Comments (52)

parrot wrote on December 11, 2007 1:59 PM:

Perhaps the Congress can look into why the VRD is filing a brief in this case?

Injusticeforall wrote on December 11, 2007 1:59 PM:

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

moondancer wrote on December 11, 2007 2:01 PM:

Just because Mukasey is not a fake Regent University lawyer, doesn't mean he won't carry water for the GOP vote thieves. They know the tide has left them on the beach, so stealing elections is the order of the day.

Oh well wrote on December 11, 2007 2:08 PM:

December 10, 2007
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Attorney General Mukasey:

We write on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee to request important information about the reported plans to cancel the upcoming 2008 presidential elections.
We also have some disturbing news of the "disappearance" of certain Democratic
candidates running for U.S senate in 2008.
Could you please get back to us at your convenience.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

ARLEN SPECTER
Ranking Member

Thank you for your (hoped for) prompt attention to this matter.

po wrote on December 11, 2007 2:19 PM:

To all of those Senators who thought things would be different . . . told you so. You want to stop voter fraud, do away with mail in ballots and prohibit the SoS of any state from also being his / her party's candidate's state campaign chair. simple enough, but instead we'll make it more difficult to actually vote.

Brian wrote on December 11, 2007 2:26 PM:

Add room for one more fascist a**hole in that executive suite in hell being set up for Chimp/Cheney and all their cronies.

No air-conditioning or water, and all the pretzels you can eat!!...

IceJustIce wrote on December 11, 2007 2:29 PM:

Parrott --

There's enough to crucify the Voting Section (which I assume you're referring to by talking about the "VRD") on without this one.

DOJ trial lawyers, unlike most in private practice, don't get to file appellate briefs.

Mind you, this still lies at Mukasey's feet and at Grace Chung Becker's, but the brief was filed by the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division, not the Voting Section.

I haven't read the brief, but I assume that it makes the point that ID laws don't discriminate against minorities because all the minority voters are dead?

John wrote on December 11, 2007 2:35 PM:

Seriously, when will the Democratic Party representatives learn. So predictable. After years of political manipulation in the DOJ and even a new USAG the DOJ is still operating as a branch of the Republican Party. The only way to end this is to remove this Administration. Isn't that obvious yet?

Ad Absurdum wrote on December 11, 2007 2:36 PM:

Once again, I extend my most heartfelt gratefulness for your role as an enabler, Senator Feinstein.

JohnW1141 wrote on December 11, 2007 2:43 PM:

Mukasey was vetted and appointed by Bush, what did you expect?

Slim wrote on December 11, 2007 2:49 PM:

This is why I want to throw up when I hear Dems say they want to meet in the middle or put republicans in the cabinet... these guys are f**king crooks, period. Their power in government needs to be ground into a fine dust.

It is the only way to save this country.

greg wrote on December 11, 2007 4:12 PM:

Well, he was the best we could hope for. We wouldn't want DOJ to be leaderless, would we?

sy wrote on December 11, 2007 4:32 PM:

Chuck Schumer vouched for Mukasey and it takes, what, less than 3 months to get embarassed. Feinstein is too medicated to see 5 feet in front of her face, but not arrogant ass, all seeing Chuck. Tsk-tsk.

DA wrote on December 11, 2007 4:35 PM:

Slim- man you need to lay off the caffiene, you come across across like a freakin nut job. You make Abbie Hoffman look like a member of the Boy Scouts.
I guess you feel that us Dem's are too pure to ever bend the rules? Let's be realistic.

anon wrote on December 11, 2007 4:40 PM:

...Once again, I extend my most heartfelt gratefulness for your role as an enabler, Senator Feinstein...

Hey, don't forget to thank Senator Schumer.

Ya know, Mukasey did the "legal" legwork for the first round of illegal detentions in NY/NJ just after 9/11. There were numerous highly credible accounts that many of the detainees were beaten/abused (oh, hell, tortured) but when push came to shove in that investigation, viola!, the video tapes made in the detention centers had disappeared. No tapes, no case. Much of the detention/abuse/investigation happened on Mukasey's watch.

So, how do you think he's gong to come down on waterboarding and missing tapes and torture investigations?

And here's the thing, even though the NY/NJ detentions/beatings/missing tapes barely made into his confirmation hearing, Schumer, of all people would have known all the details of the detentions since he made noises about making it right early on and his office was involved in various bits of the investigation, etc. Seems to me Schumer knew who Mukasey was and wanted him at the DoJ.

nofltwlt wrote on December 11, 2007 4:51 PM:

The GOP conducted massive voter fraud in 2000 and 2004 and now it wants to do it again.

Bush, the GOP, the neocons and any supporters of these nefarious, anti-american fringe groups (that's what they are) should be ashamed.

DallasNE wrote on December 11, 2007 5:17 PM:

In Bush v. Gore the Court ruled that to accept votes that cannot be read by a computer would dilute the value of those that could be read by the computer so on the basis of the 14th Amendment (equal protection) those ballots cannot be counted.

To vote in favor of the Indiana law would require that the Court do a 180 degree turnabout and taka away equal protection for people without a photo ID (drivers license). With this Court, look for them to do the 180 degree turnaround.

Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 5:33 PM:

Based on the current wacked-out make-up of the court, the dems better hope to get a fillabuster proof majority in the senate and then stack the court. Otherwise, we will be stuck with these right-wing lunatics having a ton of sway on the court for a generation. Id's to prevent non-existent voter fraud?????? WTF. The constitution says nothing about either an id or trying to prevent alleged voter fraud. I am sick of the disenfranchisement. You should be able to vote on the internet for pete's sake. You can use credit cards and make purchases on the net, why not be able to vote? Oh, that's right we don't want people to vote or republicans might not have any power.

I can see an argument against the id bs dovetailing with the argument that the loons make that want machine guns for everyone. Enforce the laws against voter fraud, don't change the requirements for voting, just enforce existent laws. Same argument that gun rights advocates make.

The Real Housewives of the DOJ wrote on December 11, 2007 6:08 PM:

Last I checked CHRISTY A. MCCORMICK worked in the Voting Section. Is she now in Appellate?

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 6:28 PM:

anon--

You don't make a permanent majority in a democracy without controlling some of the other parties' people. Schumer is comprimised, as is Feinstein, as is Leahy and apparently now Feingold. None of these guys are acting like they did 4-5 years ago. Something is going on beyond what we see on the surface. My money is on that illegal surveillance program.... who knows what they have on some of the dem leaders. Blackmail is a powerful tool.

Bobby Seals wrote on December 11, 2007 7:57 PM:

This is most disturbing.....

Insane pres. wrote on December 11, 2007 7:57 PM:

About Mukasey's...

Senator Leahy: "I like him."

The Ghosts of Lawyers Past wrote on December 11, 2007 7:58 PM:

The real question is why is a scum bag like John Tanner still getting a paycheck and his criminal accomplice Susana Lorenzo Giguere not behind bars????

Someone needs to make a criminal referral to the US Attorney for DC. Ooooops. So much for that idea.

DOJ Vet wrote on December 11, 2007 8:23 PM:

The Solicitor General, Paul Clement, files briefs in the Supreme Court. The position the United States takes in such cases also is his decision. In a high profile case like this, his decisions will have been advised by consultations with the Attorney General and the White House.

The decision to file a brief in this case, and the position taken, are necessarily the product of those offices and of neither the CRD Voting or Appellate Section, nor even of the Civil Rights Division's AAG.

DOJ Vet II wrote on December 11, 2007 8:30 PM:

DOJ Vet II - you're wrong. Tanner approved this brief. So did the Civil Rights Division. There was no way it would have been filed without input from them.

JDub wrote on December 11, 2007 8:34 PM:

Thanks a lot Schumer, you POS.

Fred Hampton wrote on December 11, 2007 8:34 PM:

PROTEST RACIST VOTING SECTION LEADER!!!
December 19, 2007
5:30 p.m.
Corner of Penn. Ave and 9th Street NW
In Mega-phone range of DOJ Headquarters
Bring Signs. Bring Bullhorns.
TIME TO END THE RACISM !!!
TIME TO END THE HIJACK!!!

