Tag Archives: Eric Holder

Perry: We don't need your stinkin' rules

Texas Gov. Rick Perry takes great pleasure in sticking in the eyes of federal officials.

Take his latest rant against a rule handed down by the U.S. Department of Justice. Perry has informed Attorney General Eric Holder he has no intention of enforcing federal rules designed to prevent rape in prisons.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/01/rick-perry-orders-texas-prisons-not-to-follow-federal-rape-prevention-law/#.Uzv9lfNOU2M.facebook

President George W. Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. The rules apparently prevent “cross-gender viewing” of inmates. Gov. Perry said in his letter that the rule is impossible to enforce since 40 percent of all Texas Department of Criminal Justice security officers are female. How would the state prevent those officers from observing male inmates? Good question.

He goes on to say that the federal rules infringe on states’ responsibility to set their own security standards. What’s more, according to rawstory.com, “The governor also complained that the law ‘infringes on Texas’ right to establish the state’s own age of criminal responsibility’ by mandating that inmates 17 years old and younger be separated from adults. And he said ‘specific staffing ratios for juvenile detention facilities’ were unreasonably high.”

I’m not quite sure how to interpret the governor’s objection to the federal rule requiring children to be separated from adult prisoners. Haven’t the feds set a reasonable standard?

This is another of those state-vs.-the-feds arguments that crops up so often, especially where it regards Republican governors bucking mandates handed down by Democratic federal officials.

PREA’s creation came over the signature of a Republican president. However, this really isn’t — or should be — a political issue. It’s related instead to protecting prisoners who are brutalized by other prisoners. Since states take it upon themselves to incarcerate these individuals, they also take on the responsibility of protecting them against others who would harm them.

Isn’t it part of governing that enables federal authorities to enact rules aimed at encouraging states to do what’s right? Protecting prison inmates from rape is the right thing to do.

Restore voting rights for felons?

This one is giving me a touch of heartburn.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has come out for a major criminal justice change, which would be to restore voting rights for those who have been convicted of a felony.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/criminal-justice-reform-gains-steam

I’ve had trouble with this notion for many years. I long have thought that someone who commits a felony ought to lose his or her right to vote, given that they have committed serious crimes against society. Thus, they have surrendered their right to determine who should govern the society against which they have committed their crime.

Then a certain light bulb came on.

If you sentence someone to prison and that someone serves his or her term, has the prisoner then repaid — in full — a debt to society? Furthermore, if that debt is paid in full, doesn’t the felon have the right to become a full citizen, given that the sentence has been carried out according to the law?

Holder spoke to a Georgetown University Law School crowd when he said: “At worst, these laws, with their disparate impact on minority communities, echo policies enacted during a deeply troubled period in America’s past – a time of post-Civil War discrimination,” Holder said. “And they have their roots in centuries-old conceptions of justice that were too often based on exclusion, animus and fear.”

I’m still wrestling a bit with this one, but my inclination is to allow felons — I do not want to call them “ex-felons,” because the record is permanent — the right to be re-enfranchised in the voting process.

They’ve paid for their crimes. So why not allow them back into society?

Airline merger equals campaign issue

If I understand Tom Pauken correctly, the fact that the state’s attorney general actually supports the federal government’s decision to fight a proposed airline merger makes the AG’s position a non-starter.

Why? Because the AG has been fighting the feds for years and the state simply cannot possibly be on the same side as the enemy — no matter the merits of the case.

Ah … Texas politics. Nothing like it.

Pauken is running for the Republican nomination for Texas governor against AG Greg Abbott, who says he fears a proposed merger between American Airlines and US Airways would result in fare increases and reduced service to rural areas.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/15/pauken-attacks-abbott-opposing-airline-merger/

The feds say the same thing about the proposed merger. Thus, Abbott and the U.S. Justice Department are on the same page on this very specific issue. Abbott and/or his staff of lawyers presumably have analyzed the specifics of the case and determined that, by golly, maybe the feds have a point.

Isn’t that what lawyers do? Pauken, himself a lawyer as well as a former Texas Republican Party chairman, ought to understand that principle.

Instead, he seems to be suggesting that Abbott — who is fighting on behalf those who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act — simply must remain opposed to President Obama, Eric Holder and the federal government because they’re just so darn unpopular in Texas.

This is where every single policy statement becomes a campaign issue.

Ain’t Texas politics grand?

AG picks fight with Texas

Well, that’s a big surprise. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government is suing Texas to make sure the state follows federal civil-rights law – and Texas Republicans go ballistic, saying the feds are picking on the Lone Star State.

Someone has to be singled out, yes? If not Texas, then which state feels the heat? Mississippi? Alabama? Georgia?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/313535-texas-gop-pans-holder-move

Holder has asked a court to require Texas to obtain “pre-clearance” before enacting any state laws governing Texans’ voting rights. It seems Texas is one of those states with some history of denying certain folks full access to voting rights based on their race or ethnicity. The U.S. Supreme Court decided earlier this year that the federal requirement is no longer necessary and has left these decisions up to the states.

The AG says that’s not good enough.

Thus, the Justice Department is taking action to ensure that Texas complies right off the top.

I applaud the attorney general for seeking to guarantee that the rights of full citizenship for all Americans – even those who live in Texas – are protected under federal law.

The Hill said this in reporting the story:

“White House spokesman Josh Earnest defended the move, saying ‘the goal of the administration… is to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.’  

‘“That includes protecting the voting rights of all Americans who are eligible to vote – that’s the goal here,’ Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. ‘I would assume that that would be a goal that would also be supported by congressional Republicans. We’ll see.’”

Members of the state’s congressional delegation, dominated of course by Republicans, see it differently.

“My belief is (the) Voting Rights Act and those laws ought to be applied equally across states, and not played for political games, which is exactly what I see happening here,” U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady said. “Eric Holder (is) just singling us out – just skipped through the alphabet and happened to land on Texas.”

Something tells me the Justice Department doesn’t really care what Texas Republicans – given their intense antipathy toward the president and his administration – think of its voting-rights policy.