Attorney General Eric Holder has been criticized repeatedly for actions viewed as political (or his abandoning independent role) during the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration. Few, however, seem quite as raw as his participation in an upcoming event to advise black ministers on how far they can go in campaigning in this presidential election, presumably for President Obama who is expected to secure the overwhelming percentage of African American votes. The event is being hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus and will include appearances by other government officials like IRS officials. While the CBC is bipartisan, there remain questions about the propriety of the appearance.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. is quoted as noting that the ministers represent roughly 10 million voters and will be key in the upcoming election. He adds “President Obama is going to get 95 percent of the [African American] vote.”
The direct participation of Holder in such an event is problematic in my view and shows (again) a complete lack of judgment.
Holder leaves the impression of actively using his office to advance the political agenda of the White House. Admittedly, I have been a critic of Holder as I was a critic of his predecessors in the Bush Administration. I have no problem with the CBC holding this event. There are legitimate concerns over suppression of voting through various state laws and training is a useful response. However, Holder should have shown a modicum of judgment in declining to participate in an event viewed as a training session for Obama supporters in the clergy. Just as liberals denounced the participation of Associate Justice Scalia in a congressional event for the Tea Party, this decision should also be condemned as undermining the integrity of the Justice Department.
Notably, it is the Justice Department and IRS which will be on the forefront of dealing with alleged violations of neutrality among religious organizations with tax-free status. Many such charges have always emerged this year on both sides of the campaign. In Washington, there is an army of private counsel that is readily available to explain the rules. The Justice Department also releases information on these rules.
Even if the DOJ wanted to send someone to the event, the question remains why the Attorney General should be that person when he will be the ultimate decision-maker in future cases involving violations. At a time of growing unease over the entanglement of church and state (as well as faith-based politics generally) the participation of the Attorney General is not a welcomed sight for many who are uncomfortable with the increasing role of religious leaders in our political process. If Alberto Gonzales went to Congress to brief evangelical religious leaders on campaigning in the presidential election, the hue and cry would be deafening. Yet, again, there appears to be little criticism of this appearance by Holder.
What do you think?
Source: MSNBC
BarkinDog,
It’s called separation of church and state.
Public officials have a perfect right and obligation to speak to community or national groups that have specific interests in mind. Had Holder spoken to the American Bar Association we would not have heard a peep out of Turley. Or if Holder went to speak to law students at Turley’s school about upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, would we get a partisan peep out of Turley. The Turley blog and some of you would bitch if Holder went to a Klan meeting and told them to stop lynching people.
The Hatch Act should apply to religious organizations if they want to maintain their tax exempt status.
http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm
http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/05/us_attorney_general_eric_holde.html I guess I am missing the connection between a talk about challenges to the the Voting Rights Act and Holder’s position on the Patriot Act. Do I agree with everything Holder does? No. Do I prefer John Ashcroft? No
…and then there’s the covert, domestic program that is ongoing. There isn’t much about it that seems “lawful”, given my view.
Public Said to Be Misled on Use of the Patriot Act
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: September 21, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/us/politics/justice-dept-is-accused-of-misleading-public-on-patriot-act.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — Two United States senators on Wednesday accused the Justice Department of making misleading statements about the legal justification of secret domestic surveillance activities that the government is apparently carrying out under the Patriot Act.
Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, above, and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon asked the attorney general to “correct the public record.”
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, above, and Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, have questioned the Justice Department about surveillance activities.
The lawmakers — Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, both of whom are Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. calling for him to “correct the public record” and to ensure that future department statements about the authority the government believes is conveyed by the surveillance law would not be misleading.
“We believe that the best way to avoid a negative public reaction and an erosion of confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies is to initiate an informed public debate about these authorities today,” the two wrote. “However, if the executive branch is unwilling to do that, then it is particularly important for government officials to avoid compounding that problem by making misleading statements.”
The Justice Department denied being misleading about the Patriot Act, saying it has acknowledged that a secret, sensitive intelligence program is based on the law and that its statements about the matter have been accurate. (end of excerpt)
“The direct participation of Holder in such an event is problematic in my view and shows (again) a complete lack of judgment.”