IceJustIce wrote on December 11, 2007 9:29 PM:

Real Housewives --

Sad to say, you're right. As noted above, I have not read the brief and just now took a peek at the cover page. Christy is indeed one of our own.

Flynn is appellate.

DOJ Vets I and II -- if Christy McCormick's name is on the brief, Tanner may have had a hand in it, since he's her second-level boss (Lorenzo-Giguere is her first-level boss.

However, I wouldn't blame McCormick. Trial attorneys represent their clients as they're told to and sometimes write stuff they don't personally agree with because it's their job to do so (I don't know how she feels about voter ID -- she is actually that seeming oxymoron, a good, ethical Republican).

The decision to file the brief was obviously made in the upper echelons; I'm not even sure what hand Tanner had in the decision to actually file it. It's reported that his stock has plunged to new lows on the front office market in recent weeks.

Of course, he supports voter ID, and he thinks all the elderly minority voters it might harm are dead in any case. Tanner's guilt isn't increased by the decision to file this brief. He's guilty enough as is.

Fred H:

If you're serious, you'll probably get good turnout from the Voting Section itself.

DOJ Vet II wrote on December 11, 2007 9:39 PM:

If the woman is a trial attorney in Voting, she was no doubt taking orders from the Voting Section Chief - who obviously had to have had a significant role in the decision to file this brief and what it said. There is simply no way a brief like this gets filed without the approval of the Civil Rights Division and the Voting Section Chief. Hasn't this guy been all over the news for the last few months????

Savage Holiday wrote on December 11, 2007 9:43 PM:

I heard that the section chief was recently persona non grata at a ceremony giving out awards for 25 years of service. Seems his name was listed in the program, but he never took the stage for his award. What was that all about????

Tyrone Biggums wrote on December 11, 2007 10:10 PM:

^^Maybe he was afraid of getting booed worse than Isiah Thomas at a NY Knicks game......

DOJ Newbie wrote on December 11, 2007 10:15 PM:

You presume that the Voting Section has any power. The powers that be do not need to consult the Voting Section on Voter ID laws: they do what they want (much like a certain Acting Deputy)

nrglaw wrote on December 11, 2007 10:25 PM:

Just a footnote on votes by Schumer and Feinstein on Mukasey. Feinstein is also a member of the Intelligence Committee and voted yes on Michael Hayden at CIA.

Schumer voted aye on the Hayden nomination on the Senate floor.

Schumer was for several terms the congressman from my parents' district in Queens, New York. He was well thought of. Its a disappointment to see him get so skilled at talking himself into some terrible votes.

IceJustIce wrote on December 11, 2007 10:36 PM:

Vet II:

He's in enough trouble right now that his word doesn't carry much weight.

But amicus briefs take awhile to put together. Don't think that was actually the case when this thing was conceived of.

And as a DOJ vet, you'll know that once things are put in motion in our dear bureaucracy, it's well nigh impossible to stop them from continuing to roll.

Fred Sanford (Potential Elderly Minority Voter) wrote on December 11, 2007 11:25 PM:

"I never voted before in my life but I really wanna vote next year. This War in Iraq is goin' nowhere. Too many young lives have been either lost or permanently ruined over the whims of Bush and Dick Cheney. The economy is crumblin' and showin' signs of a recession now. They 'bout to foreclose on my home as I'm typin' this! I want things to go back to the good ol' days when a Clinton was in the White House! There was a chicken in every pot, back then!"

"And now, I come on this website and read that I gotta have my driver's license with me or they won't let me vote! Cataracts made my eyes go bad, a couple years ago. I can't drive anymore. My memory's so bad, I always forget my ID whenever I leave the house. What am I supposed to do if I show up to the polling place with no ID on me?? Ugh....."

*CHOKE* *COUGH* *WEEZ* *Clutches Chest*

"Elizabeth, I'm comin' to join you!!"

*Dies*

This public service announcement was brought to you by The Institute For Making Sure There Is No Level Playing Field. Dedicated to making sure minorities die first, so they can't vote in 2008.

dircha wrote on December 12, 2007 12:50 AM:

And don't ever forget the spineless traitors we have to thank for our new AG. Why is it again that we still have a Congress? Do we?

Anonymous2 wrote on December 12, 2007 12:01 PM:

Ok I read it and had 3 main thoughts.

First, I don't agree with Dave Becker that its unusual or controversial for the Department to take a position on something like this. Obviously anyone can look this up but my general sense is that the Department usually participates in cases involving constitutional issues. Also there does appear to be a lurking issue about what signifigance to give to the fact that the State has exceeded HAVA restrictions, so that's a question involving a federal statute that DOJ enforces. And finally the question of what standard should apply to a facial equal protection challenge to a statute is something that the federal government would have an interest in, as federal statutes are frequently challenged facially.

Second, the core legal argument seems to be that a facial challenge should fail where the statistics do not compare apples to apples (and it sounds to me from the brief like the answer is that the stats to do that are just not available) and where the plaintiff cannot identify a person who at least alleges that they want to vote and don't have the needed id. Perhaps the record is not represented correctly but that's how I read the brief. This sounds like a debatable proposition but not necessarily a crazy or awful one.

Third the thing that most surprised me was the tone. SG briefs are typically devoid of adverbs and hyperbole. This one seemed to have a fair amount overstatement and needless emphasis, at least for a SG brief.

pakaal wrote on December 12, 2007 1:44 PM:

If Indiana wants a state voter ID system, why don't they just front the money to pay for it, and make sure all residents get one? That eliminates one key grievance; the undue burden that would be placed on folks who can't afford it.

How much you want to bet, though, that once it became clear Indiana would have to prove they'd delivered voter IDs to every state resident, and that they'd have to foot the bill for all this, they'd drop this effort pretty quickly.

RealJustice wrote on December 12, 2007 2:30 PM:

Actually pakaal my understanding is that the id can be obtained free of charge. The georgia id initially was going to have a surcharge but they eliminated that requirement after the court enjoined the proposal and compared it to a poll tax.

The main concern I would have about an ID requirement is the potential for abuse and selective enforcement. It is not uncommon for persons to have driver's licenses where the name or address may be different from the name shown on the voter registration list. The middle initial may be missing, there may be a name change because of marriage, they may have moved recently etc. Even a hairstyle change or growing a beard may make a picture look wrong. In the absence of clear standards as to how pollworkers are to exercise their discretion I would worry that there is too much risk that the standards for being able to vote will vary based on the proclivities and informal practices of individual precints as well as that even unconsciously poll workers will give the benefit of a doubt to whites more than blacks and other minorities. But I don't know whether there is enough of a record yet to argue that the State has failed to provide enough standards or guidelines.

litigatormom wrote on December 12, 2007 2:38 PM:

Meet the new boss, bom bom,
Same as the old boss, bom bom,
Bom. Bom. BOOOOOOMMMMMM....

nrglaw wrote on December 12, 2007 4:13 PM:

Litagotormom- nothing new here. But one time that the new boss was much different than the old boss was when Yvette Rivera replaced Bob Berman. Its common knowledge that this is a lawyer who has the intellectual gravitas of a goldfinch. She failed the bar and languished in the bureaucracy. But Section Chief John Tanner – who just loves the ladies that say “yes” without flinching – brought her on to manage the Section 5 unit. She got an award for an electronic filing system that is marginally functional and should be shut down for retooling – though the Section Chief never quite gives that truthful account to his superiors. But best of all, her lack of legal ability is so astonishing it is apparent even to her friends. She doesn’t know how to use the computer filing system or to calculate percentages (true story). Yet when information like this is revealed to the public, some still think it those wrascally wrabbits acting up again in Section 5. Thankfully, nearly everyone else knows otherwise, up and down the chain of command. She doesn’t understand basic legal concepts about the laws she administers and regularly gives attorneys direction in conflict with these laws, which she apparently doesn’t understand. Tanner and his one or two cronies, however, are ill suited to correct the deficiency as they are too busy beating back the Section 5 mutiny back from the quarterdeck. If any of you thought that the Justice Department Section 5 unit was run by a thoughtful competent lawyer – boy you guessed wrong. It would be an improvement to bring in a Magic 8 Ball to render legal advice on Section 5. At least some laws would govern the process, albeit the laws of gravity and buoyancy.

