LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 3,409
0 members and 3,409 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 11-29-2016, 06:08 PM   #11
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,597
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
She didn't make it up. If you read the interim report that she linked to, from page 78, you will see that it refers to a Washington Post article quoting an anonymous DOJ staffer as saying:
"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," the lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."
It also quotes testimony from a former DOJ staffer, Coates, saying that he did not believe that someone senior to him at DOJ, King, "supports equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act". Not that she (King) said this, but that he (Coates) believed it.

It further quotes Coates and another DOJ staffer about an Obama political appointee at DOJ, Fernandes, as follows:
Ms. Fernandes responded by telling the gathering there that the Obama administration was only interested in bringing traditional types of Section 2 cases that would provide equality for racial and language minority voters. And then she went on to say that this is what we are all about or words to that effect....

Ms. Fernandes reiterated that directive in another meeting held in December 2009 on the subject of federal observer election coverage, in which she stated to the entire group in attendance that the Voting Section's goal was to ensure equal access for voters of color or language minority.
Coates in particular described this as hostility to race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws. I quoted what the report actually said because I don't think that is the best interpretation of the evidence in, or even a particularly fair one, but obviously it is a politically useful one, and in some circles it is accepted as the truth.
Let me get this straight.

In a country in which every voting system is run by whites to the advantage of whites and in which laws had to be passed to keep whites from disenfranchising minorities, the fact that prosecuting those laws in the actual and many cases in which whites successfuly disenfranchise minorities is looked upon as unfair because there is no focus on the effectively non-existent instances of whites being disenfranchised?

"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.