That hopey changey thing at the Department of Justice

[ProSense]

That hopey changey thing at the Department of Justice

by citizen k

<...>

In Meridian Mississippi, where 4 of every 10 kids lives below the poverty line the public schools have been routinely jailing black children for offenses like: wrong color socks.

In Meridian, when schools want to discipline children, they do much more than just send them to the principal’s office. They call the police, who show up to arrest children who are as young as 10 years old. Arrests, the Department of Justice says, happen automatically, regardless of whether the police officer knows exactly what kind of offense the child has committed or whether that offense is even worthy of an arrest. The police department’s policy is to arrest all children referred to the agency.

Once those children are in the juvenile justice system, they are denied basic constitutional rights. They are handcuffed and incarcerated for days without any hearing and subsequently warehoused without understanding their alleged probation violations. (Colorlines)

In a display of what Rand Paul would probably find unconstitutional Federal tyranny, the Department of Justice sued the school district, the police, and the local courts. The schools caved first and in March signed a consent order

This consent decree essentially cancels most, if not all, police intervention for any issues that ca be “safely and appropriately handled under school disciplinary procedures.” This includes: disorderly conduct, school disturbances and disruptions, loitering, trespassing, profanity, dress code violations, and fighting that doesn’t include physical injury or weapons. Further, the school district can not share any information on students’ discipline records with any law enforcement agency unless court-ordered. It also requires schools to track discipline data, including by race, and then take corrective action if they find racial disparities. (Colorlines)

But the heavy handed Feds are not going to stop at little Meridian. They are going to prevent school districts from jailing 10 year olds all over the place as Colorines reports.

Last month, Jocelyn Samuels, deputy assistant attorney general for DOJ’s civil rights division, told Hing that Meridian “is just the tip of the iceberg,” and that this consent decree could be a model for tackling the national problem of excessive punishment of black students.

And DOJ is also interfering with the Free Market ability of entrepreneurial Wal-Mart to just dump pesticides out the back door.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pleaded guilty today in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the United States. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company also pleaded guilty today in Kansas City, Mo., to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at its stores across the country.

As a result of the three criminal cases brought by the Justice Department, as well as a related civil case filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wal-Mart will pay approximately $81.6 million for its unlawful conduct. Coupled with previous actions brought by the states of California and Missouri for the same conduct, Wal-Mart will pay a combined total of more than $110 million to resolve cases alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws.( DOJ)

How's about this from the DOJ postings from the last 10 days in May

May 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Press Release
Justice Department Finds Pennsylvania State Prison’s Use of Solitary Confinement Violates Rights of Prisoners Under the Constitution and Americans with Disabilities Act
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crt-631.html
Press Release
For-Profit School in Texas to Pay United States up to $2.5 Million for Allegedly Submitting False Claims for Federal Student Financial Aid
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-civ-630.html
Press Release
Justice Department Signs Agreement with the City of West Columbia, S.C. to Ensure Civic Access for People with Disabilities
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crt-629.html
Press Release
Rockville, Md., Property Purchased with Nigerian Corruption Proceeds Forfeited Through Justice Department’s Kleptocracy Initiative
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crm-628.html
Press Release
Court Approves Consent Decree to Prevent and Address Racial Discrimination in Student Discipline in Meridian, Miss.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crt-634.html

Press Release
Louisiana Correctional Officer Pleads Guilty to Covering up Assault on an Inmate
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crt-617.html
Press Release
Former Puerto Rico Police Officers Convicted of Extorting a Defendant for $50,000
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crm-616.html

Here's one from a little earlier in May

Justice Department to Monitor Elections in Texas

The Justice Department announced today that it will monitor municipal elections on May 11, 2013, in the cities of Corrigan, Farmers Branch, Irving and Orange, Texas, to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the election process on the basis of race, color or membership in a minority language group.

Under the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department is authorized to ask the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to send federal observers to jurisdictions that are certified by the attorney general or by a federal court order. Federal observers will be assigned to monitor polling place activities in Farmers Branch and Irving based on the attorney general’s certification. The observers will watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations, and a Civil Rights Division attorney will coordinate the federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

In addition, Justice Department personnel will monitor polling place activities in the cities of Corrigan and Orange. Civil Rights Division attorneys will coordinate federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

Here's some related news from Farmer's Branch Texas

Saturday’s election marked a historic change for Farmers Branch as the city elected its first Hispanic council member.

Ana Reyes’ victory over William Capener in the new District 1 came after a federal judge ordered single-member district balloting.

Capener, a 48-year-old print shop manager with tea party ties, was defeated 2-to-1 by Reyes, 39, the district manager for state Rep. Rafael Anchía, D-Dallas.

Remember how things were just a few years ago?

WASHINGTON, June 13 — In recent years, the Bush administration has recast the federal government’s role in civil rights by aggressively pursuing religion-oriented cases while significantly diminishing its involvement in the traditional area of race.<...>

¶Intervening in federal court cases on behalf of religion-based groups like the Salvation Army that assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money.

¶Supporting groups that want to send home religious literature with schoolchildren; in one case, the government helped win the right of a group in Massachusetts to distribute candy canes as part of a religious message that the red stripes represented the blood of Christ.

<..>¶Taking on far fewer hate crimes and cases in which local law enforcement officers may have violated someone’s civil rights.

<...> The agency has transferred or demoted some experienced civil rights litigators while bringing in lawyers, including graduates of religious-affiliated law schools and some people vocal about their faith, who favor the new priorities. That has created some unease, with some career lawyers disdainfully referring to the newcomers as “holy hires.”( NY Times)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/01/1213105/-That-hopey-changey-thing-at-the-Department-of-Justice

Good stuff! Love the title!

Justice Department questions nix July elections (Bibb County, Georgia)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022915790

The RW hate Holder in part because of his defense of voting rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894538






Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

[Laelth]

1. The DOJ came through for us in Bibb County, Georgia.

k&r for having Democrats running the show at the DOJ. I have serious problems with several DOJ policies (defending expansion of the Unitary Executive, failing to prosecute war criminals, failing to prosecute financial criminals, busting MJ distributors), but it is still better to have Democrats in charge.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

3. Republicans have launched an assault on voting rights. n/t

[Laelth]

17. Nothing new there.

They have been suppressing the vote (through both legal challenges and dirty tricks) for as long as I have been politically sentient.

That said, I am pleased that the Holder Justice Department is actually enforcing the will of Congress as expressed in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am certain that the right is not happy about it.

-Laelth

[Tx4obama]

2. K&R :) n/t

[ProSense]

4. Kick. n/t

[dsc]

5. I don't think anyone disputes Holder's record on voting or civil rights

after his rocky start on DOMA briefs. That doesn't negate his record on prosecuting banks (abysmal), going after pot smokers (abysmal), and his targeting of whistle blowers. But in the final analysis, despite some amount of independence, the major themes are Obama's and if Obama wanted more banks prosecuted it would have happened or Holder would be gone.

[ProSense]

6. Interesting

"I don't think anyone disputes Holder's record on voting or civil rights after his rocky start on DOMA briefs."

...that you cite DOMA, especially since it is this administration that finally moved to correct the civil rights setbacks of the 1990s.

Still, there is a lot more to Holder's record. The reason the President has confidence in Holder is likely because he is one of the best and most accomplished AGs ever.

http://www.justice.gov/accomplishments/

No amount of spin changes that.

