[timestax]

Well, that's different. Clintoon feels their pain now! right?

[doug from upland]

This is a great find by NewsMax but not at all surprising.

[The Obstinate Insomniac]

Clinton never invents an attack; he always charges others with the crimes he himself has already committed.

[Happy2BMe]

"The Supreme Court ruling came as the then-governor was fighting another court battle to preserve racial profiling in his state, a tool that Clinton later criticized while president as a "morally indefensible, deeply corrosive practice."

Will this man never cease to haunt us?

Recall what he called Bush over the Trent Lott debacle last week - "A Hypocrite."

[Happy2BMe]

"Three years later in 1991, Clinton actually did implement a modified version of the profiling program that prohibited the use of ethnic screening but allowed troopers to continue to stop cars on the highway at their discretion."

This is stretching it a bit . .

Cops are given this authority universally as it is.

Key word being "discretion."

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

"The Arkansas plan gave state troopers the authority to stop and search vehicles based on a drug-courier profile of Hispanics, particularly those driving cars with Texas license plates," the Times said. "A federal judge later ruled the program unconstitutional, the paper reported. "A lawsuit and a federal consent decree ended the practice - known as the 'criminal apprehension program' the next year."

Apparently Clinton didn't seem to care about imposing that same level of jurisdiction for interdiction of drug trafficking at airports like Mena.

[Frohickey]

Bubba did it again recently... for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship... he got Terry McAuliffe instead of Maynard Jackson.

When are the blacks going to finally wake up?

[beethoven]

This evening I tried to reason with a Clinton lover, but was unable to make any headway. This individual never hesitates to slander a Republican. I would appreciate any assistance you might be able to offer is forming a rational response. The letter I received is below:



I have a file copy of a letter that I wrote some time back, praising and defending Bill Clinton, and I do not hesitate to send it, in reply to anyone who criticizes Clinton, especially when they do it to irritate me! Usually, they never again Criticize Clinton to me!

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in most places, and vastly reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades, and actually achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination. After the Republican Congress defeated his proposal for a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules. In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. But he was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and he continues to this day, to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president. In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia; He bombed Iraq, when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking. He drew huge crowds when he traveled through South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, and China, advocating U.S. style freedom. Under Clinton's leadership, the United States was able to reduce military spending, since we did not need a large military. We had so few enemies, because we had allies instead of enemies.. Israel and the Palestinians were talking peace, and hostilities were limited.. Peace was achieved through diplomacy instead of threats and a huge arms buildup. Clinton's flights abroad kept the United States at the forefront as a peacemaker and as an effective negotiator.
Under this present administration, our "excess tax money " has recently been "returned" to our nation's wealthiest citizens. Our present unsound fiscal policy should be a wonderful gift to our grandchildren. Our hopes for eliminating the national debt were dashed with the election of Bush, who at once set out to cut taxes for the wealthy, and increase military spending to an unbelievable record level. It seems that the old method of diplomacy to achieve peace, has now been replaced with a philosophy of superior military power, as a means for enforcing this nation's policy as defined by the president. This aggressive policy has alienated many of our allies, who now consider the USA as a country that threatens world peace, under the guise of fighting terrorism. Not only have our foreign relationships suffered serious decline under Bush, but our National economy continues to deteriorate, as unemployment, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and Corporate Insecurity are constantly a major national problem. World peace is now in jeopardy, as threatened by the global goals of George W. Bush.

[zeaal]

History will be justice when all is said and done regarding Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.

[Bullish]

There's no end to the Clinton scum trail. It just keeps stinking right along.

[DeBug=int13]

 

 

a-Ping!

 

A little something I found in passing - from the Ark. Attorney General.

Adds a little more detail.

 

 

---

 

Opinion No. 97-216

September 22, 1997

The Honorable Kevin Smith
State Senator
1609 Coker-Hampton Drive
Stuttgart, Arkansas 72160-5713

Dear Senator Smith:

This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the “constitutionality of the redistricting of Arkansas state representative and senatorial districts in Eastern Arkansas for the 1990 and 1992 elections in light of the decision in Miller v. Johnson [515 U.S. ___, 132 L.Ed.2d 762], 115 S.Ct. 2475 (1995).” You have enclosed with your request a copy of a University of Arkansas Law Journal article which discusses the Miller case. See Note, Constitutional Law--Equal Protection-- Race Shall Not Be the Predominant Factor in Congressional District Drawing, Miller v. Johnson, 115 S.Ct. 2475 (1995), 19 UALR LJ 109 (Fall 1996).

