The American Civil Liberties Union did the Obama Justice Department's bidding in challenging Arizona's law cracking down on illegal immigrants. Now, Judicial Watch is fighting to determine whether Justice and the ACLU also are in cahoots on an ACLU lawsuit seeking to keep Pennsylvania's voter ID law from taking effect before November's election.
Because Justice hasn't complied with its Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch is suing to obtain all records of Justice-ACLU communications related to the voter ID law between May 1, 2011, and March 30, 2012.
It's hardly surprising that Justice is stonewalling Judicial Watch, which previously obtained documents showing Justice and the ACLU collaborated (colluded?) on the Arizona matter. Similarly damning documents regarding Pennsylvania's voter ID law -- which Democrats cynically claim would disenfranchise likely Obama voters -- would further confirm Justice's twisting of voting laws for political gain.
"It is becoming difficult to determine where activist groups such as the ACLU begin and the Obama Justice Department ends," says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
The records for which Judicial Watch is suing should clarify just how blurry that distinction has reprehensibly become.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.