[dsc]

7. the original breifs defending DOMA were horrendous

and yes, Holder deserves a ton of blame for them. It is one thing to defend a law, it is quite another to do so in the way those briefs were written. I wouldn't be surprised to see them quoted by Scalia in June. (at least I hope it is Scalia and not Kennedy). That said, on civil rights his department deserves mostly kudos. I do have some problems with some of the redistricting pre clearances given (NC to name one) but overall on those issues they have done well. But the pot thing, especially in service of a President who smoked alot of pot, stinks to high heaven. The lack of prosecution of the banks also stinks to high heaven. The deputy AG whose job it was to prosecute banks clearly didn't wish to do so and thus didn't. As to white collar crime, even the self serving (by definition) write up you link, isn't all that impressive. Most of the people listed either ran fairly small banks or were people low down the chain at big banks, or were borrowers who lied. None of that is all that impressive. The fact is that way more pot users were jailed by Holder's DOJ than bankers who helped destroy our economy.

[ProSense]

8. So

"the original breifs defending DOMA were horrendous and yes, Holder deserves a ton of blame for them. It is one thing to defend a law, it is quite another to do so in the way those briefs were written. I wouldn't be surprised to see them quoted by Scalia in June. (at least I hope it is Scalia and not Kennedy). That said, on civil rights his department deserves mostly kudos. "

...is your point to remind everyone that before the administration moved to correct the civil rights setbacks of the 1990s, it made some mistakes?

OK, now come back to the present.

Again, the reason the President has confidence in Holder is likely because he is one of the best and most accomplished AGs ever.

http://www.justice.gov/accomplishments/

As usual, that's met with spin.

[dsc]

9. He has been a decent AG

not spectacular, not fantastic, but decent. I would have him a low A for his Civil rights division, I would give him about the same grade for terrorism enforcement and prevention, I would give him at best a very low C for white collar crime, and a low D for drug enforcement. I will grant that his A's are in important areas so the average would be a solid B (ie above average but not spectacular). Had he either treated pot better or gone after white collar crime more forcefully then I would likely give him a low A over all but both errors mean he gets a B. It isn't spin to point out that we have jailed way too many people under Holder for using pot (even 1 would be too many and it has been tens of thousands) and we have prosecuted way too few Wall Street crooks (the S & L crisis involved far fewer people and did far less damage but resulted in vastly more prosecutions). I will say that both of those themes are likely Obama's policy as much as Holder's doing.

[ProSense]

10. Again

"He has been a decent AG not spectacular, not fantastic, but decent. I would have him a low A for his Civil rights division, I would give him about the same grade for terrorism enforcement and prevention, I would give him at best a very low C for white collar crime, and a low D for drug enforcement. I will grant that his A's are in important areas so the average would be a solid B (ie above average but not spectacular). Had he either treated pot better or gone after white collar crime more forcefully then I would likely give him a low A over all but both errors mean he gets a B. It isn't spin to point out that we have jailed way too many people under Holder for using pot (even 1 would be too many and it has been tens of thousands) and we have prosecuted way too few Wall Street crooks (the S & L crisis involved far fewer people and did far less damage but resulted in vastly more prosecutions). I will say that both of those themes are likely Obama's policy as much as Holder's doing. "

...he has proven to be one of the best. The "pot" issue has always been a lightening rod, but I believe people have selective memories when they hype the actions of this administration as if the war on drugs became U.S. policy in 2009.

For example, Clinton was horrible on medical marijuana.

<...>

Two months after the passage of the Compassionate Use Act, the Clinton Administration took a coordinated hard line against the new law. In a press conference, Barry McCaffrey, the director of the Office of National Drug Control and Policy announced that: “Nothing has changed. Federal law is unaffected by these propositions.” Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala worried that California’s initiative reinforced the belief that marijuana was benign. Finally, Attorney General Janet Reno stated that she was reallocating federal enforcement resources to target California physicians who recommended marijuana to their patients, threatening to revoke their registration with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and prohibit them from participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/wordpress/2012/05/medical-marijuana-policy-in-the-united-states/

Clinton Plan Attacks Medical Marijuana Initiatives, Targets Doctors

The Clinton administration announced at a December 30 press conference that doctors who prescribe or recommend marijuana under voter-approved provisions in California and Arizona may face criminal prosecution under federal law and lose their ability to write prescriptions. Federal officials had threatened to take such action for months, but had not endorsed a formal strategy until Monday's press conference.

