New Black Panther case

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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

First, the term "sanctuary cities" is not well-defined. They all do things a little differently. So, we can only speak in general terms about them.

Immigration is a federal matter. A number of laws have enabled local authorities to cooperate in various ways in enforcing immigration laws. However, federal law does not "require" such cooperation. "Sanctuary cities" have simply decided not to cooperate. On the other hand, the Constitution prohibits states from going further in enforcing Federal laws than what the law stipulates. That's the problem with Arizona's law.

As I looked into this last night, I see that the Arizona/Sanctuary Cities equivalency has become a major talking point among right wingers. The entire slate of right wing bloggers has written about it and, of course, Rush has talked it up. The right wing noise machine has a terrific track record of generating attention to issues like this. They have a similar track record of being wrong about the controversies. On the surface, there may seem to be some similarities. But, as a legal matter, the two situations have little in common.

[Anonymous]

I think they have quite a bit in common actually, when you look at the rationale of what Holder filed -- especially where he invokes the strain on national security. I understand you are looking at it through the legal eagle lens but from my lay person stand point, I don't understand what is not undermining to the national security purpose of the federal reporting law I mentioned above--with the 'catch and release' of illegal criminals. There is a long list of egregious crimes committed by such persons once they were released and not reported. I'm sure you stumbled upon it when researching right-wing sites. If your child were murdered by an undocumented immigrant who was caught and released in a sanctuary city rather than reported to ICE because the city did NOT allow their status to be investigated in the first place--it is hard to see how you would not feel both the intent of Federal Law AND security had been undermined. Is there a sense of the spirit vs. letter of the law? It shall be interesting to see how this plays out....

[Anonymous]

BTW--how does the AZ law go further than what the Federal Law stipulates? Thanks

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:BTW--how does the AZ law go further than what the Federal Law stipulates? Thanks

The Arizona laws encroaches on Federal authority. If federal law allowed state and local officials to do what the law requires them to do, there would not be an issue.

As I understand your original point, it was criticism of Holder for not suing sanctuary cities. For your criticism to be valid, those cities would have to be breaking federal law. So far, you have failed to demonstrate that they are breaking federal laws. Whether the lay person might think the cities were, or might think what the cities are doing is even worse, is another issue. Lawsuits are based on the law, not the opinions of laypersons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speaking on behalf of a group is very different from sharing observations about a group. I don't speak for all white folks. I don't even hold the opinion that I discussed, so clearly I neither speak for those whites nor think all whites hold that view. But I have observed this phenomenon in some whites. Whether my observations are representative of any group larger than what I've seen is hard to say, but I'm confident saying that, based on my own experiences, it is a fairly common attitude amongst whites.

So, no, I never said I speak for whites. I just shared what I've observed. And rather than counter that, you try to play the "GOTCHA" game. Fail.

[Anonymous]

'Anger over the Black Panther case is motivated by white fear' is speaking for 'whites' as a group.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW--how does the AZ law go further than what the Federal Law stipulates? Thanks

The Arizona laws encroaches on Federal authority. If federal law allowed state and local officials to do what the law requires them to do, there would not be an issue.

As I understand your original point, it was criticism of Holder for not suing sanctuary cities. For your criticism to be valid, those cities would have to be breaking federal law. So far, you have failed to demonstrate that they are breaking federal laws. Whether the lay person might think the cities were, or might think what the cities are doing is even worse, is another issue. Lawsuits are based on the law, not the opinions of laypersons.

Sure. I think they are not following the spirit of the law. Of course lawsuits are based on law, which is why I am curious how it will shake out. I think there will now be more pressure to examine sanctuary city laws (the spectrum) whereas before it was more 'live and let live'. However the wishes of Arizonans were not respected so ler's examine San Franciscans now and make sure they are being 100% circumspect since that is now the Federal Gold Standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:'Anger over the Black Panther case is motivated by white fear' is speaking for 'whites' as a group.

First off, putting that in quotes implies I said that. I didn't. So please don't misrepresent me or my words in that way.

Furthermore, there is a difference between saying, "I'm afraid of blacks and that is why I am angry about the NBPP and I'm white so that shows how whites feel about the NBPP," and saying, "In my observations, I have seen a lot of whites react particularly intensely where blacks seemingly get away with crimes committed against whites."

The former is not something I ever said. The latter is what I said. Again, maybe my observations are completely non-representative, but they are still my observations and demonstrate something that is true for at least SOME whites. If you can refute them, by all means, please do.

So, again, I never intended to or demonstrated that I thought I spoke for all whites. Far from it. I only commented on what I've seen from whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'Anger over the Black Panther case is motivated by white fear' is speaking for 'whites' as a group.

First off, putting that in quotes implies I said that. I didn't. So please don't misrepresent me or my words in that way.

Furthermore, there is a difference between saying, "I'm afraid of blacks and that is why I am angry about the NBPP and I'm white so that shows how whites feel about the NBPP," and saying, "In my observations, I have seen a lot of whites react particularly intensely where blacks seemingly get away with crimes committed against whites."

The former is not something I ever said. The latter is what I said. Again, maybe my observations are completely non-representative, but they are still my observations and demonstrate something that is true for at least SOME whites. If you can refute them, by all means, please do.

So, again, I never intended to or demonstrated that I thought I spoke for all whites. Far from it. I only commented on what I've seen from whites.

