Holder, the lawless race-man

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the 15th Annual National Action Network Convention

He threatens illicit action to prevent Republican maneuvers to limit Democratic votes.

There is nothing he can do about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act if the Supremes strike it down.

But he here expressly promises to simply ignore an adverse outcome of judicial review.

As many of you know, the Supreme Court recently heard a case challenging the constitutionality of this vital measure.  

As we await the Court’s decision, I want to assure you that – no matter the outcome – the Department of Justice will remain committed to the aggressive and appropriate enforcement of all voting and civil rights protections, including every part of the Voting Rights Act.  

He could and should be impeached for doing that, if the time comes.

Judicial Review is a fraud but he is not here proposing to dispense with or reform it.

He is proposing to simply blow off the Supremes if they rule against his ‘druthers, though the established practice for over two hundred years has been to accept and comply with the authority of the Supremes to nullify state or federal actions in the name of the constitution, as they read it and without appeal.

And I cannot support that.

Whether or not we may agree the exigencies of war might bring up exceptional cases, executive compliance with the judgment of the Supremes apart from that must be faultless.

Though, of course, I can do nothing about this.

The following remarks are questionable, too, though not openly threatening lawlessness.

Recent proposed changes in how electoral votes are apportioned in specific states are blatantly partisan, unfair, divisive, and not worthy of our nation.  

That appears to be a reference to Republican efforts to alter the mode of appointment of presidential electors in states like Pennsylvania to resemble that of Maine and Nebraska.

Only two would be selected on a state-wide basis, the rest being chosen or awarded by congressional district.

Republicans propose this in states they control in which the change is anticipated to replace in future what would be a wholly blue set of electors with a mix of blue and red.

Such changes are entirely within the constitution and the state of Pennsylvania does not have to appoint its electors to match results of a presidential beauty contest, at all.

Let me be clear again: we will not sit by and allow the slow unraveling of an electoral system that so many sacrificed so much to construct.

Oh?

Nationalizing elections and placing them wholly under federal authority would be a good idea, but it has not been done.

Guaranteeing that presidents are chosen by a national popular vote would be a great idea, and that also has not been done.

And there is nothing in the constitution or the laws that requires the impact of black votes, in particular, be keep up to some morally or divinely or socially or politically required level, apt to be missed if these changes go through.

By the way, a federal ban on personal ownership of weapons that an individual can actually carry, even of just those designed clearly for military use, would be unconstitutional.

State bans would not be, the incorporation doctrine being false.

(Though they might be unconstitutional relative to the states' own constitutions.)

But neither point is now accepted by the courts and neither Holder nor anyone else in government has any business just blowing them off.

As things stand, even the conservatives on the court would insist on a federal and a state right to limit the types of weapons one may own or carry, refusing to accept a constitution allowing individual ownership of suitcase nukes, weaponized anthrax, and so on.

Eyes wide shut, thank God!