"The recent passage of propositions which make dangerous drugs more available in California and Arizona poses a threat to the National Drug Control Strategy goal of reducing drug abuse in the United States," stated Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey in a seven-page release outlining the administration's response to the initiatives. "These propositions are not about compassion, they are about legalizing dangerous drugs," he told reporters.

The administration's proposal states that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will revoke the federal registrations of physicians who recommend or prescribe marijuana according to the provisions of the newly enacted state laws. McCaffrey and Attorney General Janet Reno also stated that the Justice Department may criminally prosecute physicians who prescribe marijuana for use in treatment.

"I believe it's outrageous that the federal government is using taxpayer's money in this way, to go after honest doctors caring for very sick people," said Dr. Toni Brayer of the San Francisco Medical Society, which represents about 2,200 AIDS and cancer specialists in the bay area and backs California's medical marijuana measure. Brayer was one of many physicians nationwide who criticized the administration's strategy. She accused the administration of using "scare tactics to frighten legitimate doctors from using (marijuana) for very sick people."

- more -

http://norml.org/news/1997/01/02/clinton-plan-attacks-medical-marijuana-initiatives-targets-doctors

<...>

Many senior law enforcement officials in Washington, most notably Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of Drug Control Policy, spoke in opposition to the initiatives even before the election. But the recommendations represent the first unified and official government response. They were drafted by officials from half a dozen agencies, including Justice, McCaffrey's office, Treasury, Transportation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Although officials said that physicians or other medical professionals are rarely criminally prosecuted for prescribing illegal drugs, such as marijuana, Thomas A. Constantine, the DEA administrator, told Congress recently that the activities of doctors are still closely monitored by federal authorities.

Constantine testified that in the last two years, the licenses of more than 900 physicians either have been surrendered or revoked for a variety of fraudulent prescription practices.

"The California and Arizona initiatives do nothing to change federal drug-enforcement policy," Constantine said. "We can take both administrative and criminal actions against doctors who violate the terms of their DEA drug registrations that authorize them to prescribe controlled substances."

- more -

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-12-27/news/mn-12988_1_federal-law-enforcement

In a decision that came late in the day on September 7, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a permanent injunction that blocks the government from revoking doctors' licenses and prohibits the government from initiating investigations of physicians who have provided advice on the medical use of marijuana.

<...>

At issue in the case is the language of Proposition 215, approved by California voters in November 1996, which makes it legal for patients to grow and possess marijuana for medical use when recommended by a doctor.

In response, the Clinton administration said that marijuana is illegal under federal law and pledged to punish doctors who recommend its use.

http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/government-cannot-punish-doctors-who-recommend-medical-marijuana-ca-court-says

[dsc]

11. I don't think that Clinton = perfect

Yes, Clinton's record on pot isn't great either but it should be noted that it was a much newer issue back then and that he was probably closer to where the country was then than Obama is now. But that said, on drugs, Clinton learned the wrong lessons from his brother Rodger's experience and applied them to the country. The fact is our drug policy has been wrong headed for years but the pot part is especially egregious. I do think Obama's personal history of major pot use does make his behavior in this regard worse than Clinton's, just as Clinton's minor use of pot makes his conduct in this regard worse than Carter's. The fact is Holder's DOJ has helped ruin many, many lives for doing exactly, precisely what Obama did, and wrote about doing, while he was in high school. And often the people whose lives have gotten ruined for this conduct, smoking pot, have done so for reasons far more high minded than the reasons that Obama had for smoking pot. You call this issue a lightning rod, it is a lightning rod for good reason. Putting cancer patients in jail for smoking a few joints when you were appointed by a President who smoked pot to get baked deserves to be a lightning rod.

I will say one other thing about the issue of the doctors. I do have a problem with doctors writing prescriptions for pot willy nilly. I understand why they would do it. I frankly think that marijuana should be completely legal but when it isn't and when doctors have been given the power to write scripts, that power should be used honestly and forthrightly. It is a corrupt practice for a doctor to write a script for pot for people who have no disease that pot is supposedly treating. I would have huge problems with doctors doing this for money as it would make me wonder just what other dishonest conduct they would engage in for money. Thus I don't think investigations per se were a problem but if a doctor followed the laws on the books of his or her state than the investigation should be ended.

[ProSense]

12. It's not

I don't think that Clinton = perfect

Yes, Clinton's record on pot isn't great either but it should be noted that it was a much newer issue back then and that he was probably closer to where the country was then than Obama is now. But that said, on drugs, Clinton learned the wrong lessons from his brother Rodger's experience and applied them to the country. The fact is our drug policy has been wrong headed for years but the pot part is especially egregious. I do think Obama's personal history of major pot use does make his behavior in this regard worse than Clinton's, just as Clinton's minor use of pot makes his conduct in this regard worse than Carter's. The fact is Holder's DOJ has helped ruin many, many lives for doing exactly, precisely what Obama did, and wrote about doing, while he was in high school. And often the people whose lives have gotten ruined for this conduct, smoking pot, have done so for reasons far more high minded than the reasons that Obama had for smoking pot. You call this issue a lightning rod, it is a lightning rod for good reason. Putting cancer patients in jail for smoking a few joints when you were appointed by a President who smoked pot to get baked deserves to be a lightning rod.

...about being "perfect." That wasn't the point, but you still make excuses for Clinton.

The rest of your comment is basically gibberish with no basis in fact.

Let us be clear about MMJ raids and people saying Obama is raiding MMJ businesses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022750680

A new day for the 'war on drugs'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022754071

Federal Appeals Court: Drug Sentencing Disparity Is Intentional Racial ‘Subjucation’http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022863384

[dsc]

13. you can call me a liar until the cows come home and give birth to aliens

but every word I wrote is true. Clinton had a brother who used drugs, got caught by cops who Clinton could have abused his power and stopped but didn't, and then went straight. Many people who have histories like that tend to favor strong criminalization of drugs (fancy that). Clinton also tried pot but never was anything like a regular user. Obama, on the other hand, has admitted to smoking a lot of pot. You can spin like a dreidel but that doesn't change the fact he did smoked a lot of pot, and did so for one and only one reason, he liked to get high.

Now as to your links. One is a completely evidence free post, one is about the drug czar who hasn't followed through on his promise in this regard, and the third is a link to a decision from two Carter appointed judges (though the law is something Obama deserves credit for).

Again, I am not saying that Holder has been an awful AG, but he has been, a B AG. The pot record is what it is, and it isn't pretty. The white collar crime record, which you have left largely unaddressed (for the very good reason that it is pretty lowsy) is also what it is. The deputy AG who is largely responsible for that part of the DOJ has left and been replaced, maybe that will help. I also think that the margins of victory for both Washington and Colorado's pot initiatives have made a difference in the view of the administration about pot. I hope that turns out to be true.

[ProSense]

14. Now you're

"you can call me a liar until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but every word I wrote is true. "

...tyring to play the victim? Who the hell called you a "liar." Keep your red herrings.

"Clinton had a brother who used drugs, got caught by cops who Clinton could have abused his power and stopped but didn't, and then went straight. Many people who have histories like that tend to favor strong criminalization of drugs (fancy that). Clinton also tried pot but never was anything like a regular user. Obama, on the other hand, has admitted to smoking a lot of pot. You can spin like a dreidel but that doesn't change the fact he did smoked a lot of pot, and did so for one and only one reason, he liked to get high."

What the hell does your psychoanalysis of Clinton have to do with anything? All you're doing is making excuses and throwing up straw men.

