@mysteryman,
You do know the difference between a civil complaint and a criminal one, don't you?
Maybe you should use sources other than the Washington Times MM.
Quote:Obama DOJ actually obtained judgment against individual carrying weapon at polling place
May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against Samir Shabazz. In his May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Perez stated that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez testified:
PEREZ: Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).
The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms.
Quote:A Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is calling charges that the Justice Department ignores the civil rights of whites ridiculous.
Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said allegations that the Obama Administration failed to prosecute a voter intimidation case, involving the New Black Panther Party, have no merit:
"We have no direct evidence that [the NBP activists] actually intimidated anybody, stopped them from voting," Thernstrom said on CBS' Face the Nation. In an earlier column, she called the case "small potatoes."
So, they got an injunction against the person wielding the "weapon."
Now let's see what the law allows under a civil prosecution
Quote:(d) Civil action by Attorney General for preventive relief; injunctive and other relief
Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 1973, 1973a, 1973b, 1973c, 1973e, 1973h, 1973i, or subsection (b) of this section, the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, an action for preventive relief, including an application for a temporary or permanent injunction, restraining order, or other order, and including an order directed to the State and State or local election officials to require them (1) to permit persons listed under subchapters I-A to I-C of this chapter to vote and (2) to count such votes.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ia.php
Wait.. the Obama got an injunction as the law allows. It allows nothing more and yet you want to argue that they didn't enforce it?
So.. to recap..
The Bush DoJ reduced it to a civil prosecution.
The Obama DoJ got an injunction to prevent it in the future
The law only allows an injunction under the civil prosecution.
You want to claim they didn't enforce it?
The only real argument here MM is that it was reduced to a civil prosecution and that was done by the Bush DoJ.
So.... what didn't the Obama DoJ do in your estimation MM?
When it comes to government wasting money, the Civil Rights Division seems to be doing a good job of it. I am surprised you support them.
