via: Patriot Post
Attorney General Eric “Cherub” Holder
The Justice Department filed suit against the state of Arizona Tuesday over its recently passed immigration law, saying the law “interferes with the federal government’s balanced administration of the immigration laws” and, therefore, has crossed a “constitutional line.” And believe us, no one knows more about crossing constitutional lines than the Obama administration.
In fact, the administration’s real reason for suing may be patent infringement on constitutional line-crossing.
Truly, the lawsuit could allege copyright infringement, because all Arizona did was copy federal law. We don’t know if Attorney General Eric Holder has actually read the 18-page law yet, but, as we’ve said before, it merely makes it a state crime for people to be in Arizona if they’re in the United States illegally. If the police have an otherwise lawful encounter with someone, and if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the U.S. illegally, the police are required to ask for documentation of immigration status. An Arizona driver’s license is sufficient.
The law is not, as the DoJ alleges, an attempt “to set immigration policy at the state level.” It is an effort to enforce existing federal laws that are not being enforced. If there’s a legitimate criticism, it’s that police resources are scarce enough without this added burden. But that’s not Arizona’s fault.
The bottom line is that the administration is seeking to do two things: preserve (or even expand) the power of the executive branch in immigration law and policy and win over an important and growing constituency group for generations to come.
It’s the second point that brings us to another Justice Department action — that of dropping a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party (another valuable constituent group for the Democrats) for intimidating voters on Election Day 2008 in Philadelphia. We don’t know how much clearer the evidence can be than having the Panthers caught on video wearing paramilitary garb, wielding billy clubs and shouting racial threats at potential white voters in front of a polling place. Indeed, Bartle Bull was an eyewitness. He’s also a former civil rights attorney and publisher of the ultra-liberal Village Voice. He called it “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen.”
Initially, the administration pursued the case, which was brought during the final days of the Bush Administration, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 after the Panther members failed to appear in court. A month later, however, Justice moved to dismiss charges in exchange for one Panther member’s pledge not to carry a “deadly weapon” to a Philadelphia polling place and only until 2012. Not surprisingly, mainstream media coverage of this gross miscarriage of justice has been virtually non-existent.
The problem is race-based and it is endemic. J. Christian Adams, an ex-Justice official who resigned over the department’s handling of the case, testified Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the DoJ instructed attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases involving black defendants and white victims. Furthermore, he alleged that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes declared that she would not enforce Section 8 of the “Motor Voter” law, which requires states periodically to purge voter rolls of felons, the deceased and those who have moved. According to Adams, Fernandes said, “We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”
Perhaps stating the obvious, Adams said the dismissal of the Panthers’ case “raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.” It’s not just neutrality that’s a problem, though. “The salient thing about J. Christian Adams’s accusation,” writes Richard Fernandez of PajamasMedia, “is that, if true, it constitutes a pure exercise in the abuse of power [by the administration]. The other wrongs it represents — the perversion of the electoral process, the violation of civil rights — are secondary. The most serious allegation in the whole affair is that certain officials countenanced a crime because they wanted to.”
The Panther case and the Arizona suit make plain that the Department of Justice is engaging in the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” method of governance: Give blatant favors to allies and crush opponents with brute force.
On a lighter note, perhaps the solution would be to combine problems. Instead of leaving them to obstruct voters at the polls, the feds could station Black Panthers with billy clubs at the border.