The resolution of the question you have posed would require an analysis of all the pertinent facts surrounding the creation, characteristics, and make-up of each individual district. As such, it is beyond the scope of an Attorney General’s opinion. I can, however, in an effort to be helpful, set out a summary of the relevant law.

The districts to which you refer were drawn pursuant to an order of, and approved by, a three judge panel of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas prior to the United States Supreme Court decision in Miller. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D. Ark. 1989) aff’d mem. 498 U.S. 1019 (1991) (finding a violation of § 2 of the federal Voting Rights Acts in the relevant counties save Pulaski County and ordering new districts to be drawn for the 1990 elections); Jeffers v. Clinton, 756 F.Supp. 1195 (E.D.Ark. 1990) summarily aff’d 498 U.S. 1019 (1991) (approving, as modified, the “remedy plan” submitted by the State and retaining jurisdiction to enter other orders to enforce the decree); Jeffers v. Clinton, 740 F.Supp. 585 (E.D. Ark. 1990) appeal dismissed on motion of appellants, 498 U.S. 1129 (1991) (finding some constitutional voting rights violations and imposing a limited preclearance requirement); and Jeffers v. Tucker, 847 F.Supp. 655 (E.D. Ark. 1994) (upholding the State Board of Apportionment’s post 1990 census plan (for the 1992 elections and thereafter) over the objections of the plaintiffs). In its decisions, the District Court found that the districts existing in 1989 diluted the votes of black citizens in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, (42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq.). The court ordered that the then existing districts be redrawn to create additional majority black districts, and retained jurisdiction in order to assure that the districts created in the 1991 apportionment complied with the Voting Rights Act. There was a vigorous dissent in the first three of the cases and a concurrence in the fourth. See Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. 196 (Eisele, Chief District Judge, dissenting); 740 F.Supp. 585 (Eisele, Chief District Judge, dissenting); 756 F.Supp. 1195 (Eisele, Chief District Judge, dissenting); and 847 F.Supp. 655 (Eisele, Senior District Judge, concurring).

The initial Jeffers decisions were handed down before, and thus without the benefit of, the United States Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Johnson, supra, and a predesessor case, Shaw v. Reno. The Miller decision was actually the second decision in a recent wave of decisions interpreting the constitutionality of districts drawn to enhance minority voting strength. The first was Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 113 S.Ct. 2816 (1993) (“Shaw I”), which held that bizarrely shaped districts, created for the purpose of favoring the voting interest of minorities, were unconstitutional under the “equal protection clause” unless narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest (applying the so-called “strict scrutiny test”). In Miller, the Court clarified that the strict scrutiny test is to be applied whenever the legislature subordinates “traditional, race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions, or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations,” and not just when districts are found to be bizarrely shaped. Miller, at 779, 780.

The state of the law on equal protection challenges to redistricting decisions thus involves the analysis of two questions: 1) Were traditional districting principles subordinated to race in the drawing of the districts-- i.e., was race the “predominant factor” in the redistricting-- if so, “strict scrutiny” applies; and 2) is there a compelling governmental interest supporting the use of race as a predominant factor, and are the districts narrowly tailored to serve that interest?

Each of these questions require the analysis of facts as well as law. The first appears to be almost exclusively factual. Whether race was the predominant factor in drawing the districts to which you refer is a question of fact. Relevant for purposes of the second question (involving the existing of a compelling state interest), is the fact that a federal district court ordered the drawing of the districts in question under the federal Voting Rights Act. Two very recent United States Supreme Court decisions provide guidance on this question. In Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. ___, 135 L.Ed.2d 207, 116 S.Ct. 1941 (1996) (“Shaw II”); and Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. ___, 135 L.Ed.2d 248, 116 S.Ct. 1941(1996), the Court “assume[d] without deciding that compliance with [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act], as interpreted by our precedents . . . can be a compelling state interest.” Vera plurality opinion at p. 1960; Shaw II, majority opinion at p. 1905. Justice O’Connor, in her concurring opinion in Vera, stated that she would hold compliance with Section 2 a compelling interest. Vera, supra at 1968. From a reading of the pertinent decisions, it appears that this would be the holding of a majority of the Court.

