In the convoluted world of the Voting Rights Act, about which Chief Justice Roberts famously said, “It is a sordid business, this divvying up by race…” (see LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)), it is never surprising when high-minded liberals use racism to combat supposed racism. Rare, however, is it that the Department of Justice or a Court is so blatant about it.

Welcome to Kinston, N.C. The city overwhelmingly voted to eliminate party affiliations for candidates in local elections. Given the state of each of the political parties these days, one might give the city the benefit of the doubt that this decision is a good, healthy thing.

But, Kinston must pre-clear any actions it takes regarding voting and elections with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. And the Department said, “no.” That, in and of itself, is not all that surprising (troubling, but not surprising). What is quite startling is the language the Department uses. According to the Washington Times:

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

That’s right… “white voters… will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats.” Well, this is fairly common theory among abusers of the Voting Rights to political ends, but it usually isn’t said in such clear language.

Read More →

From the diaries by Erick

Rush dares to judge all by the content of their character and that threatens the race industry

Raised by parents that were instrumental in integrating the races in my South Carolina hometown in the 60s and 70s, I was receptive in my youth to the Democratic Party’s rhetoric of racial inclusion. I practiced affirmative action in my law firm in the 80s and became a party official; but almost from the beginning of my political activism there was some unease with my liberal associations.

Fellow democrats giggled about an empire Reagan correctly denounced as evil; ignored the success of tax cuts; and hired mostly white paralegals. As a very young county party chairman I was appalled at hostility to people of faith by my party elders, as well as the unfair demonization of Republicans as racist and uncaring for the poor.

I admit at this time that I suffered from extreme, classic Democratic Party class envy and that later on, my reluctance to change parties while still in my hometown was due partly to this and cowardice, but I couldn’t deny that among the legal community and members of my church, it was invariably mostly the Republicans that actually hired blacks.

Read More →

If you want to figure out what a politician is up to, pay attention to what he accuses his opponents of doing.  Chances are, the accuser is probably doing it himself.

It is with that thought in mind that we take a look at President Barack Obama’s now infamous determination from afar that the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, “acted stupidly,” in arresting Harvard Professor, and Obama friend, Henry Louis Gates.  The president has since re-calibrated that remark, offering in his pre-eminent law enforcement opinion that Gates should not have been arrested for verbally assaulting Sgt. James Crowley and causing a public scene in front of his home in protest of the police coming to protect him and his property from potential vandals.

But the “acting stupidly” comment still hangs over the incident and over the White House like a dark cloud.  Obama put it there with his inability to restrain himself from commenting on the Gates affair at last week’s White House press conference.  And in so eagerly labeling the Cambridge Police, Obama has unwittingly provided the lens through which to view his first six months as president.  For the Obama Administration has been acting stupidly almost since the very first day of his presidency.

Read More →

Today, Senator Cornyn asks the question of Judge Sotomayor to which an increasing number of Americans seem to be interested in knowing the answer… what with her recent slap-down by the Supreme Court and her past comments on the issue of race.

What say you, Judge Sotomayor?

Sen. Cornyn’s Daily Question for Judge Sotomayor
Question 15: Thursday, July 2, 2009

Is the Constitution color-blind?

Read More →

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has come under fire for the following controversial comment that she made in prepared remarks at the University of California-Berkeley.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Both the Obama Administration and the nominee herself have said that the comments would have been better “restated.”  If by “restated” the Administration meant “repeated,” then the revelation that Sotomayor made nearly the exact same remark twice before and twice after the 2001 Berkeley speech would not be a surprise.  As it is, however, Sotomayor’s views on the role of gender and ethnicity in her judicial decision making process has never been in more doubt.

Read More →

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an advocate of allowing felons to vote. “Advocate” is a loaded word when referring to a judge, and with good reason. Judges are not supposed to allow their personal preferences influence their interpretation of the law and the facts at issue in a given case. But their really is no other way to describe Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, a case brought by inmates in New York State under the federal Voting Rights Act.

The inmates were suing the State of New York for the right to vote, alleging New York’s prohibition of felon voting was discriminatory based on race and ethnicity. Sotomayor sided with the inmates in a four-paragraph long opinion, holding that the Voting Rights Act prohibited states from disenfranchising felons because the majority are black, Hispanic, and other minorities.

Read More →