Tagged: department of justice Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 1:44 PM on 05/30/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: department of justice, , , ,   

    Investigating Eric Holder 

    Believe me, I am no fan of Eric Holder.  I feel that he never should have gotten the job as Attorney General.  The Department of Justice has a bad habit of looking at everything on a color bar instead of justice.  The entire purpose of our justice system in this country is give equal rights to all.

    Since Holder has taken over lawsuits against states to firm up their voter rolls have been dropped.  By law, every state across the union is supposed to update their voter registration rolls in order to get the money that the federal government gives them to help cover the costs for all federal level elections.  The department filed these suits against states that were not keeping up with their end of the bargain when Michael Mukasey was heading the department.  They were summarily dropped when Holder took over.  The evidence of how the department of “civil rights” is anything but.  While most of the people in this department are career lawyers, it still is a statement of the people who are running the department when eyes are closed to what they are doing.  Free and fair elections cannot happen if we don’t have trust that the states are doing what they should be doing when it comes to removing ineligible voters off the rolls.

    As much I would like to think that Eric Holder is going to be convicted of perjury, I just don’t see it happening.  What Eric Holder actually said was that he wasn’t aware of anyone wanting to prosecute reporters.  While it may be a parsing of words, there is a big difference being investigating a person and charging a person with a crime.

    The real thing that should be investigated is who is the person who misled the courts?  By AG Holder’s own testimony, they never had any intention of charging James Rosen with a crime, they just wanted some information that they could get no other way.  Someone stood in front of judge and asked for phone and email records of a private citizen who they never had any intention of prosecuting.  Not only that, they went judge “shopping” to find one that would allow them not to notify his employers and called him a flight risk.  This person should be fired for cause, therefore giving up all rights to the federal benefits, and also be barred from practicing law, ever again.

    Now, I do think that since Eric Holder’s signature is on the paperwork he can no longer be trusted by Americans to do what is fair and just.   If President Obama had any sense he would ask for the resignation of his attorney general.  Moving forward the citizens of this country deserve to have someone at the helm of this department that they believe is doing the work of the office, giving citizens the belief that our justice system is doing its job, upholding the law without regard to political beliefs, race, color, or creed.  The amount of power this department used to go after one person is exactly what our founders warned us against and tried to protect us from.

     
  • just a conservative girl 1:21 PM on 07/13/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: department of justice, district court, ,   

    TSA We Have a Problem – Texas Woman Gets on Plane to Testify That ID Requirements Disenfranchise Her Right to Vote 

    Yes, you read the correctly.  Victoria Rodriquez was one of two sisters that DOJ was able to identify as being disenfranchised if the Texas law requiring an ID were to stand.  She lives in Texas and the trial was in federal court in Washington, D.C..  Ms. Rodriquez is an 18-year-old college student who says that obtaining an ID is too big of a barrier for her in order to vote.  You see, she doesn’t own a car and she can’t get to the office to get her ID.  Her parents are too busy to drive her.

    So let me get this straight, she was able to get to the airport, board a plane, fly to Baltimore Maryland then take a connecting Amtrak train to get to court but can’t make it across town to get her ID.  Also, how did she get on the plane or the train?  Both require picture ID’s in order to board.

    Under oath she testified that she does have a social security card, a birth certificate, and a voter registration card.  One more form of ID than what is necessary in order to obtain the picture ID.

    Here are some other tidbits that came out during the trial:

    239 dead people voted on May 12, 2012 of those 213 of them did it in person.  Did anyone pass out from the smell?

    50,000 dead people are still on the voter rolls in Texas.

    394 people were removed from rolls due to not being citizens.

    Tavis County has not removed dead people from their rolls in five years.  A violation of federal law.

    Eighteen counties have more people registered to vote then residents.

    The DOJ did have some experts testify as the to the harm these laws will do.  It didn’t go all that well.

    23 people out of 36,500 surveyed said they were unable to case a vote due to ID laws.

    The DOJ’s expert said the following:

    “Voter identification is the controversy that isn’t. Almost no one is excluded by this requirement.”

    Over 70% of whites, blacks, and Hispanics support the requirement. Black and Hispanic voters did not express measurably less support for voter ID requirements than whites.”

    “These findings undercut much of the heated rhetoric that has inflated the debate over voter ID requirements in the United States.”

    “That almost no one is prevented from voting because of voter ID requirements casts doubt on arguments from the left that this amounts to a new poll tax or literacy test.”

    “The poll tax, literacy test, and other tools of the Jim Crow laws are powerful metaphors derived from a very ugly period in American history, but ID requirements in practice today bear only the palest resemblance to such discriminatory practices.”

    “These facts strongly suggest that there may be little or no voting rights issue involved in the dispute over voter ID rules, and no question of fraud either. This is hardly the stuff of the Civil Rights Movement, or the mid-1950s when only 25% of southern blacks were registered, and fewer still were allowed to vote.”

    Oh, but it gets better with the next witness:

    He believes that Sandra Day O’Connor wanted to pass laws that encouraged white supremacy in Shaw V. Reno as it upheld voter ID laws.  The problem is that opinion was actually written by Justice Stevens.  Ouch.

    He goes on:

    – Republican African-American and Hispanic legislators are not “legitimate
    representatives” of minority communities.

