or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 116

post #1726 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/mike-allen-interviews-attorney-general-eric-holder-115576.html

Holder interview. I think he comes off pretty reasonable but found the talk about federal civil rights charges having too high a bar to get over, and the need/intent to lower the bar, fairly interesting.

That particular problem does exist. I've known some folks who have worked, or applied to work, at the civil rights division and have been in the general vicinity of some of their cases. The really hard-core civil rights cases are really, really hard to bring, for a variety of reasons. That's part of why the division exists. Many of the specific historical imperatives that led to its creation have changed, of course, but there's still (in my view) a need for a division focused on core federal civil rights cases. But as with many such programs, the importance of the core cases (which I think most of us would agree are worthy and important, even if a Venn diagram of what we think the "core" should be would have overlapping but not identical circles) and the very real impediments to bringing those cases effectively can bet obscured by a combination of (1) historical ambiguity about the range of cases to be brought, what the totality of the institutional mission is, what enforcement priorities should be, etc, all of which can erode institutional credibility and provide fodder for for both the legitimate and the specious arguments of critics; (2) occasional mismanagement; (3) bullshit, hysterical, or intellectually dishonest criticism (largely exaggerations of the legitimate criticisms arising from point 1 but grossly exaggerated (or simply made up) for political reasons; (4) the fact that the division was specifically created to be a tool of federal muscle-flexing and intervention against perceived state intransigence or incapacity gives heightened traction and resonance to both 1 and 3, because of baggage that comes attached to federalism/state's rights/federal overreaching/blah blah in certain parts of the country.

*NB: This being CE, I didn't bother to read the article - just Pio's brief synopsis.
post #1727 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

*NB: This being CE, I didn't bother to read the article - just Pio's brief synopsis.

fistbump.gif

My main concern about federal charges of this nature is that the desire to level them seems to be often pressured by political ends. At least to this layman the "community leaders" like Al Sharpton seem to want them wielded in such a fashion as to either get local officials to do their bidding "or else," and if that fails, to get the Feds to implement the "or else." The reply to this might be that is exactly how they should work, because at the state/local level local pressures might stand in the way of justice, but I would say the Federal level is just as apt to carve out a result to appease their own pressures.

TL;DNR = it would just be nice if people did the right thing.
post #1728 of 5110
post #1729 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

That particular problem does exist. I've known some folks who have worked, or applied to work, at the civil rights division and have been in the general vicinity of some of their cases. The really hard-core civil rights cases are really, really hard to bring, for a variety of reasons. That's part of why the division exists. Many of the specific historical imperatives that led to its creation have changed, of course, but there's still (in my view) a need for a division focused on core federal civil rights cases. But as with many such programs, the importance of the core cases (which I think most of us would agree are worthy and important, even if a Venn diagram of what we think the "core" should be would have overlapping but not identical circles) and the very real impediments to bringing those cases effectively can bet obscured by a combination of (1) historical ambiguity about the range of cases to be brought, what the totality of the institutional mission is, what enforcement priorities should be, etc, all of which can erode institutional credibility and provide fodder for for both the legitimate and the specious arguments of critics; (2) occasional mismanagement; (3) bullshit, hysterical, or intellectually dishonest criticism (largely exaggerations of the legitimate criticisms arising from point 1 but grossly exaggerated (or simply made up) for political reasons; (4) the fact that the division was specifically created to be a tool of federal muscle-flexing and intervention against perceived state intransigence or incapacity gives heightened traction and resonance to both 1 and 3, because of baggage that comes attached to federalism/state's rights/federal overreaching/blah blah in certain parts of the country.

*NB: This being CE, I didn't bother to read the article - just Pio's brief synopsis.


I agree. Holder couldn't even bring a civil rights action against the Black Panthers who were videotaped wielding bats and clubs while standing at the front door of a voting [place].
post #1730 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

I agree. Holder couldn't even bring a civil rights action against the Black Panthers who were videotaped wielding bats and clubs while standing at the front door of a voting [place].
You need to cut the Panthers some slack until Huey is released and Eldridge is able to come home.
post #1731 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

You need to cut the Panthers some slack until Huey is released and Eldridge is able to come home.


My bad.

Wait . . .

Aren't they congressmen?
post #1732 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

My bad.

Wait . . .

Aren't they congressmen?
You're thinking of Tom Hayden.
post #1733 of 5110
Bill Ayers is this Administrations go to guy on 60s Radicals and the Panthers.
post #1734 of 5110
The govt has no business bringing civil rights cases, it should be private counsel only.
post #1735 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

The govt has no business bringing civil rights cases, it should be private counsel only.

Well, there's that whole Civil Rights Act thing. Plus, who else is going to swing the federal hammer when people refuse to honor the status of pennies as legal tender?
post #1736 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Well, there's that whole Civil Rights Act thing. Plus, who else is going to swing the federal hammer when people refuse to honor the status of pennies as legal tender?

When the government can't sue people for not accepting pennies, I don't want to live in that world or time anymore.
post #1737 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

The govt has no business bringing civil rights cases, it should be private counsel only.

Yes, we need many more like Benjamin Crump.
post #1738 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Think the SCOTUS will start to hear King v. Burwell this week. I predict the SCOTUS will uphold tax subsidies to the folks on the Federal exchanges and the IRS's rule making powers, as even though it's pretty clear the language is a fuck up three ways to Sunday, what those idiots were trying to say is anyone using an exchange gets taxpayer money to subsidize them.

What's everyone else think about the eventual ruling?
post #1739 of 5110
Obama can just choose not to not pay the subsidies. It's called executive discretion.
post #1740 of 5110
Pretty sure rules and laws don't mean anything anymore. We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of nannys.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob