The reign of Eric Holder
As of Nov 17, 2011, 46 congressmen are demanding Eric Holders immediate resignation. These demands are in response to Mr. Holder’s misleading statements at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which is investigating the controversial gun-walking operations known as “fast and furious.’ While the Attorney General ignores congressional subpoenas, the call for his resignation grows louder.
This incident is just the latest episode in the history of Eric Holders reign as Attorney General.
Before we rush to judge his integrity, it may be appropriate to consider a brief review of his record as Attorney General. There are a few events that have distinctively marked his Justice Department.
First there were the actions of his assistant attorney General Thomas E Perez. Mr. Perez was in charge of the Civil Rights division. Perez, we should all remember, played a significant role in dismissing a federal investigation of the New Black Panther party intimidating voters at a Philadelphia Polling location during the 2008 election. A clear violation of voting rights.
The incident drew the interest of certain members of Congress. Rep John Culberson in particular, demanded to know why the justice department refused to prosecute the Black Panthers – especially considering that they were caught making the menacing gestures on tape. Mr. Holder refused to answer questions directly nor would he release any related documents. He claimed that the Justice Department documents related to the Black Panther case were “privileged.”
In February of 2011, the House Administration Committee began investigating complaints that a military voting statute enacted in 2009 was being ignored by the Justice Department. This law requires ballots to be mailed at least 45 days before Election Day. Well over 45,000 overseas ballots were mailed less than 25 days before the 2010 election! Subcommittee Chairman Gregg Harper (R) of Mississippi lamented that Justice Department had clearly failed to implement the program. Eventually, the Committee recommended that the new law be altered providing military voters a private right of court action so they won’t be so dependent on Justice Officials to defend their voting rights.
Then we have the epic struggle between the border states and the federal government over illegal immigration, which began with Arizona.
On April 23, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbors Act. This act made it a State misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required under federal law. The law also prompted local authorities to go after those who hired, sheltered or transported illegal aliens.
In addition to signing Arizona SB 1070, the Governor prohibited state and local governments from giving any public benefits to illegal aliens.
The Justice Department responded: On July 6 the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit to halt enforcement of Arizona’s immigration law. The brief argued that SB1070, passed in April and scheduled for July 29 implementation, obstructed federal authority over immigration law and that the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country. Other suits followed, some by groups claiming to represent the illegal aliens, and soon there were a total of seven. The DOJ was successful in getting Judge Susan Bolton to block key portions of the law.
Since then four of the seven challenges to Arizona's immigration law have been dismissed. No trial dates have been set for the three remaining lawsuits, which the governor is seeking to dismiss.
Brewer had filed a counter-lawsuit in one case. She accused the Obama administration of failing to enforce immigration laws or maintaining control of her state's border with Mexico. However, Bolton threw out Brewer's claims against the federal government.
South Carolina has another tough immigration law, which will take effect on January 1 and the Justice Department is challenging its constitutionality claiming that it violates people’s right to due process.
The next state that attempted to enforce federal immigration law was Alabama.
On August 1, 2011 the Justice Department filed suit against the state of Alabama challenging what is described as the toughest immigration law passed thus far – H.B. 56.
There is also a subplot to Mr. Holder’s border state suits. That is his obsession with an Arizona Sheriff. Sheriff Joe Arpaio (quite popular at that time in Arizona) sometimes described himself as being one of the toughest law enforcement officers in the nation when it came to illegal immigrants.
Mr. Holder decided to launch a title VI investigation of the Sheriff’s office and demanded that Mr. Arpaio turn over his files and all relevant documents. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs on the grounds of race, color or national origin.) Since then, an agreement has been reached between the Justice Department and local authorities for the free and rapid flow of information to the Justice Department. The question is what was the Justice Department looking for?
Or was this an attempt to intimidate the Sheriff into accepting the Obama policy on Immigration?
Rep Joe Walsh of Illinois has prepared and circulated a letter for President Obama. In it he asks for Holders resignation or for the President to fire him. This is the letters final paragraph:
“In intentionally letting over 2,000 firearms ‘walk’ across the border into Mexico, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) — under the leadership of Attorney General Holder — carried out an operation that left a U.S. Border Patrol agent dead, broke federal law, and attempted to build a case for gun control. Operation Fast and Furious has proved to be one of the most serious errors in judgment carried out in recent history by a federal agency.”---Rep Joe Walsh
At long last, we may be close to the end of Eric Holders reign.
As of Nov 17, 2011, 46 congressmen are demanding Eric Holders immediate resignation. These demands are in response to Mr. Holder’s misleading statements at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which is investigating the controversial gun-walking operations known as “fast and furious.’ While the Attorney General ignores congressional subpoenas, the call for his resignation grows louder.
This incident is just the latest episode in the history of Eric Holders reign as Attorney General.
Before we rush to judge his integrity, it may be appropriate to consider a brief review of his record as Attorney General. There are a few events that have distinctively marked his Justice Department.
First there were the actions of his assistant attorney General Thomas E Perez. Mr. Perez was in charge of the Civil Rights division. Perez, we should all remember, played a significant role in dismissing a federal investigation of the New Black Panther party intimidating voters at a Philadelphia Polling location during the 2008 election. A clear violation of voting rights.
The incident drew the interest of certain members of Congress. Rep John Culberson in particular, demanded to know why the justice department refused to prosecute the Black Panthers – especially considering that they were caught making the menacing gestures on tape. Mr. Holder refused to answer questions directly nor would he release any related documents. He claimed that the Justice Department documents related to the Black Panther case were “privileged.”
In February of 2011, the House Administration Committee began investigating complaints that a military voting statute enacted in 2009 was being ignored by the Justice Department. This law requires ballots to be mailed at least 45 days before Election Day. Well over 45,000 overseas ballots were mailed less than 25 days before the 2010 election! Subcommittee Chairman Gregg Harper (R) of Mississippi lamented that Justice Department had clearly failed to implement the program. Eventually, the Committee recommended that the new law be altered providing military voters a private right of court action so they won’t be so dependent on Justice Officials to defend their voting rights.
Then we have the epic struggle between the border states and the federal government over illegal immigration, which began with Arizona.
On April 23, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbors Act. This act made it a State misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required under federal law. The law also prompted local authorities to go after those who hired, sheltered or transported illegal aliens.
In addition to signing Arizona SB 1070, the Governor prohibited state and local governments from giving any public benefits to illegal aliens.
The Justice Department responded: On July 6 the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit to halt enforcement of Arizona’s immigration law. The brief argued that SB1070, passed in April and scheduled for July 29 implementation, obstructed federal authority over immigration law and that the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country. Other suits followed, some by groups claiming to represent the illegal aliens, and soon there were a total of seven. The DOJ was successful in getting Judge Susan Bolton to block key portions of the law.
Since then four of the seven challenges to Arizona's immigration law have been dismissed. No trial dates have been set for the three remaining lawsuits, which the governor is seeking to dismiss.
Brewer had filed a counter-lawsuit in one case. She accused the Obama administration of failing to enforce immigration laws or maintaining control of her state's border with Mexico. However, Bolton threw out Brewer's claims against the federal government.
South Carolina has another tough immigration law, which will take effect on January 1 and the Justice Department is challenging its constitutionality claiming that it violates people’s right to due process.
The next state that attempted to enforce federal immigration law was Alabama.
On August 1, 2011 the Justice Department filed suit against the state of Alabama challenging what is described as the toughest immigration law passed thus far – H.B. 56.
There is also a subplot to Mr. Holder’s border state suits. That is his obsession with an Arizona Sheriff. Sheriff Joe Arpaio (quite popular at that time in Arizona) sometimes described himself as being one of the toughest law enforcement officers in the nation when it came to illegal immigrants.
Mr. Holder decided to launch a title VI investigation of the Sheriff’s office and demanded that Mr. Arpaio turn over his files and all relevant documents. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs on the grounds of race, color or national origin.) Since then, an agreement has been reached between the Justice Department and local authorities for the free and rapid flow of information to the Justice Department. The question is what was the Justice Department looking for?
Or was this an attempt to intimidate the Sheriff into accepting the Obama policy on Immigration?
Rep Joe Walsh of Illinois has prepared and circulated a letter for President Obama. In it he asks for Holders resignation or for the President to fire him. This is the letters final paragraph:
“In intentionally letting over 2,000 firearms ‘walk’ across the border into Mexico, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) — under the leadership of Attorney General Holder — carried out an operation that left a U.S. Border Patrol agent dead, broke federal law, and attempted to build a case for gun control. Operation Fast and Furious has proved to be one of the most serious errors in judgment carried out in recent history by a federal agency.”---Rep Joe Walsh
At long last, we may be close to the end of Eric Holders reign.