[dsc]

20. It makes a ton of difference

to use an illustration where Obama comes off better. On marriage equality, Clinton's opposition was worse than Obama's since Clinton clearly didn't value marriage much given his affair. Similarly it makes a huge difference if you are sincere but misguided on pot vs an utter hypocrite. Obama falls into utter hypocrite.

[ProSense]

21. No, it doesn't. Those are nothing but excuse for Clinton. n/t

[dsc]

22. yes being a big honking hypocrite is worse

it just plain is. It say far more about you than me that you can't see that.

[ProSense]

23. Worse than what: not inhaling?

"sincere but misguided"

Bullshit excuse.

[dsc]

24. yes it is

Obama smoked a lot of weed, did so over a long period of time, and suffered no apparent ill effects, yet he jailed people for smoking marijuana. This would be like hearing that Teddy Kennedy ran sweatshops. Every single person in jail for smoking marijuana ought to be pardoned unconditionally since they did absolutely nothing that Obama didn't do.

[ProSense]

25. Utter drivel. n/t

[Laelth]

18. Agreed. Let us hope it is Scalia and not Kennedy.

Astute post. Kudos.

-Laelth

[DevonRex]

27. Metro Weekly on Obama, Holder, DOMA: "Six Months Later"

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6516

"On July 1, DOJ responded to BLAG, with the government filing an unprecedented brief detailing the history of discrimination faced by gay, lesbian and bisexual people in America, including by the federal government itself. The brief, filed in Golinski's case in response to BLAG's motion to dismiss her claim for equal health insurance benefits for her wife, went on to detail why DOMA should be found unconstitutional. It is the single most persuasive legal argument ever advanced by the United States government in support of equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

In the eight weeks since that filing, the fallout has continued to advance the legal case for LGBT equality in the courts – and, often, the administration has taken steps to help that process move quicker. >>SNIP<<

Nonetheless, the impact of the Feb. 23 decision by Obama and Holder cannot be denied – and may turn out to be one of the great moments in the history of the movement for LGBT equality. Their decision already has led to dramatic changes across the country and the federal government in the way that lawyers and judges see legal challenges brought by LGBT people – and, slowly but surely, in the way that LGBT people are able to live their lives." END

Emphasis added by me. Link to PDF of DOJ filing referenced in the bolded sentence is here:
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/DOJ-OppToBLAGMtD.pdf
From an article titled, "DOJ: Court Should Not Dismiss Karen Golinski's Health Benefits Claim, Should Instead Find DOMA Unconstitutional"
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-court-should-not-dismiss-k.html

But wait, that's not all. Obama, Holder and DOJ apply heightened scrutiny standard to gender identity issues, too. Not only that, but:

" In the New Orleans report, in contrast, DOJ spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa told Metro Weekly that DOJ's authority for investigating allegations of LGBT discriminatory policing came from ''42 U.S.C. Sec. 14141 using the 14th Amendment.''

The Fourteenth Amendment is the provision of the Constitution that guarantees the equal protection of the laws, and the statutory provision referenced makes it illegal for any state or local government ''to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers … that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.''
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6104

This is HARDLY the kind of thing Justice Scalia would do. No one who thinks as Scalia thinks could ever turn around and do the things I've noted above. It wasn't until the right cases came up in the right venue that level of scrutiny could be addressed.
"DOJ Stops Defending DOMA"
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6022

"The issue was raised, Holder explained in a statement released along with the letter, because Section 3 of DOMA has been challenged in the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Second Circuit, ''which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated.'' Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment – applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment – all laws that classify people into groups receive a level of scrutiny: rational basis, which is the lowest form of scrutiny; heightened scrutiny; or strict scrutiny.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not made a determination about the level of scrutiny to apply to sexual orientation classifications, even in the two cases in which it struck down anti-LGBT laws – Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

The cases in question – both filed on Nov. 9, 2010 – were brought by the ACLU in New York and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Connecticut. The Justice Department's deadlines for responding to the ACLU case, Windsor v. United States, and the GLAD case, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, were approaching in coming weeks.