Oh--sounds VERY scientific. Much more scientific than me reporting my black husband's comments on certain issues as representative of one black man in America's comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'Anger over the Black Panther case is motivated by white fear' is speaking for 'whites' as a group.

First off, putting that in quotes implies I said that. I didn't. So please don't misrepresent me or my words in that way.

Furthermore, there is a difference between saying, "I'm afraid of blacks and that is why I am angry about the NBPP and I'm white so that shows how whites feel about the NBPP," and saying, "In my observations, I have seen a lot of whites react particularly intensely where blacks seemingly get away with crimes committed against whites."

The former is not something I ever said. The latter is what I said. Again, maybe my observations are completely non-representative, but they are still my observations and demonstrate something that is true for at least SOME whites. If you can refute them, by all means, please do.

So, again, I never intended to or demonstrated that I thought I spoke for all whites. Far from it. I only commented on what I've seen from whites.

Oh--sounds VERY scientific. Much more scientific than me reporting my black husband's comments on certain issues as representative of one black man in America's comments.

Did I claim it was scientific? Why do you insist on arguing points that I never made? You offered your husband's opinion as a tacit representation of black America. I offered my observations of lots of white folks. I also included a link to the primary lawyer in the original NBPP case, who has made unsubstantiated claims that Holder said the Civil Rights commission should only investigate cases of whites violating the rights of blacks and ignore the inverse. So, yea, it's pretty clear that that is a major part of the folks claiming justice was denied.

To get back to the original point, the issue is why folks are upset about the ultimate outcome. People claim "justice was not served." Yet the one man who was genuinely accused of wrong doing was punished. What more do people want?

[Anonymous]

Actually I didn't. I offered my black husband's view as representative of his views. He is a unique person, not soley defined by 'blackness'--nor would I presume a monocrhrome view of black America--as you seem to presume of white America (or white America that you don't view as enlighteneed as yourself--since I am assuming you don't lump yourself in as motivated by fear / stupidity in your reactions.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'Anger over the Black Panther case is motivated by white fear' is speaking for 'whites' as a group.

First off, putting that in quotes implies I said that. I didn't. So please don't misrepresent me or my words in that way.

Furthermore, there is a difference between saying, "I'm afraid of blacks and that is why I am angry about the NBPP and I'm white so that shows how whites feel about the NBPP," and saying, "In my observations, I have seen a lot of whites react particularly intensely where blacks seemingly get away with crimes committed against whites."

The former is not something I ever said. The latter is what I said. Again, maybe my observations are completely non-representative, but they are still my observations and demonstrate something that is true for at least SOME whites. If you can refute them, by all means, please do.

So, again, I never intended to or demonstrated that I thought I spoke for all whites. Far from it. I only commented on what I've seen from whites.

Oh--sounds VERY scientific. Much more scientific than me reporting my black husband's comments on certain issues as representative of one black man in America's comments.

Did I claim it was scientific? Why do you insist on arguing points that I never made? You offered your husband's opinion as a tacit representation of black America. I offered my observations of lots of white folks. I also included a link to the primary lawyer in the original NBPP case, who has made unsubstantiated claims that Holder said the Civil Rights commission should only investigate cases of whites violating the rights of blacks and ignore the inverse. So, yea, it's pretty clear that that is a major part of the folks claiming justice was denied.

To get back to the original point, the issue is why folks are upset about the ultimate outcome. People claim "justice was not served." Yet the one man who was genuinely accused of wrong doing was punished. What more do people want?

I think Jeff neatly summarized that the action pursued against this one man was not extremely energetic or disincentivizing. He is free to stand outside polling stations with his billy club come the next round of elections. I think the question, what more do people want, has been answered. People who are PO'd wanted stronger action pursued against this man for his polling intimidation.

[Anonymous]

That is one take on it. But a lot of people are upset that the other people accused, the other individuals at polling station and the NBPP as a whole, were not also punished. Despite the fact that they did nothing wrong. So, while there is potentially a legitimate gripe about the punishment doled out to the man with the billy club, a lot of the frustration seems to be that the NBPP itself wasn't punished, which would be unprecedented and patently ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is one take on it. But a lot of people are upset that the other people accused, the other individuals at polling station and the NBPP as a whole, were not also punished. Despite the fact that they did nothing wrong. So, while there is potentially a legitimate gripe about the punishment doled out to the man with the billy club, a lot of the frustration seems to be that the NBPP itself wasn't punished, which would be unprecedented and patently ridiculous.

Well, my understanding (from what Jeff said) is that a case was never opened, so it will never be known whether action was warranted or not against any other entities than the man with the billy club. People PO'd may have wanted a legal airing of the facts, rather than heading off the investigation at the OK Corral.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, my understanding (from what Jeff said) is that a case was never opened, so it will never be known whether action was warranted or not against any other entities than the man with the billy club. People PO'd may have wanted a legal airing of the facts, rather than heading off the investigation at the OK Corral.

A case was opened. The defendants chose not to answer the charges. As such, the government could have sought a summary judgement. It chose not to in the case of the guy without the billy club and the NBPP. Since the defendants chose not to show up in court, there wouldn't have been an airing of the facts. All there would be is the government's version of events and a judge's determination. I suppose it's possible that the judge could have decided not to issue a summary judgement if he felt the government's case is weak.

I continue to wonder why people are upset about this case, while not bothered by the significantly larger number of white guys whose cases Holder also decided not to pursue.