This news has been received from:

All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.

Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday evening “other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint,” coronavirus lockdowns were the “greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history.”

Barr’s comments came during a Constitution Day celebration at Hillsdale College, commemorating the date in 1789 when the Constitution was signed by the Framers in Philadelphia.

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, Barr has expressed alarm at the restrictions imposed by state authorities on First Amendment rights, particularly the freedom of religion.

In April, Barr’s Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys to “be on the lookout for state and local directives that could be violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens.”

He explained that while there might be “reasonable and temporary restrictions” on some First Amendment rights for the sake of public health, they should not become an “overbearing infringement.”

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division subsequently took a stand against state and local governments that were restricting religious services to an extreme extent. As Breitbart News reported, the division’s interventions often prompted a relaxation of the rules.

Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania’s coronavirus lockdowns were unconstitutional. While the state’s actions may have been “undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” Judge William Stickman IV ruled, “even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble.”

Stickman, 41, is an appointee of President Donald Trump.

Barr’s comments came in addition to prepared remarks in which he criticized DOJ prosecutors for abusing their power, and defended the intervention of senior DOJ leadership in the decisions made by lower-level prosecutors.

Barr said (as prepared for delivery):

The most basic check on prosecutorial power is politics. It is counter-intuitive to say that, as we rightly strive to maintain an apolitical system of criminal justice. But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake. Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny.

Line prosecutors, by contrast, are generally part of the permanent bureaucracy. They do not have the political legitimacy to be the public face of tough decisions and they lack the political buy-in necessary to publicly defend those decisions. Nor can the public and its representatives hold civil servants accountable in the same way as appointed officials. Indeed, the public’s only tool to hold the government accountable is an election — and the bureaucracy is neither elected nor easily replaced by those who are.

Name one successful organization where the lowest level employees’ decisions are deemed sacrosanct. There aren’t any. Letting the most junior members set the agenda might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it’s no way to run a federal agency. Good leaders at the Justice Department—as at any organization—need to trust and support their subordinates. But that does not mean blindly deferring to whatever those subordinates want to do.

Active engagement in our cases by senior officials is also essential to the rule of law. The essence of the rule of law is that whatever rule you apply in one case must be the same rule you would apply to similar cases. Treating each person equally before the law includes how the Department enforces the law.

We should not prosecute someone for wire fraud in Manhattan using a legal theory we would not equally pursue in Madison or in Montgomery, or allow prosecutors in one division to bring charges using a theory that a group of prosecutors in the division down the hall would not deploy against someone who engaged in indistinguishable conduct.

Taking a capacious approach to criminal law is not only unfair to criminal defendants and bad for the Justice Department’s track record at the Supreme Court, it is corrosive to our political system. If criminal statutes are endlessly manipulable, then everything becomes a potential crime.

This criminalization of politics is not healthy.  The criminal law is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious misconduct — conduct so bad that our society has decided it requires serious punishment, up to and including being locked away in a cage.  These tools are not built to resolve political disputes and it would be a decidedly bad development for us to go the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state.  The political winners ritually prosecuting the political losers is not the stuff of a mature democracy.

Barr’s comments come as critics accuse him and the president of interfering in the prosecution of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and in the sentencing of former Trump associate Roger Stone.

CNN anchor Don Lemon was flabbergasted: “I don’t know what to say,” he said, in reporting Barr’s remarks.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

News Source:

Tags: on the hill b inspired on the hill b inspired mideast peace deal blm nba china virus cheat by mail constitution coronavirus first amendment hillsdale college william barr the political the political

Allegheny Co. Health Dept. Immunization Clinic To Begin Offering Walk-In Flu Shots

Next News:

U.S. Civil Rights Commission shelves recommendations for protecting voter rights in November

You get three guesses why and the first two don't count.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, an independent federal board of eight commissioners tasked with investigating civil rights issues and recommending remedies, has created a new series of recommendations to better protect minority voting rights during the coronavirus pandemic.

We will never see it, reports USA Today. By a party line vote, the committee's four conservative members voted to block its release and end work on the project.

The reasons for the conservative objections are ... interesting. The Trump-appointed Stephen Gilchrist told USA Today that he found the timing of issuing a report on voting challenges and recommendations so close to an election "somewhat suspect." (Work on the report began in June.) A second Trump appointee, J. Christian Adams, appears to have gone more directly down a conspiracy path: USA Today reported he voted against the report's release because it "overlooked the disenfranchising effect of mail voting"—claims that resulted in a "mostly false" rating from fact-checkers at PolitiFact a few months back.

So yeah, there's just not going to be a report. Won't happen.

USA Today uses this latest fiasco to dive into the relatively new impotence of the Commission on Civil Rights, created by the 1957 Civil Rights Act but with no statutory authority, having been stripped of it in 1996. It's a suitably depressing read. The short version is that it, like the Federal Elections Commission and other would-be nonpartisan federal efforts, suffers from the same intentional conservative neglect as the others.

Each of these commissions rests on the assumption that regardless of party differences, some base level of integrity is necessary for the nation to function at all—whether that be policing against illegal campaign activity or keeping watch against intentional voter suppression efforts. Those assumptions are no longer true; one of the two parties now sees itself as benefiting from the relaxation of both norms. So here we are, again.

Other News

  • Toobin: McConnell engaging in greatest act of hypocrisy in American political history with Ginsberg replacement vote
  • Hillary Clinton reflects on Ginsburg, warns of GOPs attempt to enact the greatest travesty
  • Pull you back in: The 25 greatest roles of Al Pacinos career
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery
  • Joe Biden honors Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs fierce and unflinching fight for civil rights
  • Antebellum Is the Right Movie for Right Now, Says Gabourey Sidibe: Slavery Was Not That Long Ago
  • Hillary Clinton Mourns RBGs Passing, Implores Dems to Not Give an Inch as McConnell Tries to Replace Her: It Would Be the Greatest Travesty
  • 50+ of Jennifer Anistons Greatest Hairstyles
  • CNNs Toobin: Mitch McConnell and GOP Replacing RBG Would Be The Greatest Act of Hypocrisy in American Political History
  • By the numbers, its hard to see how lockdowns saved many lives
  • Is Bill Barr signaling that his much-hyped Durham probe is a bust?
  • House Republicans Introduce Bill Banning Federal Funds for Teaching America Founded on Slavery
  • 1619 Projects Nikole Hannah-Jones: Trump ‘Trying to Stoke Racial Division’
  • Associated Press: Trump Downplayed ‘Legacy Of Slavery In Appeal To White Voters’ In Constitution Day Speech
  • 1619 Project Founder Hits Back at Trump Criticism
  • Cardinals Hall of Fame safety and executive Larry Wilson passes away at 82
  • Homicide Led To Lockdown In Hartford
  • 103-year-old family farm perseveres through a century of challenges
  • New York Times Nikole Hannah-Jones Fires Back at Trump for Attacking 1619 Project: Hes Trying to Stoke Racial Division