Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Civil Rights’ Category

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Justice Department Sues Sheriff Joe For Not Cooperating With Investigation

TPM Muckraker

Ryan J. Reilly | September 2, 2010, 12:33PM

The Justice Department on Thursday filed a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona for refusing to fully cooperate with the department’s investigation of alleged national origin discrimination in the course of immigration enforcement.

DOJ has been looking into whether Arpaio is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act since March 2009. The controversial Arpaio passed a deadline last month to provide DOJ with the documents they requested, and his lawyer met with DOJ last week.

The Justice Department said at the time it was “hopeful” that Arpaio would cooperate following the meeting, but in a statement said on Thursday that it had “[exhausted] all cooperative measures” to gain access to the requested documents and facilities.

DOJ is unaware of any other police department of sheriff’s office that has refused to cooperate with an investigation in the past 30 years, making Maricopa County “an extreme outlier,” said the department.

“The actions of the sheriff’s office are unprecedented. It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities,” Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.

Arpaio’s lawyer Robert Driscoll, when reached by TPM, said he was still reviewing the filing and had no comment.

DOJ’s lawsuit is embedded below.

DOJ Complaint Against Arpaio

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Crooks and Liars- By Nicole Belle Thursday May 20, 2010 6:00am

Normally, I’d cut this video down from its full 19 minutes, but truly, to appreciate the wonderfulness of Maddow’s approach and the sidestepping Rand Paul attempts to avoid the corner Maddow in which deftly places him, you really must watch the whole thing.

And boy, does Rand Paul squirm under the surgical questioning of Rachel Maddow. He never answers her questions, and how can he? His stance makes no sense. Taylor Marsh:

It’s the nakedness and naïveté of Mr. Paul’s views on civil rights laws, that legislation should not impact businesses, that is not only evidence that he’s unfit for Congress, but that he’s actually dangerous. To think that the United States would no longer require laws to protect minorities is just ignorant and lacking in experience in the real world.

As for his anti-women’s rights views, especially on individual freedoms, it’s absolutely discriminatory against women. It’s appalling in this day and age that a doctor would believe that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The editorial board found his views “repellent” and they are correct. To say that the unborn has “equal” rights to the woman is simply wrong.

I think Taylor hit it on the head: his naïveté is dangerous. Like many–if not most–“isms”, libertarianism may make sense on an academic level, but only when conceived in vacuum of intellectual exercises. In the gritty friction of the real world, the exercise falls apart. To say that only publicly owned entities should be legislated from discriminating ignores centuries of oppression and injustice. Glibly dismissing any real examples such as the Woolworth’s lunch counter by claiming his “abhorrence of racism” and saying that people would vote with their dollar to not patronize those business is laughably naive.

Obviously, the tea party adulation, in all its authoritarian and uncritical glory, did not prepare Rand Paul for prime time. He’s clearly uncomfortable with follow up questions and being confronted with his own stances. Even though he brought it on himself by telling the Louisville Courier-Journal and NPR that he thought the Civil Rights Act should be done away with, Paul whines about “red herrings” and that the act is forty years old, so why is anyone asking him about it? Joan Walsh:

You’ve got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he’s going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time – but he seemed to blame Maddow. “You bring up something that is really not an issue…a red herring, it’s a political ploy…and that’s the way it will be used,” he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses – “not really an issue,” says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.

Methinks Paul better get used to having to answer for his tacit endorsement of racism and oppression of minorities, especially if Tweety’s outrage is any indication of the larger media response. That may play well with the teabaggers, but they’re not going to win Paul the elections. If I was Jack Conway, I’d be smiling right now.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

##############################

Rand Paul On ‘Maddow’ Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO)

Huff Post- First Posted: 05-20-10 02:13 AM   |   Updated: 05-20-10 02:21 AM

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on “The Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky’s Republican primary.

Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate’s civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But do discriminate.

But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Crooks and Liars- By John Amato Thursday Apr 29, 2010 1:00pm

The hits keep coming in for Arizona’s Tancredo/Buchanan bill. The Mayor of Phoenix is no fan of this legislation and said this on Friday:

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon says seniors, kids and out-of-staters should be wary of the Arizona immigration bill signed into law this past week — warning that it puts them at risk of being arrested.

The law makes illegal immigration a state crime. It gives police the authority to question people about their immigration status and arrest those who cannot show documentation to establish their legal residency.

Gordon, a staunch opponent of the state law, said that means anyone who doesn’t carry an Arizona license — children under 16, seniors who don’t drive and people from out of state — could be “at risk of being arrested and turned over to (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).”

“It tramples civil rights,” Gordon told Fox News on Sunday. “Now everyone has to show and prove that they’re a legal resident or citizen.” The mayor of Arizona’s largest city is at odds with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill Friday and described the legislation as her state’s answer to “decades of inaction and misguided policy” in Washington.

If I thought like Sarah Palin I might say that Arizona was more interested in ‘Arresting Grandma’ than solving the real immigration problem. Gordon makes good points on FOX because he’s talking about demographics in our society that will be out at risk. The elderly are always caught up on the down side of an issue when there are massive changes to laws like this.

Bill Hemmer does his FOX News best by quoting the odious Sheriff Arpaio, who says more people will come to Arizona because the state has become safer. Gordon smacked him around by saying that Arpaio is only making up his own statistics and noted that he’s actually under criminal investigation for civil rights violations. Sheriff Arpaio is one of those trusted FOX News sources. I should also include that most of the MSM uses Boss Tweed all the time. And there are plenty of reports in the news now saying that Arizona businesses are very afraid that this law will drive business away.

“Our members are concerned,” said Debbie Johnson, president and CEO of the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association, which represents hundreds of hotels, bed and breakfasts and resorts in the state.

“They’re hearing from a lot of folks who visit and they’re obviously concerned with where this is playing out.”

On April 28th he told CNN that he’s going to sue Arizona’s bill:

Mayor Phil Gordon’s planned lawsuit contends Arizona’s recently passed immigration law is too vague and unenforceable.

The police will enforce it just fine. I bet taser sales go through the roof and I bet that’s one convention that won’t be cancelled.

##########################

Lawsuits Over AZ Immigration Law Filed By Police Officer, Latino Group

BY JONATHAN J. COOPER and PAUL DAVENPORT | 04/29/10 04:58 PM | AP

PHOENIX — Anger mounted Thursday over an Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration as a police officer filed one of the first lawsuits challenging the law and activists gathered outside an Arizona Diamondbacks game at Wrigley Field in Chicago, chanting “Boycott Arizona.”

The lawsuit from 15-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar is one of two filed Thursday, less than a week after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law that’s sparked fears it will lead to racial profiling despite the governor’s vow that officers will be properly trained.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law, which requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

Escobar, an overnight patrol officer in a heavily Latino area of Tucson, argues there’s no way for officers to confirm people’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates numerous constitutional rights.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: