Attorney General Eric Holder may be the face of the Justice Department, but behind the scenes, a little-known assistant attorney general named Loretta King (no relation to Martin Luther King, Jr.) has been the driving force behind the DOJ’s recent, most questionable racially motivated decisions.
Neck-deep in the more divisive civil rights cases of the past several years — most notably the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and the recent Dayton, Ohio police department’s testing standards issue — the Obama-appointed assistant attorney general has many wondering whether her guide is the law or racial politics.
“Some of the most outlandish policies of the Holder Justice Department over the last two years flow directly from Loretta King’s worldview,” J. Christian Adams, who worked with King while serving as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department, told The Daily Caller.
According to Adams, race-based decision making has been a consistent staple of King’s actions and resume.
In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the New Black Panther case, former DOJ Voting Rights Section chief Christopher Coates explained that King ordered him to stop asking trial attorney applicants whether they would have a problem dealing with cases involving white victims.
“In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG [assistant attorney general] for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA [Voting Rights Act],” he testified. “Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA.”
Coates’ question was the centerpiece of the much publicized New Black Panther voter intimidation case, which centered around an incident in which members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a Philadelphia voting precinct dressed in militia style garb, one wielding a nightstick, and shouting racial epithets at the potential white voters during the 2008 presidential election.
According to testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, King, in consultation with Steve Rosenbaum, chief of DOJ’s Housing and Civil Enforcement section, was the attorney who ordered the dismissal of the case.
Neck-deep in the more divisive civil rights cases of the past several years — most notably the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and the recent Dayton, Ohio police department’s testing standards issue — the Obama-appointed assistant attorney general has many wondering whether her guide is the law or racial politics.
“Some of the most outlandish policies of the Holder Justice Department over the last two years flow directly from Loretta King’s worldview,” J. Christian Adams, who worked with King while serving as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department, told The Daily Caller.
According to Adams, race-based decision making has been a consistent staple of King’s actions and resume.
In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the New Black Panther case, former DOJ Voting Rights Section chief Christopher Coates explained that King ordered him to stop asking trial attorney applicants whether they would have a problem dealing with cases involving white victims.
“In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG [assistant attorney general] for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA [Voting Rights Act],” he testified. “Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA.”
Coates’ question was the centerpiece of the much publicized New Black Panther voter intimidation case, which centered around an incident in which members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a Philadelphia voting precinct dressed in militia style garb, one wielding a nightstick, and shouting racial epithets at the potential white voters during the 2008 presidential election.
According to testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, King, in consultation with Steve Rosenbaum, chief of DOJ’s Housing and Civil Enforcement section, was the attorney who ordered the dismissal of the case.
2 comments:
Don't enforce the law because you don't "support" it??? WHAT???! At the highest levels of the Justice Department (the JUSTICE (!!) department, we have officials saying they will NOT enforce laws they don't "support"?? Her chance to "support" or not "support" these laws ended long ago. And the track record of this department is clearly and without question racist and slanted AGAINST white people, which, at last count, were STILL the majority. So it follows that the people who lead the Justice department have now absolved themselves, by fiat, of not only upholding the law, but of even representing the application of those laws to the majority of the people? Sounds like they believe they are kings and queens, not public officials, SWORN to uphold ALL the laws, not just the ones they like.
That's like the Wicomico Board of Ed. It's OK to spend millions on programs for minorities but any program that has more whites than blacks, even if it costs almost nothing, is attacked for not being diverse enough. Just like the Dayton police force, if blacks can't qualify for the program, lower the standards.
Post a Comment