in the first place. Arizona, on the other hand, is attempting to takeover Federal responsibilities. That violates the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Jeff-

Thanks for offering a pretty nuanced take on this situation. I'm the poster who was most "in defense" of the NBPP in this situation.

Just to clarify a few things, on the case itself and the argument I put forth:
1.) I never defended billy club guy's use of the billy club. I acknowledged, repeatedly, that it was wrong and he very may well be guilty of voter intimidation.
2.) The DoJ went after the NBPP to the extent of wanting to ban anyone from the group from being on the grounds of a polling station. Pretty extreme, if you ask me, and rightfully dismissed.
3.) Reports I read did say billy club guy is prohibited from bringing a billy club with him to any elections between now and 2012. Now, that may go without saying, as NO ONE should be showing up with a billy club, but with this "warning" already attached to him, he risks greater punishment if he repeats his action. Why 2012 was chosen, I'm not sure. Maybe because the Mayan calendar has us all dead then anyway?
4.) While Jeff handled it quite delicately, I think a lot of the "justice wasn't served" side of the argument was predicated on white people being frustrated with a black guy seemingly getting away with a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff-

Thanks for offering a pretty nuanced take on this situation. I'm the poster who was most "in defense" of the NBPP in this situation.

Just to clarify a few things, on the case itself and the argument I put forth:
1.) I never defended billy club guy's use of the billy club. I acknowledged, repeatedly, that it was wrong and he very may well be guilty of voter intimidation.
2.) The DoJ went after the NBPP to the extent of wanting to ban anyone from the group from being on the grounds of a polling station. Pretty extreme, if you ask me, and rightfully dismissed.
3.) Reports I read did say billy club guy is prohibited from bringing a billy club with him to any elections between now and 2012. Now, that may go without saying, as NO ONE should be showing up with a billy club, but with this "warning" already attached to him, he risks greater punishment if he repeats his action. Why 2012 was chosen, I'm not sure. Maybe because the Mayan calendar has us all dead then anyway?
4.) While Jeff handled it quite delicately, I think a lot of the "justice wasn't served" side of the argument was predicated on white people being frustrated with a black guy seemingly getting away with a crime.

I thought it was a nuanced response, but I've reached the opposite conclusion from you. And as to point 4 --do you also 'sense' when it is about to rain? My black husband is frustrated with a GUY (regardless of race) seemingly getting away with a crime. Your whole 'white people' argument is kinda prejudiced.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it is an interesting point Jan Brewer brought up about why the Feds would sue AZ, but not sanctuary cities. Seems more the picking and choosing based on ideology rather than principle to me. Thoughts?

I don't know all the details, but what federal law does Brewer believe sanctuary cites are violating? It is not the role of local government to enforce immigration laws. So, it would seem to me that the sanctuary movement is largely symbolic. They simply say that they are not going to enforce laws that they are not supposed to enforce in the first place. Arizona, on the other hand, is attempting to takeover Federal responsibilities. That violates the constitution.

Surface answer: Federal law requires local governments to cooperate with ICE. Sanctuary policies instruct city employees to not fully cooperate with ICE. How is choosing to enforce Federal law ANY worse than choosing to not enforce Federal law? And the nice thing was--pre-AZ precedent--at least community's through their representatives could choose which way to go. Now that the Feds are gunning for AZ, I for one expect uniformity across the board (US) in the application of Federal Law. Ta ta sanctuary cities.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Surface answer: Federal law requires local governments to cooperate with ICE. Sanctuary policies instruct city employees to not fully cooperate with ICE. How is choosing to enforce Federal law ANY worse than choosing to not enforce Federal law? And the nice thing was--pre-AZ precedent--at least community's through their representatives could choose which way to go. Now that the Feds are gunning for AZ, I for one expect uniformity across the board (US) in the application of Federal Law. Ta ta sanctuary cities.

I do not believe that that you are correct that there is a Federal requirement for local governments to cooperate with ICE. I could be wrong, however, so I'd appreciate your citation of a specific law. I did a quick search which suggested that Printz vs. United States came to the conclusion that local officials couldn't be required to enforce federal laws. If that is the case, we are back to were I suggested we were in the first place: sanctuary cites are largely symbolic in that cities are simply saying that they won't enforce laws that they are not supposed to enforce in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Yes, no, maybe so?

"Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted measures in 1996 that barred local ordinances that prohibited employees from providing information on illegal aliens to federal officials.The law says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving … information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”[1]"

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0173

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, no, maybe so?

"Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted measures in 1996 that barred local ordinances that prohibited employees from providing information on illegal aliens to federal officials.The law says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving … information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”[1]"

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0173

Well, that is sort of the opposite. Rather than requiring cooperation with ICE, it prevents laws that prohibit the exchange of information about immigration status. It does not even require such communication, but merely allows it. It does not require the collection of such information and, of course, information that is not available cannot be exchanged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff-

Thanks for offering a pretty nuanced take on this situation. I'm the poster who was most "in defense" of the NBPP in this situation.