As Holder details in the memorandum to Boehner, the Justice Department had defended DOMA in previous cases in California, Florida, Massachusetts and Washington. But, with Windsor and Pedersen, Holder said in the statement, ''the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.''

[dsc]

28. please don't lie about what I said

I said, in clear, unambiguous language, and in small enough words for anyone to understand, his ORIGINAL DOMA brief. That would be the first DOMA brief.

http://americablog.com/2009/06/obama-defends-doma-in-federal-court-says-banning-gay-marriage-is-good-for-the-federal-budget-invokes-incest-and-marrying-children.html

Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government’s brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we’ve written about previously, it’s another in California.

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Romer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

end of quote

It was this original brief to which I was plainly referring. I used the word original, I used the words rough start, the test was crystal clear. There is no way you misunderstood. Your dishonest answer was intended as a smear plain and simple. You owe me a big fat apology.

[ProSense]

29. It figures you'd dig up a ridiculously hyperbolic and debunked five-year-old opinion to post. n/t

[DevonRex]

31. Hyperbolic headings in the piece are disproved immediately by quoted passages.

That was the easiest thing to debunk in the world!!

[dsc]

32. that is what I was referring to

when I said his original brief. I wasn't being dishonest or anything else. If you didn't know the brief I was referring to that makes you at fault not me.

[ProSense]

34. It's like you're

"If you didn't know the brief I was referring to that makes you at fault not me. "

...at war with yourself. Who cares what you were "referring to"? The piece you posted is hyperbolic nonsense that is now five years old.

Like I said, come back to the present: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2934227

It'll save you from fighting your own straw men.

[dsc]

35. there is one, and only one, reason I posted that piece

and that was the fact a poster accuesed me of saying Scalia would quote the current DOJ brief.

[ProSense]

37. Nope, that's just another excuse.

You can't possibly believe that.

[dsc]

38. I would have posted it originally

had I meant to post it originally. I chose not to. I think that speaks for itself.

[DevonRex]

41. Seriously.

I don't know whether to or

[DevonRex]

30. That is a BIZARRE and INSULTING reply. Deliberately so.

I gave lots of great things Obama/Holder/DOJ did regarding DOMA and Prop 8 by extension and the far-reaching effects on other issues. The only thing I said regarding your post was:
"This is HARDLY the kind of thing Justice Scalia would do. No one who thinks as Scalia thinks could ever turn around and do the things I've noted above. It wasn't until the right cases came up in the right venue that level of scrutiny could be addressed."

That is NOT lying about what you said. And it will be a cold day in hell before I apologize for something I did not do.

[dsc]

33. that isn't all you did and you god damn well know it

You went out and found his current brief which you knew full well I wasn't referring to and pretended that is what I did refer to. You out and out made up what I said in the most dishonest way possible.

[DevonRex]

36. Increasingly bizarre.

Big fucking deal, I started with the later briefs. To show MY point that NOBODY who writes those briefs thinks like Scalia. Oh, and you COULD have linked to the earlier briefs but you didn't. Just made a vague and ridiculous Scalia reference. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

As far as the order in which I write my own posts and link to briefs and articles, that's MY prerogative. The information is there. And it does DISCUSS the earlier briefs. Just not in the idiotic, hyperbolic and thoroughly debunked way your editorialist did.

[dsc]

39. it wasn't hyperbolic and I purposely didn't post the original brief because I consider them history

but when you all but accuse me of claiming to say Scalia would quote the current briefs, and there is literally no other reading of your post since you put it in response to mine, I had no other choice. the fact is Scalia will quote that first brief you can count on it.

[DevonRex]

40. Again bizarre. I didn't even come CLOSE TO accusing you of ANYTHING.

I don't know what your problem is. But YOU have accused ME of several things. I have tolerated your behavior up to this point because I thought you must simply be misreading what I have said. But this completely disproves your latest accusation. From my post:

"This is HARDLY the kind of thing Justice Scalia would do. No one who thinks as Scalia thinks could ever turn around and do the things I've noted above. It wasn't until the right cases came up in the right venue that level of scrutiny could be addressed.
"DOJ Stops Defending DOMA"
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6022

"The issue was raised, Holder explained in a statement released along with the letter, because Section 3 of DOMA has been challenged in the Second Circuit, ''which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated.'' Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment – applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment – all laws that classify people into groups receive a level of scrutiny: rational basis, which is the lowest form of scrutiny; heightened scrutiny; or strict scrutiny."
_------_--------

Yes, Holder defended DOMA in the first 3 cases. My links say why that changed (right case, right constitutional challenge, right venue). And MY POINT is that NOBODY who holds Scalia's views could have gone from defending DOMA to being so very strongly and vocally against it in the space of a few short months. THEREFORE, neither Obama nor Holder ever held views like Scalia's views.

That is the last time I will say it. And don't call me a liar again.

[arely staircase]

15. the anti-holder bs is bs

as

[ProSense]

26. Yes, it is. n/t

[Number23]

16. kick

[Gothmog]

19. The DOJ has done a great job in Texas

I live in Texas. Without the DOJ, Texas would have been subject to the Texas GOP voter suppression/voter ID law. the DOJ also proved that the Texas GOP engaged in intention discrimination in the last round of redistricting. As a Texas, I am very pleased with the efforts of the DOJ

[DevonRex]

43. That's good to hear.

Some cases are easier to take on than others. And unfortunately the Republicans get sneakier with every such law they pass. I'm glad DOJ was successful in Texas.

[Gothmog]

47. The fight is still being fought by Holder and the DOJ

The DOJ was very successful in proving that the Texas GOP engaged in intentional discrimination in the Section 5 case pending before the DC Circuit. That finding means that the DOJ can in effect use such finding in the Section 2 case pending in San Antonio.

Under Bush, the voting rights section was destroyed and idiots like Christian Adams were hired as "non-political" hires even though the guy is too stupid to be hired by the DOJ without the assistance of the bushies. Under Holder, the damage to the DOJ voting rights section has been repaired and the DOJ are enforcing voting rights laws. The enforcement of the voting rights laws are a major reason why the righties are made at AG Holder.

Removing Holder now would be sending a message to the courts and others that the fights on voting rights are not important. I really think that AG Holder is not getting the proper recognition that he deserves for his fight on voting rights issues

[Logical]

42. So the continued pot arrests are not the DOJs fault? Link....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022938157

[ProSense]

44. Thanks for the link.

"The Obama Administration is lying to the American people when it says it's not targeting individual patients"

<...>

In October 2009, the Justice Department said in a memorandum drafted by David W. Ogden, then the deputy attorney general, that it would not focus on “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”

The memo did not allow farms and dispensaries or the buying and selling of marijuana. In many states that allow medical marijuana, state law does not specify that dispensaries are also legal. The Washington State Department of Health’s Web site specifically says that dispensaries are illegal, as is buying and selling marijuana. It says that people who qualify for medical marijuana are allowed to grow their own.

<...>

Some federal prosecutors say states have simply let medical marijuana get out of hand. Many supporters of medical marijuana agree.

“Seeing storefront dispensaries advertise with neon pot leaves is inconsistent with the idea most people have of medical marijuana,” said Ms. Holcomb, of the A.C.L.U. “But until you let states regulate these dispensaries, you have no way to control that.”

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/us/08marijuana.html

Everyone has an agenda, including those who make excuses for Clinton. Thanks for the link.

[ProSense]

45. BTW,

this OP isn't about medical marijuana, but one can understand why someone trying to excuse Clinton's actions (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2934308) on medical marijuana as "sincere but misguided" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2935551) would start that thread.

This OP is about Holder's overall record, and it's a damn good one.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. That's too boring!!!!

Why are you discussing actual policy rather than made up drama?????

BOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGG!

Obama is WORSE THAN Bush!!!!!!