Civil Rights: A Liberal Agenda?
Well, call me a liberal

Civil Rights Focus Shift Roils Justice Dept in the WP discusses the changes wrought by Bush in civil rights enforcement. It also describes how Bushies seek to continue their dominance--even after defeat. It appears to want to reshape not only the SUpreme Court, but the composition of agency staffs. It points to what is happening the the Civil Rights Division of the Justice department.

Nearly 20 percent of the division's lawyers left in fiscal 2005, in part because of a buyout program that some lawyers believe was aimed at pushing out those who did not share the administration's conservative views on civil rights laws. Longtime litigators complain that political appointees have cut them out of hiring and major policy decisions, including approvals of controversial GOP redistricting plans in Mississippi and Texas.

At the same time, prosecutions for the kinds of racial and gender discrimination crimes traditionally handled by the division have declined 40 percent over the past five years, according to department statistics. Dozens of lawyers find themselves handling appeals of deportation orders and other immigration matters instead of civil rights cases.

The articles gives a specific example of new strategy:

The division has also come under criticism from the courts and some Democrats for its decision in August to approve a Georgia program requiring voters to present government-issued identification cards at the polls. The program was halted by an appellate court panel and a district court judge, who likened it to a poll tax from the Jim Crow era.

If you are perhaps wondering what is wrong about requiring identification cards to vote, consider that the cards cost $20 and have to be renewed. Even given a provision for the indigent, do you really believe people too poor to own a car, will have the time, transportation, or foresight to do this?

The article notes the basic problem:

To Roger Clegg, the situation is also perfectly understandable. A former civil rights deputy in the Reagan administration who is now general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, Clegg said the civil rights area tends to attract activist liberal lawyers who are philosophically opposed to a more conservative approach.

"If the career people are not reflecting the policy priorities of the political appointees, then there's a problem," Clegg said. "Elections have consequences in a democracy."

Well, yes, but the excesses of majority rule (or the majority of those who actually vote) are the very reason for the Bill of Rights. Extermination of whole groups of people can be democratic if that's the will of the majority. Unchecked democracy can be just as dangerous as dictatorship. That is why if the Supreme Court does not display the will of the majority, it's just doing its job.