Just to clarify a few things, on the case itself and the argument I put forth:
1.) I never defended billy club guy's use of the billy club. I acknowledged, repeatedly, that it was wrong and he very may well be guilty of voter intimidation.
2.) The DoJ went after the NBPP to the extent of wanting to ban anyone from the group from being on the grounds of a polling station. Pretty extreme, if you ask me, and rightfully dismissed.
3.) Reports I read did say billy club guy is prohibited from bringing a billy club with him to any elections between now and 2012. Now, that may go without saying, as NO ONE should be showing up with a billy club, but with this "warning" already attached to him, he risks greater punishment if he repeats his action. Why 2012 was chosen, I'm not sure. Maybe because the Mayan calendar has us all dead then anyway?
4.) While Jeff handled it quite delicately, I think a lot of the "justice wasn't served" side of the argument was predicated on white people being frustrated with a black guy seemingly getting away with a crime.

I thought it was a nuanced response, but I've reached the opposite conclusion from you. And as to point 4 --do you also 'sense' when it is about to rain? My black husband is frustrated with a GUY (regardless of race) seemingly getting away with a crime. Your whole 'white people' argument is kinda prejudiced.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. Why do you keep holding your "black husband" up as if he speaks for black America? He is entitled to his opinion, absolutely, and it is an important part of the discussion. But you parading it around as you do is a bit disingenuous.

Yes, people getting away with crimes is wrong, regardless of the color of their skin. But in this white person's opinion (apparently we have to qualify as such now) there is a unique outrage that bubbles up when blacks seemingly "get away" with having committed a crime against white folks. OJ is a good example (there was legitimate outrage at him getting away with murder, but some folks took it to ridiculous levels) and I think this is as well. Is that why ALL folks are upset about it? No. But I definitely think that was the case for some, consciously or not.

Here is another take on the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html?_r=2&ref=us

An interesting quote: "A former Justice Department lawyer hired during the Bush administration alleged on Tuesday that the department scaled down a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party last year because his former colleagues do not want to protect white people’s civil rights." Now, do we REALLY think that the Obama administration is not interested in protecting the civil rights of white people? Or is that more scare tactics? More "watch out for the big black bogey man" nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff-

Thanks for offering a pretty nuanced take on this situation. I'm the poster who was most "in defense" of the NBPP in this situation.

Just to clarify a few things, on the case itself and the argument I put forth:
1.) I never defended billy club guy's use of the billy club. I acknowledged, repeatedly, that it was wrong and he very may well be guilty of voter intimidation.
2.) The DoJ went after the NBPP to the extent of wanting to ban anyone from the group from being on the grounds of a polling station. Pretty extreme, if you ask me, and rightfully dismissed.
3.) Reports I read did say billy club guy is prohibited from bringing a billy club with him to any elections between now and 2012. Now, that may go without saying, as NO ONE should be showing up with a billy club, but with this "warning" already attached to him, he risks greater punishment if he repeats his action. Why 2012 was chosen, I'm not sure. Maybe because the Mayan calendar has us all dead then anyway?
4.) While Jeff handled it quite delicately, I think a lot of the "justice wasn't served" side of the argument was predicated on white people being frustrated with a black guy seemingly getting away with a crime.

I thought it was a nuanced response, but I've reached the opposite conclusion from you. And as to point 4 --do you also 'sense' when it is about to rain? My black husband is frustrated with a GUY (regardless of race) seemingly getting away with a crime. Your whole 'white people' argument is kinda prejudiced.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. Why do you keep holding your "black husband" up as if he speaks for black America? He is entitled to his opinion, absolutely, and it is an important part of the discussion. But you parading it around as you do is a bit disingenuous.

Yes, people getting away with crimes is wrong, regardless of the color of their skin. But in this white person's opinion (apparently we have to qualify as such now) there is a unique outrage that bubbles up when blacks seemingly "get away" with having committed a crime against white folks. OJ is a good example (there was legitimate outrage at him getting away with murder, but some folks took it to ridiculous levels) and I think this is as well. Is that why ALL folks are upset about it? No. But I definitely think that was the case for some, consciously or not.

Here is another take on the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html?_r=2&ref=us

An interesting quote: "A former Justice Department lawyer hired during the Bush administration alleged on Tuesday that the department scaled down a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party last year because his former colleagues do not want to protect white people’s civil rights." Now, do we REALLY think that the Obama administration is not interested in protecting the civil rights of white people? Or is that more scare tactics? More "watch out for the big black bogey man" nonsense?

OH--I'm fairly certain he does not speak for black America, and speaks for himself. I find it fascinating that so many people on this board seem to speak for 'white America' with such confidence as in... OH! YOU did it above. Here, I'll quote: " unique outrage that bubbles up when blacks seemingly "get away" with having committed a crime against white folks". That statement is utterly breathtaking.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, no, maybe so?

"Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted measures in 1996 that barred local ordinances that prohibited employees from providing information on illegal aliens to federal officials.The law says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving … information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”[1]"

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0173

Well, that is sort of the opposite. Rather than requiring cooperation with ICE, it prevents laws that prohibit the exchange of information about immigration status. It does not even require such communication, but merely allows it. It does not require the collection of such information and, of course, information that is not available cannot be exchanged.

I don't quite understand your answer. The AZ law seems to align far more with Federal Law than Sanctuary Cities, which seem to rebuke Federal Law by actively discouraging collection of information that could be shared. I understand that the two stances interact with Federal Law in different ways, but how is one more of a target for DOJ in its quest to not have Federal Law usurped (which is how I read Holder's rationale) than the other? Regarding the below, are you following the spirit of the Federal Law if you ban city workers from collecting immigration status in all cases, just so it cannot then be reported to ICE? Seems a bit of a two-step.

"The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[4] Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers' reporting persons' immigration status to federal authorities.[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city