Yep. Then again, Holder has a record of nothing but a complete lack of judgment starting with his decision (as aided by the President) to not prosecute the war criminals and traitors from the previous administration. That he doesn’t understand the 1st Amendment either is hardly shocking given the general lack of understanding of the rest of the Constitution he has displayed up to this point. Or perhaps “understanding” isn’t the right word. Maybe “indifference” or “willingness to sacrifice for political consideration” might be better word choices.
In case you haven’t noticed, Holder is willing to do pretty much anything in order to make political gains. From brainwashing people against guns, to fast and furious, to his “constitution doesn’t guarantee judicial process” speech, to instructing 501(c)3 organizations how to get away with campaigning for the President, he is shameless in his tactic. Don’t be surprised if we see selective enforcement of tax law against churches along ideological lines this political season.
And why shouldn’t he? Because he might be seen as unethical in the eyes of a few law professors? Please, don’t make me laugh. He knows he is, for all practical purposes, above the law with regard to the way he conducts himself in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States.
Holder to black leaders: ‘Sacred’ right to vote under attack
By JOSEPH WILLIAMS |
5/30/12 11:28 AM EDT
Attorney General Eric Holder told a council of African American church leaders Wednesday that the “sacred” right to vote is under assault nationwide, with federal lawsuits and at least a dozen state laws that could weaken — or block — minority access to the ballot box this fall.
Forty-seven years after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, “overt and subtle forms of discrimination still exists,” Holder said in a speech before the Council of Black Churches. The twin factors of lingering bias and systematic assaults from the right, he said, means that “for the first time in our [lifetimes], we are failing to live up to one of our most noble ideals” – the right to equal access to the vote.
The brief speech was a call to arms for the black church, which since the days of the civil rights movement has been active in fighting for equal voting right for minorities. Holder, who was warmly received by the audience, told them his office is “aggressively” taking on the task of protecting that right, including challenging several state lawsuits that would overturn key provisions of the Voting Rights Act involving redistricting in Southern states and strict new voter I’d laws that could keep minorities, the elderly and young people of all races from casting ballots in the 2012 election – which analysts expect will be decided by a narrow margin.
Ensuring that everyone who is qualified can vote “is one of our highest priorities,” Holder told the council, adding that during his watch the Justice Department has taken on more than 100 cases involving voting within the past year, “a record number.” Since President Bush re-authorized the Section 5 provision of the Voting Rights Act, which requires some Southern states to get federal approval before making broad changes to laws involving voting, “it has consistently come under attack by those who say it is no longer needed.”
Holder also rejected conservatives’ contention that making it easier to vote invites fraud, a key argument in calling for tougher voter I’d laws. Recalling that protesters and faith leaders faced violence and death to gain that right during the 1960s civil rights movement, Holder called on black churches to mobilize as an ally of the Justice Department, informing the larger community and pushing back against restrictive proposals.
“We have to honor the generations that took extraordinary risks” to guarantee equal access to the polls, Holder said. The nation has made tremendous progress, he added, but “this fight must go on.” Politico
Eisenhower’s Attorney General: Herbert Brownell:
“Besides his law practice, Brownell had a long and active political career as a Republican. He was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1932, and served there from 1933 to 1937. In 1942, he was the campaign manager for Thomas E. Dewey’s election as governor of New York. He also managed Dewey’s 1944 and 1948 campaigns for president. From 1944 to 1946 he was chairman of the Republican National Committee, where he focused on modernizing the RNC with advanced polling methods and fundraising techniques. He was credited by many as being instrumental in helping the Republicans to gain control of the United States Congress in the 1946 off-year elections”
Eisenhower’s Attorney General: William P. Rogers. Though a lifelong Republican and Nixon insider, his career was generally a distinguished one.
JFK’s Attorney General: RFK, his former campaign manager and brother.
LBJ’s Attorney General: Ramsey Clark. A generally principled man and an
attorney general to be proud of given the arc of his life.
Nixon’s Attorney General: John Mitchell served 19 months in Jail due to
Watergate.
Nixon’s Attorney General: Richard Kleindienst. “Kleindienst resigned on April 30, 1973 in the midst of the Watergate scandal, and returned to private practice. Kleindienst resigned the same day John Dean was fired and H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman quit. He was convicted of a misdemeanor for perjury during his testimony in the Senate during his confirmation hearings”.
Nixon’s Attorney General: Elliot Richardson: “As U.S. Attorney General, he was a prominent figure in the Watergate Scandal, and resigned rather than
refuse President Nixon’s order to fire special prosecutor”.
Nixon’s Attorney General: William Saxbe.” Saxbe was the permanent replacement for Elliot Richardson, who had been fired by Nixon during the “Saturday Night Massacre” at the height of the Watergate scandal. Saxbe took over for Robert Bork, who had served as interim Attorney General during the two months following the “Massacre””. A mediocre man, with a mediocre political career.
Ford’s Attorney General: “Edward Hirsch Levi (June 26, 1911 – March 7, 2000) was an American academic leader, scholar, and statesman who served as United States Attorney General. He is regularly cited as the “model of a modern attorney general,” yet AG Levi had an interesting set of assistants and disciples: “Serving under him, in various high staff positions, were such people as Rudolph Giuliani, Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia”.
The above were just a brief look at the position of Attorney General in relation to the President. In general we expect the position to be one above political reproach, to be one of service as the chief legal arm of the government, an honest upholder of the Constitution and our Legal System.
In reality, due to the fact that this is a Presidentially appointed position the
Attorney General is beholden to and part of the Administration in power. This has plagued our country throughout its history and I’m sure many other readers, given the legal expertise assembled as commenters here, have more in depth analysis of past history. Holder in my opinion has been awful in supporting the Constitution and in the independence of his office.
However, the sad fact is that most Attorney Generals in our country’s history have fallen far below the standard we should expect of them. In a time when Supreme Court Justices are actively political, what can we expect? Our legal system has been broken since the country’s inception and the fact that it is probably better than the legal system’s in most country’s is scant succor to those who believe in the rule of law.
Yep, here’s a guy who really cares about applying the law. I’d say he was almost a saint. I’m certain a man who would do the following has absolutely no ulterior motives in going before black ministers to flog the reelection of his boss! “The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage had previously reported that Obama OLC lawyers David Barron and Marty Lederman had authored
a “secret document” that ”provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war” (“The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal”). Attorney General Eric Holder then publicly claimed: “‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.” Both of those episodes sparked controversy, because of how radical of a claim it is (Stephen Colbert brutally mocked Holder’s speech: “Due Process just means: there’s a process that you do”).” from G. Greenwald’s column today. Yes, Eric Holder is a real prince of equal justice for all!!!
Notwithstanding these “race to the bottom” arguments, Prof. Turley is, of course, correct.
I think that this should be applauded since he is explaining HOW to FOLLOW the law! If he were trying to tell them how to avoid complying with the law, THEN I would have a problem. Here in Texas, the whte evangelical churches have NO problem violating the laws on a massive scale. They do this openly and have NO desire to even try and follow the rules.
One of our candidates for judge went to such a church on Sunday to meet the folks, and got to hear how since she was a Democrat that she was NOT a Christian, but an atheist, and a pervert, this from the preacher in his sermon. They have no compunction about running campaigns from the church using their resources for the Republican party.
Considering that a few preachers have already used the pulpit to endorse mittens i think this is a practical reminder.
Will Justice Thomas be there too?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66343.html Black precincts are getting hit really hard by the new voter id laws.
There is no movement a foot to deny members of other churches the vote that I know of except mexican catholics. I don’t think the bishops want Holder to attend the catholic conferences lol. and neither do the mormons.
I have no problem with it. One of the topics of the conference is the Voting Rights Act and how to deal with the disenfranchisement of black voters due to the newly passed voter id laws. Gov. Rick Scott in Florida is currently purging hundreds of thousands of black voters from the rolls.
The AG should give out this information freely to all religious organizations. After all, they all need to know it. The AG should give out information on voter suppression and how to combat it to everyone. We all need to stop that
If he were presenting the law to all religious organizations and any other interested citizen via a well-organized webinar, one with plenty of advertising, one that was free and open to all, I would say that would be an admirable thing to do.
Here is is obviously campaigning for his boss, an action which is neither admirable or appropriate. In the scheme of things I rank this as typical for a man who simply refuses, at every turn, to enforce the law unless he thinks it will benefit the powerful people he works for. This is a man who refuses to prosecute war criminals. He really shouldn’t be giving any lectures on the law. He should resign.
.
Are we planning to eliminate the “no politics” part of the charity tax exemption anytime soon?
“What do you think?”
It is the appearance of impropriety that is paramount in this scenario.
It doesn’t look good.