The civil rights division, which had been reshaped in a conservative direction under President George W. Bush

This is a weird construction. Is there a "conservative direction" to the civil rights division? Are proponents of civil rights split between liberals, who support voting rights, and conservatives, who don't think black people should vote? Is this a "listen to all sides" kind of political thing?

What the author meant to say was that the civil rights division was eviscerated or immobilized during the Bush administration. But saying that would be too much of a political bombshell to make as a passing reference.

The only sea of change that I am interested in is to uphold the Constitution & the laws of our country.

I will NOT believe the Obama administration is serious about this until there are investigations of the breaches of the Constitution & the disregard of the laws of our country that took place under the Bush Criminal Enterprise. When there are investigations & criminal prosecutions, as determined relevant from the investigations, then we can believe in a 'sea of change'.

Anything less is just window dressing. The lack of prosecutions for the criminality of the Bush administration will only lead to future presidents knowing that they can disregard the Constitution & our laws without penalty.

The first issue is to make signing statements null and void.

hopefully that tide of sea change will sweep out all the little Monica Goodlings hired in the last 8 years.

inkadu,

You make a good point -- it is strange language. I'd just point out that what happened under Bush was somewhat more complex than just eviscerating or immobilizing the CRD. I think there is what you might call a "conservative civil rights agenda" -- in other words, a backlash agenda -- that CRD under Bush actively promoted. For example, CRD not only failed to take much significant action to enforce the voting rights act in favor of blacks, but for the first time in history (I believe) it used the Act against black local officials accused of disenfranchising white voters. It also affirmatively approved all sorts of state initiatives (such as voter ID laws) that impaired minority voting rights. Not sure if CRD was involved in the Seattle and Louisville school cases, but the Solicitor General weighed in on the side of the white parents, so I'm guessing there was some CRD involvement in the lower courts.

"Is there a "conservative direction" to the civil rights division? Are proponents of civil rights split between liberals, who support voting rights, and conservatives, who don't think black people should vote?"

Just so. The conservatives in the Civil Rights Division went after so-called "voter fraud" by poor people, brown people, and Democrats, but they could never seem to actually find such fraud.

In the meantime, they argued successfully that voter ID laws were constitutional, notable keeping an ancient nun (who had no state-issued ID because she didn't drive) from voting. "Anecdotal" said the Supreme Religious Court.

I think they also pursued employment discrimination against that long-standing undercall, white men.

Thanks for the Blog Chris! Always good to read your thoughts =)

I have a question for anybody reading out there.
But, first some brief background...

THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROBLEM

California is currently less than 30 days away from issuing IOU's instead of money to everybody who she owes money to. Those intended recipients include State employees, State pension funds, State-employed contractors, senior housing programs, State-funded medical programs and education funding (to name a few). The state will be run on an outdated system known as "script" - or IOU's as of this coming March 1st, 2009.

Here are the problems:

1. The budget was supposed to be signed in May and enacted in September 2008. We're now in February of 2009 and *STILL* do not have a budget!!

2. Most states in our Union require a majority of more than 50% of the State legislature to pass the annual State budget. However, California voted in a law that requires a 2/3 approval from State legislators before passing. This has given leverage to those who feel that they are underrepresented (generally the far right-leaning Republican Party which is outnumbered by the more moderate Republicans and Democrats.)

3. About a month ago, in an unusual bipartisan effort, the California Democrats worked with the California Republicans to come up with a budget. Nobody *loved* the budget, but both sides of the isle were willing to work together and make concessions to pass a budget that's already WAY overdue. California Senator and Congressmen included Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in all of the budget negotiations, asked for and received the Governor's input and were told by the office of the Governor that they had his approval. After hammering out the details, they presented the budget to the Governor and he promptly vetoed it.

4. California is in debt 42 Billion and counting...
--------------------------------------------------

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU IF YOU'RE NOT FROM CALIFORNIA?
AND, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

The answers to these questions are as follows:

1. California has the strongest economy of the 50 States in the Union. If California were its own country, it would have the 7th largest economy of countries in the world.

2. If the California economy fails, California will drop from the current 8% unemployment and a deep recession into even higher unemployment (10%, 15% or 20 %?) and a possible Depression. Foreclosures are already at 10% and will skyrocket to who knows where... (20%, 30% or 40%)?

3. Economically speaking... "As California goes, so goes the Nation."

4. If the California economy goes over a cliff, it will drag the rest of the United States down with it.

5. If the United States economy goes over a cliff, it will drag the World economy with it.

6. We will be headed from a Recession into a Depression.
--------------------------------------------------------

A SMALL GROUP OF DEEPLY COMMITED BUT SOMEWHAT CRAZY PEOPLE CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS

1. This would not be happening if the California budget process followed the same budget processes that most States in the Union follow 50% approval, not 2/3).

2. A **VERY** small group of **VERY** committed, neocon, foaming-at-the-mouth, Extreme right-wing nutjobs with GW Bush values and ideals are holding California hostage because they refuse to allow **ANY** new taxes.

3. Is it possible that such a small handful of Extremist Legislators could actually throw California, the United States and the World into a Depression within the next 30 days?

4. is this situation a National Security Threat?

5. If Schwarzenegger cannot find an answer soon (so far his vetoes have been a part of the problem) what will California do?

6. Should the Federal Government view this as a threat to our National Security and step in if necessary? Perhaps help moderate a solution that Schwarzenegger and the California Democrats and Republicans have not been able to agree to yet?