Thus, compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act can be a compelling public interest supporting a predominant use of racial data in drawing electoral districts. The Court has been clear to point out, however, with regard to the “narrowly tailored requirement” that “compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws cannot justify race-based districting where the challenged district was not reasonably necessary under a constitutional reading and application of those laws.” Miller, supra at 783. (Emphasis added). Most recently, in Bush v. Vera, supra, the Court stated that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “does not require a State to create, on predominantly racial lines, a district that is not ‘reasonably compact.’ [Citation omitted.] If, because of the dispersion of the minority population, a reasonably compact majority-minority district cannot be created, § 2 does not require a majority-minority district; if a reasonably compact district can be created, nothing in § 2 requires the race-based creation of a district that is far from compact.” Bush v. Vera, supra at 270.

The fact that the Arkansas districts in question were ordered and approved by a federal district court in order to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act may be viewed as a compelling public interest which would justify the districts under strict scrutiny analysis even if it was found that race was the predominant factor in their creation. Of course, the relevant federal district court decisions were made without the benefit of the three latest Supreme Court decisions on the topic. Other federal courts have overturned such pre-Miller and Vera decisions where the previously ordered districts did not meet the new U.S. Supreme Court criteria. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mortham, 926 F. Supp. 1460 (N.D. Fla. 1996). A question may remain, therefore, as to whether the United States Supreme Court or lower federal court with jurisdiction would deem the Arkansas districts “reasonably necessary” to comply with the Voting Rights Act, or as “reasonably compact” nothwithstanding that Act. Again, the ultimate issue is one of fact, which would have to be determined by a fact-finder, with access to all the pertinent evidence.

The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Deputy Attorney General Elana C. Wills.

Sincerely,



WINSTON BRYANT
Attorney General

WB:ECW/cyh

 

[JoeSixPack1]

Doesn't matter, doesn't matter doesn't matter!!!!

What matters is how much the "benefit crowd" get$, period!

Socialism is the evil the press loves to surpress, it trumps everything.

[Claire Voyant]

Why isn't this article in the Breaking News Column so that DC Lurkers see the Haedlines of the story AND just might do a story themselves???

[Eternal_Bear]

Isn't our whole society intimidating for liberal demorat black voters anyway?

[Marysecretary]

hah~! I always love it when the pot calls the kettle black and then we find out he's the worst of them all. HE owes Trent Lott an apology! Doesn't he know that his sin will find him out? I hope the left wing media doesn't give this a pass but I will NOT hold my breath.

[Mia T]

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.

Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,

by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

A LEGACY OF LYNCHING

 

evidence of consciousness of guilt

at Ron Brown's funeral

 

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton:

THE CLINTON RAPES ARE

 

"UNBECOMING"

 

Q ERTY3

"YOU KNOW"

zipper-hoisted

PRENUP/POST-RAPE SENATE SEAT

Q ERTY4

AMERICAN MUSEUM--ER--MUSLIM COUNCIL

it won't s-p-i-n

KNOWNOTHING VICTIM RODHAM/CLINTON REVISITED

 

^{Q ERTY2} "There isn't a shred of evidence."

 

 

HILLARY, YOU KNOW, ^{KnowNothing Victim} Q ERTY4 ^{double bagel}

 

W I D E B O D Y. _{low-center-of-gravity}

Dim Bulb _{Congenital Bottom Feeder}

 

kleptocratic

 

Hardball's Softball hillary clinton 'Interview'

 

Q ERTY9

BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

 

Q ERTY6

utter failure

 _{rodham-clinton} ^{reality-check}

Democrat Debacle of '02

Q ERTY8

BUMP!

[mhking]

I thought I pinged this one already, but I could be wrong...

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[Stultis]

Hearing Clinton's condemnation of racial profiling in 1999, Roberto Garcia de Posada, executive director of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, complained that the then-president "had been a strong supporter of racial profiling against Hispanics in the past."

Gee, I never heard about this at the time. The libmedia wouldn't bury something like this, would they?

On Thursday and Friday both ex-President Clinton and his wife, Democratic Party presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, criticized Republicans for trying to suppress the black vote in states like Arkansas and Florida. But reporters declined to ask either Clinton about the well documented record of black voter disenfranchisement in Arkansas while they ran the state

The more things change...

[Stultis]

Hypocrasy from The Rapist ping!

[Stultis]

Hypocrasy from The Rapist ping!