Friday, January 19, 2018

Senate Advances Judicial Pick Hostile to Black Voting Rights

Despite protests by civil rights leaders, the Senate voted Thursday to advance a judicial nominee who helped draft North Carolina's voter suppression law, defended racially discriminatory gerrymandering and may have lied to the Senate about his role in disenfranchising black voters when he worked for the late Sen. Jesse Helms. The Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to move forward with the nomination of Thomas Farr, President Donald Trump's choice for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. A North Carolina lawyer, Farr helped draft the state's sweeping voter ID law passed in 2013 -- one of the most restrictive in the country. When civil rights groups challenged the law, Farr represented the state before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in 2016, arguing it "was not a nefarious thing." The court struck down the law later that year, ruling that it "targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision."

More

Farr defended state redistricting maps that were rejected by federal courts for being racially discriminatory, and when civil rights groups sued North Carolina in 2015 for violating the National Voter Registration Act, Farr represented the state in court again. He lost.

Back in 1990, Farr was a lawyer for Republican Sen. Jesse Helms' campaign, which, that year, sent more than 100,000 postcards to black voters in North Carolina with incorrect information about voter qualifications and warned that voter fraud was punishable by up to five years in prison. The Justice Department sued and settled.

Farr denied to the Judiciary Committee last fall that he played any role in that effort, but had to clarify later that he knew some things about it -- a shift that raised questions about whether he had lied to the Senate about his role in intimidating black voters.

Comments

In addition to his racist remarks, Trump is appointing judges with racist agendas. Winning!

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 02:49 PM

Such a fine line, between Trump Train and Underground Railroad.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:55 PM

Boaz JeffJ GoNoles Avigdore
This is the kind of judge you want, right?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:58 PM

Here is a list of Trump's racist cohorts in the Senate:

Republicans who voted for Farr include Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas) Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and John Kennedy (La.).

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 03:03 PM

Where is Boaz to defend this pond scum?

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 03:22 PM

He is rated "Well Qualified" by the ABA. He deserves a vote like Garland deserved a vote.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-18 04:04 PM

#6 Not if he lied to the committee he doesn't. Not all of the nominees are ABA approved, btw:

Some of the other nominations voted out of committee include district court nominees Charles Goodwin and Holly Teeter, both rated "not qualified" to be judges by the American Bar Association; circuit court nominee Kyle Duncan, who authored legal briefs opposing same-sex marriage and argued in support of Texas' unconstitutional restrictions on abortion; and district court nominee Mark Norris, who led an effort to ban communities from removing monuments to Confederate leaders and set up a website with images of refugees alongside pictures of Islamic State terrorists.

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 04:07 PM

He is rated "Well Qualified" by the ABA. He deserves a vote like Garland deserved a vote.

#6 | Posted by et_al

So, in other words, he should be treated the same as Garland and he should get no vote.

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-18 04:30 PM

Not if he lied to the committee he doesn't.

Isn't that the question, did he? From what I've seen it's disputed. So, let the Senate decide by vote.

Not all of the nominees are ABA approved ...

True the question is why? The ABA only explains its rating if asked by the committee or the Senate. www.abajournal.com I've seen nothing on Goodwin and think I saw something on Teeter along the lines she only has 11 years practicing while the ABA guidelines require 12, hardly a resounding disqualifier. Duncan and, I think, one other withdrew.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-18 05:02 PM

This is a direct consequence of Harry Reid exercising the nuclear option on non-SCOTUS judicial appointments, it has now come back to haunt the Dems, just as it will for the GOP on SCOTUS appointments in the future.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 05:03 PM

So, in other words ...

Nope.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-18 05:03 PM

"Isn't that the question, did he? From what I've seen it's disputed. So, let the Senate decide by vote."

Yes, of course, because Republicans can be trusted to determine if he was lying before voting for him. Not.

#12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 05:10 PM

Avigdore This is the kind of judge you want, right? - #3 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:58 PM
A left-wing article that can't actually say anything that this lawyer has done illegally or immorally, so instead the work to discredit his name by insinuation and incrimination? He worked on legislation that he claims wasn't designed to be discriminatory. Judges disagreed. I give that a big ol' 'Meh'.
The dude may be a racist, I don't know. I certainly don't trust a Huffpo article to tell me so. You see, people make claims like this :
Here is a list of Trump's racist cohorts in the Senate:
Republicans who voted for Farr include Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas) Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and John Kennedy (La.).
#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 03:03 PM

to provide evidence that the word racist has lost all useful meaning. A lawyer represents their client whether they are good, bad, or morally repugnant. That's the legal system we have here. To mention that he worked for the Helms campaign is nothing more than guilt by association. If the guy is judged by his peers to be an able and capable judge, then he deserves his shot. If the Senate chooses to not take up his nomination, that is the prerogative of those elected representatives.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-19 02:37 PM

"He worked on legislation that he claims wasn't designed to be discriminatory. Judges disagreed. I give that a big ol' 'Meh'."

I give that a "his work was designed to be racist, and he was happy to do it."

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 02:40 PM

Nope, not confident at all.

#15 | Posted by fresno500 at 2018-01-19 03:09 PM

"to provide evidence that the word racist has lost all useful meaning."

Sounds like he helped draw up and then defended racist policies. That qualifies him as a racist in my book:

A North Carolina lawyer, Farr helped draft the state's sweeping voter ID law passed in 2013 ― one of the most restrictive in the country. When civil rights groups challenged the law, Farr represented the state before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in 2016, arguing it "was not a nefarious thing." The court struck down the law later that year, ruling that it "targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision."

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-19 03:57 PM

"To mention that he worked for the Helms campaign is nothing more than guilt by association."

It could be if he didn't go on to help draw up and then defend racist voter restriction policies. Because he did do those things, however his previous association with Helms shows a pattern of endorsing racist behavior for political benefit.

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-19 04:03 PM

To mention that he worked for the Helms campaign is nothing more than guilt by association."

What was Helms guilty of?
/popcorn

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 06:06 PM

"A lawyer represents their client whether they are good, bad, or morally repugnant."

He didn't just defend the State, he helped write the law the State was defending.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 06:22 PM

Just being white.

#20 | Posted by fresno500 at 2018-01-19 08:04 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Florida Governor: Those Under Age 21 Should Not Own Guns (105 comments)

Trump Wants to Arm Teachers (91 comments)

Trump Needed 'Cheat Sheet' When He Met Survivors (72 comments)

Texas School Will Punish Any Student Who Protests (69 comments)

How Low Are You Willing to See America Go? (65 comments)

Parkland School Cop Didn't Enter Building (54 comments)

32 More Indictments for Manafort, Gates (54 comments)

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes (52 comments)

NRA Opposes Age Limits on Gun Purchases (52 comments)