section 5er wrote on December 12, 2007 6:17 PM:

good lord, nrglaw, are you a fly on the walls of section 5? you are so on point! the incompetence and inability to grasp basic section 5 law is astonishing. she actually emailed staff at one point asking who was working on texas submissions with jurisdictions covered for spanish language procedures...may seem reasonable to an outsider. however, anyone with an ounce of section 5 knowledge knows the question is inane since the WHOLE STATE is covered for language provisions...a simple peek at the back of our regs/guidelines shows that...

is he for real? wrote on December 12, 2007 6:20 PM:

Okay, Voting Section readers, please tell me if a rumor I heard is correct. While speaking with attorneys on a PA case, did John Tanner instruct the attorneys to go "go out and find some black voters who can't read, it shouldn't be too hard"? If so, can someone direct Reps. Ellis and Davis to the Section so that they can READ him his rights and haul his ignorant ass to jail? Being that dumb/racist should be illegal. Say it ain't so...

I Robot wrote on December 12, 2007 6:24 PM:

Section 5er - there are so many examples. So many stupid comments. If the current front office knew the full extent of what she says and does, she'd be fired in a day. But too many filters. Too many factual diversions are used. Too many stories of an unruly bunch of disgruntled staffers.

The more you harp about disgruntled staff, the less they want to hear about incompetence and lawlessness.

The good news is there are plenty of people who know. Talk to anyone who was at MALDEF’s ribbon cutting this week what a joke Tanner made of himself trying desperately to be his ever-flip happy self. Tanner and his lady show up and find no friends. Thank goodness he doesn’t have good hearing. Else he’d have heard what they REALLY thought of Tanner and his lady.

I Robot wrote on December 12, 2007 6:27 PM:

Yes - he is for real. But don't worry Is He For Real. The story is not only true, but well known and well reported to People Who Care.

Section 5er wrote on December 12, 2007 6:33 PM:

Is the Front Office really that dense to think we are all a bunch of disgruntled workers? If so, they should ask themselves, why weren't we disgruntled under Joe Rich and Bob Berman? During that period, we had Hans and Brad, the worst of the Bush 2 Civil Rights Division. Those guys were horrible to staff, ruined evaluations, personally went after folks. This Front Office does not seem to do that. So why now are we so disgruntled? Hmmm, could it be because Tanner and Rivera are horrible managers who are, sad to say, not that intelligent? Could it be that both have shown signs of racism, in an office meant to ensure equality? Think, Front Office, are we ALL that disgruntled?

is he for real? wrote on December 12, 2007 6:35 PM:

Oh my God. My jaw dropped, literally, though I guess I should know better than to be shocked at this crap now. I'm glad its been well reported. Someone needs to put this Tanner out of his misery.

Things that make you go Hmmmm wrote on December 12, 2007 7:26 PM:

I Robot- I wonder why Rivera would award all analysts, except two, if they are so unruly and disgruntled. Another instance of the Front Office needing to wake up..

Too much wrote on December 12, 2007 7:28 PM:

As I see it, yes
Ask again later
Better not tell you now
Cannot predict now
Concentrate and ask again
Don't count on it
It is certain
It is decidedly so
Most likely
My reply is no
My sources say no
Outlook good
Outlook not so good
Reply hazy, try again
Signs point to yes
Very doubtful
Without a doubt
Yes
Yes - definitely
You may rely on it

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 7:29 PM:

I "Robot"? Is that you Bobby?

Novo wrote on December 12, 2007 10:53 PM:

I follow the Moskva
Down to Gorky Park
Listening to the wind of change
An August summer night
Soldiers passing by
Listening to the wind of change

greg wrote on December 12, 2007 11:15 PM:

To DallasNE --

If you'll remember, the (anonymously written) Bush v. Gore decision explicitly stated that its reasoning should never be applied to any other case.