In toto, [the following examples] paint a picture of a biased, rogue and often lawless administration.

Tweet

A plethora of recent news items show that the Obama administration’s various legal teams continue to lose cases, embarrass themselves in court, exacerbate racial tensions and trample repeatedly on basic, traditional standards of justice.

Each of the following examples probably merits extensive individual treatment which space does not immediately permit – but, in toto, they paint a picture of a biased, rogue and often lawless administration.

Item One: Perhaps most disturbing was the discovery on a Facebook page of a key Justice Department official insulting the entire state of Mississippi – a state whose new voter-ID law will be subject to review by that same official – by suggesting that the state’s motto should be “Disgusting and Shameful.”  Amazingly, and even more disturbingly, this same official already reportedly admitted, months ago, to perjuring herself on several key occasions – but she remains in her position not only without being prosecuted for the (alleged) perjury, but without any apparent sanction against her at all from her radical, Obama-appointed, political superiors at Justice.

And now Department officials can’t seem to make up their minds as to whether the official’s prejudiced comment was a purely private matter and thus beyond their purview or, on the contrary, defensible in its substance because of an (isolated) incident at a college basketball game.

Coming on the heels of a multiplicity of other examples of unethical behavior by administration favorites within the department, all without any sanctions (and sometimes with extra benefits) from superiors, this deliberate coddling of malefactors should flat-out frighten every American citizen.

Item Two: As evidence of vote fraud continues to pour in from across the nation, and as the evidence grows of wide-open potential for mind-boggling amounts of fraud this year, even the liberal U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals slapped down (in part) an administration legal brief arguing that Arizona has no authority to require voter identification at the polls. Despite the administration’s arguments to the contrary, the court insisted that voter identification is a reasonable means of ensuring “the state’s legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters.”

Indeed, most Americans would find it odd, and disturbing, to know that the Justice Department seems to reject that interest entirely.

Item Three: Even as ABC News both local and national provides multiple new reasons to believe key parts of the story of George Zimmerman in the now-famous Trayvon Martin case, the Feds move ever closer to charging Zimmerman with a “hate crime.” (Never mind that the very concept of enhanced penalties for “hate crimes” is itself morally objectionable.)  Still not a word, however, comes from Justice in response to flagrantly criminal bounties placed on Zimmerman’s head by the New Black Panther Party.

Item Four: Three members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights quite appropriately protested new guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that would seriously discourage private businesses’ use of criminal background checks to decide whether to hire potential new employees. The new regulations quite obviously hamstring an employers’ ability to provide safe workplaces and to protect the security of confidential information. For that reason alone, the rules are an abomination. Yet, as the civil rights commissioners note, the rules could do even more harm than that: They could have the opposite effect from their intent, by actually discouraging rather than enabling the hiring of otherwise qualified minorities.

This is somewhat akin to what happened when the Justice Department overruled the black majority of Kinston, N.C., by overriding a referendum through which that black majority hoped to enact a nonpartisan system for local elections. The Obamites at Justice effectively told those black citizens that they didn’t know their own interests, which could not be well served unless they could identify and vote for candidates publicly identified as Democrats. After two years of this nonsense, the Justice Department backed down in February – tacitly being forced to accept what it has yet to understand in the EEOC case, which is that heavy-handed attempts to help black citizens can actually harm those citizens, while so grossly violating established legal principles that courts are sure eventually to overturn the Obamites’ positions.

Conclusion: All of these developments come on top of two fiascoes in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, one on ObamaCare and the other on an Arizona immigration law, in which even liberal commentators concluded that the administration’s oral arguments were embarrassingly weak. While the high court of course has not yet ratified the commentators’ judgments, the expected decisions would extend a long string of legal losses for the Obama team. As well it should, because this is an administration with utterly perverse notions of what constitutes both law and justice.