Department of Justice: Justice Only for Minorities?

UPDATE: I was just watching FoxNews, and being the evil media that they are, I wanted to share a clarification they were just making.  The second half of this post regarding the voter intimidation case is about the NEW Black Panthers, who are not be confused with the original Black Panthers. "The" Black Panthers' website vehemently distances itself from and condemns the so-called "New Black Panthers" for hijacking the name and espousing views that are counter to theirs. 
________________

Perhaps you recall back during the presidential election the case of some New Black Panthers in Philly who were harrassing White voters as they showed up at a voting station. After U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and The Department of Justice dropped what was a clear-cut of voter intimidation, last summer the United States Civil Rights Commision sent a letter demanding some answers.  In late December, launched an official investigation into why Holder's department dropped the charges against the Black Panthers.

Now, a former Justice Dept. attorney in testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is leveling charges against Holder's office, claiming that attorneys in the civil rights division were instructed to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.

From FoxNews (emphasis added):

Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

In emotional and personal testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims. 

J. Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that "over and over and over again," the department showed "hostility" toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as one example of that -- he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said his "blood boiled" when he heard a Justice official claim the case wasn't solid. 

"It is false," Adams said of the claim. 

"We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens," he later testified.

The department abandoned the New Black Panther case last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a polling place, dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick. 

The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012.  [WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!!!!!]

The Civil Rights Commission, which subpoenaed Adams, has been probing the incident since last year. Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify and eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts ...

Now, we have Round 2 of Holder's DOJ version of defending civil rights ... for minorities only (emphasis added):

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says

The Justice Department could file a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration law as early as Tuesday, an official tells Fox News. 

The potential court action comes just days after President Obama delivered a speech calling on Congress to tackle a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration system. In the speech, he criticized Arizona's law and warned that national legislation is needed to prevent other states from following suit. 

The president did not mention the lawsuit, but one was widely expected. After the administration initially said it would take the law under review, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed last month in an interview with a foreign television network that the administration intended to challenge the Arizona policy. The Justice Department would do so on the grounds that federal responsibility for border enforcement preempts any state law on the issue. 

The Arizona law, passed in April and set to go into effect at the end of July, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their residency status. 

Obama and other top officials have criticized the law as misguided, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has slammed the administration for pursuing a lawsuit. She claims the administration has not done enough to secure the border -- a charge the administration denies. 

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law. 

"We'll meet them in court ... and we will win," she said, calling the administration's actions a "disappointment." 

 ...

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer. 

Republicans bristled at the speech, though, and continued to urge the administration to better secure the border before tackling a comprehensive bill -- which would likely include a pathway to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.

I guess the Obama Administration and Holder's Department of Justice find tackling a court case against 3 men who wielded night sticks at a voting station harder to pursue than overhauling federal and state immigration laws and supposedly securing the border.