    • “But he’s white”—after learning that an Anglo Democrat who represents a majority- Hispanic House District voted for the voter ID law.
    • All legislators who voted for SB 14—including 5 Hispanics and 2 African-Americans were motivated by racially discriminatory purposes.”
    • There could be states that could enact voter ID laws without a discriminatory purpose, but “Texas is not one of those places.”
    • The Texas Attorney General should ignore documented evidence of voter fraud and instead “spend all his time” prosecuting environmental violations.
    • “Even if a majority of Hispanics support voter ID, it has a discriminatory purpose.”
    • To the extent African-Americans and Hispanics support voter ID laws, it is only because they were manipulated and misled by Republicans.
    • “I would generally characterize myself as a liberal.” Shocker!!!
    • Voter fraud is “really quite easy to find and prosecute,” a position that is at odds with experienced state and federal law enforcement officials.

    You never know what a court is going to do (unless of course it is the 9th circuit) so they could strike down the law.  But either way, one side is bound to be unhappy and this will move its way up the chain and eventually land at the Supreme Court.  A place that has upheld the right to prove eligibility to vote is not discrimination.  The truth is it wouldn’t matter what color your skin is.  All must provide an ID.  The burden is the same regardless of sex or race.

     
    • Don 7:40 PM on 07/13/2012 Permalink | Reply

      The idea that a state-issued picture ID is discriminatory against the poor is bunk. Do the poor drink alcohol? If so, when they purchase it they need a state-issued ID to do so. Do the poor purchase Pseudoephedrine? If so, at least in my state, they need a state-issued ID to do that, too.

      I never hear the left rail about requiring state-issued picture IDs for these examples.

    • Ike 1:14 PM on 07/14/2012 Permalink | Reply

      In Texas, you can get photo ID from the Department of Public Safety – aka ‘State Police’ – for less than the cost of a twelve-pack of Budweiser. Where do they hide these offices? All over the place. Anyone who claims that they are unable to get a valid photo ID – as opposed to “too lazy” – is a liar. I hope that DOJ paid those two young witnesses they flew from Texas to testify a lot of money for it. When the Voter ID law in Texas in invalidated, I quit voting, because my one white, straight, middle-aged male vote will be swamped by the vote of the dead, imaginary, non-citizen voters who amazingly enough all vote Democratic. Just like when I lived in the Rio Grande Valley.

  • just a conservative girl 10:03 PM on 12/21/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: department of justice, , ,   

    Quote of the Day – Department of Justice Spokesperson Edition 

    ”That is a complete distortion of the attorney general’s comment. His comments both in the article and elsewhere made clear that he believes much of the criticism is launched against him are unfortunately the typical Washington gotcha game. A simple reading of those comments show he was referring to how he is identified with the president given their close relationship and all they share in common including their ideology. The position of the attorney general has been a target for partisan attacks, and given the critical work that this attorney general he is doing at the Department of Justice, it’s no surprise that some are engaging in such tactics. His critics rightly view the attorney general is a progressive force, and given our current political environment, there will those who use any opportunity to score political points.”

    A spokesperson from the defense department regarding charges of AG Holder using the race card during an interview with The New York Times.  

    In case you need a reminder, here is his quote:

    “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

    Hmm, his quote sure sounded about race to me.  But, at least they admitted he was a “progressive”.  I guess that is progress.

     

     
  • just a conservative girl 11:36 AM on 11/14/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , department of justice, eric holder, khan,   

    The Verdict is In – Muslim Teacher Gets Back Pay, Legal Fees, & Attorney Fees 

    You may remember the story of Safoorah Khan, a teacher who requested three weeks off in the middle of the school year to attend the Haj.  Her requests were denied three years running.  After the third denial she quit her job and filed a lawsuit with the EEOC for discriminatory practices based on her faith.

    Eric Holder and the DOJ were more than willing to help this women with her lawsuit.  The verdict has come in.  Ms. Khan gets $75,000 in back pay, all of her legal fees and attorney fees will also be paid for by the school system.  The school system has also agreed to write into the employment guidelines about religious tolerance and giving time off for these types of events.

    What many people are not mentioning is why the school system refused to give her the time off.  Ms. Khan taught third grade.  The time off she requested was in mid December.  What happens in January of the third grade?  The SOL exams.  The school system rightly felt that a substitute teacher a month before the exams would be very disruptive to the students studying for the exams, so the leave requested was denied.  It was not denied because she is Muslim.

    She was not discriminated against.  She signed a contract that had nothing in it about taking extended leave of absences. They were legally not required to give her the time off.  Any teacher requesting leave a month before these major tests were given would have been denied.  This was never about her rights being violated, because they were not.  This was always about the Obama administration bending over backwards to give rights to “underprivileged” that don’t exist for anyone else.

    Ms. Khan was given special treatment, not equal protection.  The kids will just deal if another teacher decides to take time off during the testing period.  Oh well, many kids around the country are not up to standard on these tests anyway.  So I guess it makes no difference if Ms. Khan’s classroom of children don’t learn what they need to learn.  Just as long as Ms. Khan and other Muslims  get the special treatment that this justice department feels that they deserve, what’s the difference if the kids get cheated?  It is all about fairness right?

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel