« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
You can always count on lawyers to produce the most precise non-denial denials.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the Justice Department had decided to return control of the hiring process to career lawyers in the department. Why? Because, a spokesman explained, after four years of political appointees having control of the process, those in charge have finally realized that there's something of an appearance problem.
But the department was quick to deny that politics had had anything to do with who has been hired over the past four years. No, sir. And here comes that finely parsed denial:
"The Justice Department does not, nor has it ever, solicited any information from applicants . . . about their political affiliation or orientation."
The key to that denial, you might have guessed, lies in that word, "solicit."
Here's how the hiring process went last year, according to a group of anonymous Justice Department employees who've complained to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees: all candidates selected for an interview had to be cleared by the deputy attorney general's office. The employees were shocked when they sent up a list of 600 names and got back a list of 400. They demanded a meeting with the deputy attorney general's chief of staff, Michael Elston, who coolly informed them that "inappropriate information about them on the Internet" had disqualified a number of applicants. So after the meeting, the employees searched online and found out what had been so inappropriate. Most of the disqualified applicants were Democrats.
When that story broke last week, the Justice Department had the same non-denial denial: ""the department does not solicit any information about applicants' political affiliations or orientation."
But that wasn't the allegation. As the higher-ups at the department know full well, it would be totally inappropriate for the Justice Department to ask an applicant for his/her political affiliation. So they didn't. Instead, a small group of people in the deputy attorney general's office googled every applicant to find the information they'd been unable to solicit.
Very clever, huh?
Now, sometimes there was no need to go to the trouble of all that internet research. There's evidence that there have been other methods of ascertaining whether an applicant was suited to work in Bush's Justice Department -- like recruiting through the Republican National Lawyers Association or simply asking around to see whether the applicant has the right stuff.
But here's the real question. John Ashcroft put political appointees in charge of the hiring process in 2002. And for four years the department has been pumped full of Federalist Society members, so that in some departments (e.g. the Civil Rights Division), the career staff are indistinguishable from the political appointees. With Congress bearing down, the leadership in the Justice Department has finally decided to relinquish control of the hiring. But perhaps that decision is made easier because the mission has already been accomplished?
Comments (64)
John Emerson wrote on April 30, 2007 9:34 AM:When a Democratic President takes over, the Republican spokesmen will start talking about Democratic attempts to politicize the Department of Justice. "When Gonzalez fired people for supposedly political reasons, the Democrats screamed. But now the Democrats are trying to do the same thing!"
Hopefully the Democrat will have the brass to get the job done, and the smarts to present what they're doing in an effective way by showcasing the most incompetent and crooked Bush appointees.
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on April 30, 2007 9:40 AM:Yes.Next subject.Do we have to ask if it has been messed with yet?
TheraP wrote on April 30, 2007 9:42 AM:Can we just see how bad?And how long will it take to recover?IF it isn't ruined.
When the Dems get in, I envision the conservatives (will they still be able to call themselves Repubs?) insisting that equal opportunity be given to all law schools. In other words, if fewer Regent grads get in, that will be complained about - as discrimination.
skaren wrote on April 30, 2007 9:44 AM:Yes as I said in an earlier post, my worry is this will now become standard operating proceedure of both parties.
The Republicans started yet another war in government and it will likely continue when Dems regain control.
How can it not ?
mkultra wrote on April 30, 2007 9:46 AM:DOJ is a joke . . . criminals run the "justice" department now with "prosecutors", who have never tried a case by the way, taking the fifth as to their criminal actions at DOJ . . . This started with Reagan and the first Bush and the DC Appellate Court that reversed the IranContra convictions of those traitors to our country and protected members of the Bush Crime Family from a real prosecutor, a Republican, who was handling that case . . . people who don't realize a criminal organization has taken over the United States Government, including "intelligence" and "law enforcement", since at least JFK's murder and probably well beyond are in denial or stupid . . . same with the "mainstream media" - - mountains of drug cash laundered to buy media outlets and then to control political thought, the "news" is nothing more than propaganda and "entertainment" these days . . . it won't end well . . .
Ron Byers wrote on April 30, 2007 9:49 AM:I don't think I would panic just yet. Many of the Republican permanent hires were young people just out of law school. They will weed themselves out. Many will simply be absorbed into the culture at Justice. Many will leave if a Democrat is elected.
The key to cleaning up the mess created by the Republicans will be recreating a justice department culture that believes its duty is to defend the constitution and to enforce the laws evenhandedly. I think that is possible. It was last done in the early 1930s by a succession of Republican and Democratic administrations. It will require real leadership from the top. It can be done.
bryan wrote on April 30, 2007 9:50 AM:Wasn't "travelgate" all about an accusation that the Clinton's had fired some office staffers in the travel office for "political reasons." Weren't the Reeps out of their minds about that for 6 years, spending millions investigating the firings.
What the DOJ is doing is so much worse than what Clinton was accused of and is likely illegal on several levels. 1. Political affiliation is a 'protected class' of sorts for federal hirings -- it cannot be considered in the determination. 2. the people who get the jobs as USAtt. take an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the US; but abiding by this oath could get them fired (see David Iglesias.) they are expected to file trumped up charges on Dems -- and the message to the underlings is made clear because many of them have had their mentors replaced recently. Bush has created a Toxic atmoshpere at the US att. offices that will only be overcome by re-vetting the applicants.
Anonymous wrote on April 30, 2007 9:51 AM:Any idea if previous administrations have done the same things?
Citizen 92 wrote on April 30, 2007 9:53 AM:http://OsiSpeaks.com or htp://OsiSpeaks.org
DOJ "Googling" for inciminating info?
Sounds to me a lot like OPPOSITION RESEARCH which Monica Goodling was employed to do prior to 2001 -- when she worked for embattled US Attorney Tim Griffin in the RNC's OPPO shop.
I think there's still more here. We need to know who the "small group" was.
DallasNE wrote on April 30, 2007 9:55 AM:Oh, the Republicans were soliciting allright. Just ask Tobias.
paul wrote on April 30, 2007 9:56 AM:This should get us looking forward to 2012 and 2016. The "career" infiltrators at DoJ can almost certainly hunker down and survive four years of honest administration.
markg8 wrote on April 30, 2007 10:01 AM:Translation: "Of course we didn't ask. We didn't have to, we already know who the loyal Bushies are."
tbhull wrote on April 30, 2007 10:02 AM:Please quit whining. This is God's way. God is a republican.
Jason Shapiro wrote on April 30, 2007 10:13 AM:This is not just about DOJ. EVRY SINGLE federal agency is now full of marginally-qualified kool-aid drinking moles who will continue to bedevil the process of government for years. See, the nasty little secret is that Bush and his cronies DO NOT believe in democratic government and they have and will continue to do everything in their power to subvert and destroy it. A government-wide Democratic purge after 2008? You betcha!
TheraP wrote on April 30, 2007 10:13 AM:tbhull:
If god is as republican, then maybe god will want the party to change its name.
Maybe to: "The Way."
liz wrote on April 30, 2007 10:14 AM:What everyone should try to understand is this is affecting the lives of many Americans on a daily basis. I have been lied to by so many Government lawyers and Judges it is truly unbelievable. I intend to open a new front on the civil rights dimension of AbuGonzales little sweat shop.
TheraP wrote on April 30, 2007 10:24 AM:Jason Shapiro @ 10:13:
For more mayhem caused by this crew, see today's NY Times op-ed, which details how the Office of the Controller of the Currency (who knew?) has "exempted subsidiaries of national banks from regulation by state banking authorities," enabling all sorts of mayhem, which the Supreme Court (are we surprised?) has "upheld."
The network of criminality within this administration is beyond belief! Daily we learn more.
If I've done this correctly, you can click my name for the url. (or check the Times site for "Who's watching your money?"
opmkbrd wrote on April 30, 2007 10:26 AM:Government by the criminals, for the criminals . . .
Rob Coogan wrote on April 30, 2007 10:27 AM:Please let's make a listing of Regent Univ grads in the Bush admin. The spotlight on this crowd should be established intensified now, since we know from experience that committed far-rightists don't just disappear. With a big W on their résumés (proximity to power is never shameful in a delusional culture) their careers will be well worth tracking (from a news POV). Same can be said of all those US attorneys who WEREN'T fired.
Buck Batard wrote on April 30, 2007 10:28 AM:Well, Google is one company that does keep records.
All those searches are discoverable.
We just need IP addresses from the computers or block of computers used.
Citizen 92 wrote on April 30, 2007 10:29 AM:One more time -
There solid evidence now that final point of signoff for all career hires at DOJ (and many other agencies) now rests with the Bush political appointees instead of the career executives. This is a major departure from past practice. Prior to Bush, the axiom was that career staff would choose the most qualified career staff - since careerists serve regardless of whatever President is in office.
Once someone serves in a politically appointed position for a period of time, he/she becomes elegible to receive hiring preferences in the federal civil service. This is known as the Ramspect provision or, informally, "burrowing in." Effectively, this provision gives these job seekers preference over the general public competing for these jobs. Other preferences that figure in is Veterans' status, disabled status, or prior career government service. On Ramspect, Congress used to ask GAO to report on these "non-competative appointments" all the time, especially under Clinton. Schedule C political appointees become elegible for the preference after, I belive, 1 year. White House staffers have tougher requirements - I think it's 3 years.
Now we know the Bush Administration has moved the hiring decisionmaking for career jobs away from career staff and now require political appointees' final signoff, it becomes more sinister.
Only one report has been issued since Bush took office, and it is interesting. It appears as though there have been a lot of "burrowers in" early and consistently throughout the Bush Administration (usually they come at the end of an Administration when appointees would otherwise be out of a job).
Here's the GAO report:
Rob Coogan wrote on April 30, 2007 10:29 AM:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06381.pdf
(continued)
Please let's make a listing of Regent Univ grads in the Bush admin. The spotlight on this crowd should be established and intensified now, since we know from experience that committed far-rightists don't just disappear, no matter how damning the scandal. With a big W on their résumés (proximity to power is never shameful in a delusional culture) their careers will be well worth tracking. Same can be said of all those US attorneys who WEREN'T fired. (Let's just say Scott J. Block is a random sample.)
Citizen 92 wrote on April 30, 2007 10:30 AM:(continued)
It's necessary to get in the weeds and look at the individual conversions. And there are a lot at DOJ - in my mind particularly suspect are the ones from US Attorney (a political position) to Assistant US Attorney (a career position, and most definitely a step down). Why would a US Attorney want to become an AUSA? Usually the USA slots are stepping stones to bigger things.
Also ask you to consider the case of Gary Malphrus. He was a young White House policy aide who used his preference and became a career immigration judge, doubling his salary. He had no immigration experience. And, as the GAO report says, they found it impossible to determine if his hiring was proper. With political appointees signing off on career hires, you really have to wonder.
Bush appointee job:
Associate Director
Domestic Policy Council
The White House
3 U.S.C. 105
AD-0301-00/00
salary per year -- $61,000
end of job term -- 01/21/2009
After the obscure preference appointment:
Immigration Judge
Executive Office for
Immigration Review
IJ-0905-00/01
salary per year -- $113,904
end of job term -- never; it's a career job
Here's a law.com article on Gary and his appointment: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1150794314407
Interestingly, he was also part of the so-called "Brooks Brothers riot" in Florida in 2000:
Phill wrote on April 30, 2007 10:30 AM:http://www.democrats.com/joel-kaplan
It is easier than people seem to think, just classify the Republican staff as political appointees.
They could be given the option of re-applying for a non-political position and put through the normal civil service recruitment procedure.
But a person appinted through a political process is a political appointee and has no right to tenure beyond the office of their patron regardless of how their position is classified.
It probably isn't a major problem in any case, the Republicans are not that likely to stay around in a Democratic administration. They can make more than twice as much in private practice.
tsackton wrote on April 30, 2007 10:42 AM:I think we are going to need something like a truth and reconciliation commission -- to interview all the suspect civll service appointees, and to investigate instances where improper hiring for political reasons occured. At that point, the person in question could resign or reapply. But the goal should be to correct the gross politicization of the Justice Dept, and that may mean kicking out the ideologues.
nofltwlt wrote on April 30, 2007 10:45 AM:All of the domestic wiretapping and surveillance could come back to haunt this zealots.
The oversight committee should subpoena google queries that emanated from DOJ IP addresses and determine if the applicants were googled by DOJ officials. As for illegal wiretaps and surveillance initiated by the GOP and Bush, be careful what you wish for.
Stuart Eugene Thiel wrote on April 30, 2007 10:45 AM:Economic theory suggests that it doesn't matter if an agency "solicits" political views. Job candidates, perceiving that Unitary-Executivarian political views will help them get the job, will disclose that fact anyway. Those who don't volunteer the information are presumptively liberals with pre-9/11 notions of civil liberties. But even they will eventually disclose their views.
Here's a simple model. You can't get away with lying. You either disclose, truthfully, or keep quiet. If you don't disclose, you're presumed to have politics that are roughly in the middle of the whole pool of non-disclosers.
The farther to the Right your politics, the greater advantage there is to disclosing that fact. But when those people do disclose, the average Rightiness of the non-disclosers falls. This makes it relatively more worthwhile for some of lukewarmish Rightiness to disclose that fact; their chances of getting the job aren't as good as if no one disclosed, but now coming clean is the best option. The average Rightiness of the remaining non-disclosers falls again. Some more on the Right disclose, the average among non-disclosers falls, more on the Right disclose, the average falls. . .
Eventually even your hard-core Socialists are disclosing their politics. And the employer never solicited the information.
vox clamantis in red state wrote on April 30, 2007 10:48 AM:Is there anything less accomplished in this administration than any of its missions?
Citizen 92 wrote on April 30, 2007 10:53 AM:"...The oversight committee should subpoena google queries that emanated from DOJ IP addresses and determine if the applicants were googled by DOJ officials..."
It's bigger than that.
Voter rolls and political registrations are public records. The RNC's "Voter Vault" database has all of this information. Anyone with access to "Voter Vault" would have access to finding anyone's political party registration. A ex-RNC oppo researcher like Monica Goodling would certainly be faimilar with "Voter Vault."
Remember, DOJ politicals would see resumes. And resumes have home addresses. It's really simple. They might have even done some bonus "caging" had applicants' addresses not corresponded with their voter registrations.
Stephen Johnson wrote on April 30, 2007 10:54 AM:There is a difference between firing political appointees and career employees. Now that the GOB has imbedded its moles into the career positions it will be difficult or impossible to just dismiss them. Then when the Republicans win again, they start a new round. How will they be weeded out?? Maybe ask them, "are you now or have you ever been a Republican"?
Legalize wrote on April 30, 2007 10:54 AM:They didn't have to "solicit" these folks; all one has to do is make it known that potential hirees should be good, Bible-thumping loons from fake law schools. That eliminates a hell of a lot of applicants right from the giddy-up, thereby permitting the "good" applicants to sift right to the bottom.
EH wrote on April 30, 2007 11:00 AM:"When a Democratic President takes over, the Republican spokesmen will start talking about Democratic attempts to politicize the Department of Justice."
This is why we're hearing all of this "Clinton did it, too!" rationale, because when the shoe is on the other foot and Democrats are getting criticized for something similar, saying "Bush did it, too!" will not carry much weight.
Lettuce wrote on April 30, 2007 11:04 AM:Yes as I said in an earlier post, my worry is this will now become standard operating proceedure of both parties.
The danger is in viewing that as another Ed Brayton-style "both sides do it" deal.
Returning the DoJ to balance, to non-partisan balance has to be the goal, but the goal can't be achieved in a vacuum, otherwise you end up with a situation analogous to the Clinton Administration where Democrats spend all their time sorting out wingnut messes only to removed from office after a period because people are tired of competence, which is boring, and the wingnuts get to run riot again.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 30, 2007 11:05 AM:We have got to dump the "politicize" conversation. This is about impeding Justice. This is about the destruction of the Commons. Justice has been given one eye - the incorrect one. This is about Feudal Corporatism. This is about Fascist Plutocracy.
Let's not play polite word games. That is the providence of the "Kidney in Bunk-port' Texasan' crew.
steambomb wrote on April 30, 2007 11:07 AM:Bullshit. There is proof of politicization and proof of obstruction of justice. It is getting close to time for a grand jury or two.
Alice Weiss wrote on April 30, 2007 11:07 AM:Well we do need a plan. But the structure is there. The mission of the special litigation division and the civil rights division is to enforce the various civil rights laws that have been passed since the war (that would be the one that ended in 1865). Those laws are still on the books. Indeed, the voting rights laws that gave DOJ jurisdiction over the former slave states as well as New York City and I forget what else, because of the persistence of discrimination in those areas were, I believe, reenacted by one of the later Bush Congresses but I could be wrong and I don't think they are changed very much. The directors of the various departments in the agency are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Some of you may be old enough to remember Lani Guinier's appointment to head civil rights and then the Republicans opposing her because she had written a book advocating proportional voting and Clinton caved. Those deputy guys are very important and they get to reorganize their departments each election. I expect that what will happen when people like Rogers try out their attempts to block enforcement they will simply be ignored. The DOJ is deeply short on employees right now. As I see it hundred of young law graduates will come in excited to re=establish the missions of DOJ.
Lindsay wrote on April 30, 2007 11:15 AM:I wonder if you checked the web history cache for those DOJ employees in charge of vetting applicants if you wouldn't also find quite a few FEC or opensecrets.org web searches for campaign donations ... all "public info" you know, nothing untoward about doing that kind of background check, right?
Kurt wrote on April 30, 2007 11:27 AM:Don't forget that most of the applicants' political leanings will be evident from their resumes - College Republican groups, churches attended, work for particular firms, judges or think tanks, etc. It's not too hard to take a quick look at a c.v. and know a lot about where a person stands...
Mrs. Linder-Phx.AZ wrote on April 30, 2007 11:42 AM:Those inexperienced Pat Robertson University lawyers, bottom of ratings university, may be young but their parents contributed huge amounts of money to the Bush campaign, and cronie Robertson delivered the jesus vote.
All Rove had to do was to look at the contribution list and pick out dumb Robertson University lawyers. What a bunch of jesus crooks.
bordersmuggler wrote on April 30, 2007 11:43 AM:There is a far simpler method of purging rogues from Justice: prosecute the proven offenses to the full extent of the law. Following the inditements, convictions, and sentences of the more visible members of the Bush Crime Family, the remaining kapos will scurry like rats from a sinking ship.
George E. Lowe wrote on April 30, 2007 11:46 AM:Hi, I have often wondered WHY the GREAT ANTHRAX SCARE/SCANDAL of OCT. 2001 has never been exposed? Did it have something to do with the passage of THE FIRST PATRIOT ACT? Perhaps? However,I think it just may have been a NEO-CON "BLACK BAG" JOB/ OPERATION. They wanted to blame "ANTHRAX TERROR" on Saddam Husein & thus they could justify an early 2002 attack on Iraq using the Congressional Authorization of 15 Sept. 2001.
Tom Wright wrote on April 30, 2007 11:51 AM:What is DOJ hiding for the Bush Adm & the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle-Chalabi KABAL? Why don't the House Democrats expose those "ANTHRAX CONSPIRATORS?" Curious George in Stuart, FL. George E. Lowe
This couples nicely with epluribusmedia's analysis of prosecutions brought by DOJ against allegedly corrupt local officials. Apparently Democratic officials were represented in numbers seven times greater than Republicans. Link below.
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/Table%203%20Only%20Local%20Investigated.pdf
We can conclude Democrats are seven time more likely to be corrupt. But recent appeals reversals suggest the alternative--transparent political manipulation of legal action.
As to lingering political cronies that are not particularly competent, appointed officials can ask for ccoperation from staff and fire them if it is lacking. The worse problem is competent professionals being sidelined by political appointees, who force an agency to act counter to its imperatives. (As now.)
Elisabet wrote on April 30, 2007 12:07 PM:"Don't forget that most of the applicants' political leanings will be evident from their resumes - College Republican groups, churches attended, work for particular firms, judges or think tanks, etc. It's not too hard to take a quick look at a c.v. and know a lot about where a person stands..."
...and just to make sure, ask the interviewee to name the recent Supreme Court decision with which he most disagrees. Right answer: Lawrence v. Texas, according to the account of one successful Regent alumnus. It seems he never had any interview - or any contact at all - with career employees until his first day of work.
Link to the Regent alumni newsletter by clicking on my name below - yuck! But that is the easiest way to make a clickable link here. Look for the DOJ Civil division profile.
crazyman in NYC wrote on April 30, 2007 12:27 PM:The thing needed now is to rustle some feathers.
What should be done is a request should be placed for plans to cleanse the federalist society members from the justice department.
Originally I was thinking of something that would just make the justice department reflect America but I realized that it is not enough. The goal of the federalist society is so drastic that we should be having a de-bathification in America but instead it should be a de-federalistion of the judiciary.
MAL in Madison wrote on April 30, 2007 12:39 PM:Similar to US Atty Biskupic's (the Eastern District of Wisconsin) denial about his name being on the chop list:
"Until the recent controversy surrounding the firings ... it was never communicated to me that my job could be in jeopardy ... ," said Biskupic in a statement.
Never communicated? Just maybe he was able to infer something about the realpolitik of the DoJ under Bush. Just maybe.
Precise denial is the same horseshite.
trank wrote on April 30, 2007 12:42 PM:it's worse than that.
they've developed a sensor that can be used to choose those with the highest levels of sex on the wrong brain and certainty addiction- no interviews needed.
X wrote on April 30, 2007 12:47 PM:All persons hired in DOJ (and all over the Federal government) between Jan 20, 2001 and Jan 20, 2009 should be fired on Jan 21, 2009 and forced to reapply.
Republican moles cannot be tolerated.
mbbsdphil wrote on April 30, 2007 12:53 PM:As other commentators have pointed out, this hiring/purge campaign is not limited to lawyers and not limited to the Justice Department. It is government wide. From the Consumer Products Safety Commission and FCC to the Defense Department.
The changing face of the Washington bureaucracy, a prime goal of Dick Cheney, will have enormous consequences unless a new administration and Congress tackle the problem head on.
Not doing so will make permanent the Orwellian changes Mr. Cheney's program has already wrought. How would future politicians know there are problems to fix if their bureaucracy refuses to tell them the obvious ones exist?
H8Generation wrote on April 30, 2007 12:58 PM:A simple question to be asked, "How many democrats have you hired since 1/20/01
Primordial Ooze wrote on April 30, 2007 1:01 PM:Posted by: TheraP
Date: April 30, 2007 10:13 AM
>If god is as republican, then maybe god
>will want the party to change its name.
>Maybe to: "The Way."
I always thought "The Base" was more fitting given their inclination for religious law and world domination, not to mention their level of support...
Kim McCall wrote on April 30, 2007 1:09 PM:Back on the carefully-phrased non-denial denial front, candidate screeners DID "solicit information . . . about [candidates'] political affiliation or orientation," just not "from applicants." Instead, it was solicited from those who recommended them, etc. We've got testimony to that effect from disgruntled DOJ employees who were asked about the affiliation and zealousness of people they recommended.
mbbsdphil wrote on April 30, 2007 1:16 PM:Remaking the federal bureaucracy after Cheney's purge will be an enormous undertaking. Career hires WILL stay into the next administration and beyond. Those more talented and ambitious were already appointed to political slots. Career hires in most agencies have union protections.
To avoid predictable charges that the Dems are just as bad as the Rethuglicans, agencies will have to learn how to do and document proper performance evaluations, including instituting new elements, such as peer reviews, etc.
Political appointees will need to be crystal clear about priorities. They will have to spend a lot more time managing, since they should be completely unsure whether and who will be supporting/obstructing them. We are, after all, talking about a bureaucracy of Chinese proportions.
They can start by rehiring the best who have left. They will provide leadership, rebuild their networks, and mentor junior staff who may have never worked for a professional team before, having worked only with the Schlozmans and Goodlings and Doans.
Most important of all, they will be able to rebuild the formal and informal policy review apparatus that was tops on the Cheney hit list - so that no one could derail secret policies devised in his inner circle.
Seems to me this is a massive effort that should be included in leading Democrats' campaign platforms.
marblex wrote on April 30, 2007 1:18 PM:when the dems take full control legislation needs to be passed (among many other items) to limit recovery by federal employees in employment suits.
Then the entire lot should be cleaned out.
Give em their settlement money and start over from scratch. It's not too late to entice competent career people back into goverment...but they must have a reason to believe that their positions have once again been de-politicized and de-theocracised.
BarnOwl wrote on April 30, 2007 1:37 PM:I'd like to see the next administration - preferably Democratic, of course - to reinstate Lam, Iglesias and all the other fired US Attorneys with excellent performance ratings.
It would be such a classy way to stifle the GOP from complaining about favoritism.
Jillian wrote on April 30, 2007 1:53 PM:This isn't very hard. Give them all an inpromptu little one sheet of paper exam with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment printed at the top. Then pose the question of attitude and principles toward it (e.g. "actually, the Bible knows best") and some specific examples of violations not prosecuted under the Bush Administration- and how they personally justify that non-action. And then have them sign at the bottom that this is their complete and true understanding, under penalty of perjury.
It's loyalty oath to the Constitution and within the Department. Fire those who misinterpret the plain language or make excuses not to follow the plain language. (As you perhaps know, hardcore Republicans are all for disenforcing, annulling, and repealing the 14th- the judicial doctrine is termed 'strict constructionism'.)
All the really clever ones will get through this screening, but it should really redflag every single one of them.
Austin Cooper wrote on April 30, 2007 1:59 PM:Nice.
Why lawyers are held in such low esteem is something attorneys generally don't seem to understand -- and statements like this are a good example.
Most people would agree that many situations are multi-layered and contain shades of grey -- about motivation, or sequencing, or where even the results of actions leave some doubt as to how and why they occured.
But, there are events which are cut-and-dried -- where experience or common sense tells us that to get four, 2+2 (or some version of it) *had* to come first.
In this case, if a list of 600 people is submitted, 200-some of which *may* be Democrats (or left tracks on the Web which show them as at least *leaning* to the Left), and of the 400 'acceptable candidates' which come back, 99% are Republican -- common sense tells you that politics played a part in the job selection process.
When attorneys -- particularly Rethug attorneys -- try to argue against common sense (what appears so clearly to be the truth or supported by evidence of similar activity elsewhere), it pisses people off. It insults our intelligence. It makes lawyers look even more like untrustworthy parsers of the truth, and Republicans generally don't get this at all.
But this is part of America's long-running adversarial game show, 'Justice' and that swell concurrent program, "It's All In The Spin". Attorneys paid to argue a client's position will do so, even where its clear they're lying through their expensively-capped teeth.
Anybody can do it. Here's my attempt:
"I think it's accepted that political pressures from all sides make themselves felt in official Washington; no one would argue the contrary. But the Department of Justice stands for just that -- justice, and the principles of fairness and impartiality this nation was founded upon.
"At the Justice Department, like any budgeted organization engaged in hiring and personnel matters, choices have to be made in finding the best-qualified candidates to fill positions. There will be people turned away, and we understand if there are those few who are vocal in their disappointment.
"Let us be clear: DoJ fully supports the law it is charged to uphold. We *never* inquire about the political affiliations or opinions of applicants. You won't find such questions on a form or asked in an interview, or asked of the references applicants provide. This is a McCarthy-era tactic -- and the Department of Justice is not above either basic, American fairness, or the law regarding non-discriminatory hiring."
Any lawyer I hear spewing anything which sounds like that will provide yet another proof that the word "lawyer" is synonymous with "paid shill" in the public mind.
Which is a shame. Literally.
Sharon A wrote on April 30, 2007 2:32 PM:Hint: Where is Bush's library going to be situated? What is the track record of its law school alumni?
Burrowing in, indeed.
I cannot remember where I heard or read this, but it was being reported a few years back that graduates of this "distinguished" law school had difficulties passing the state bar.
Perhaps that makes sense if the emphasis was no longer on case law and precedents -- being an anathema to Federalists borg mentality.
The Achilles' heel of all of these political appointees will be their own ignorance and incompetence. I'm afraid their Bush endorsements will become a Scarlet Letter on their CVs only temporarily.
Dedicated loyalists to this Federalist Society doctrine will replicate themselves and continue to be represented in our system in one form or another.
The tensions between competing ideals is a sign of strength, not weakness, in our national discussions, debates, and processes.
Bushies anointed one ideal as being god-sent and struck down its competitors.
That's the scene of the real crime against our nation -- their striking down legitimate processes of consensus building among free people.
It wasn't difficult to predict this behavior after watching the mainstream media essentially binding and gagging Al Gore before the "presidential debates." No matter what the man said, he would be painted in the most negative light while Bush was complimented on "looking presidential." That's how Bush "won" the debates -- he was looking very presidential.
Christians should really read their Bibles and quit following their lying dervishes. "Come let us reason together" is in there, the cornerstone of a free people cooperating with one another.
TheraP wrote on April 30, 2007 2:53 PM:Primordial Ooze - re renaming the republicans,
Your idea of "The Base" is a very good one. But would you consider "The Basement?" Or perhaps "Abasement?"
Once we have a new name for them, perhaps we might as well go on and suggest a platform as well.
Word is "waste." Somehow this fits.
bjobotts wrote on April 30, 2007 4:20 PM:That's exactly right...mission already accomplished. The DoJ has not been cooperative with any inquiry from anyone and now the throw this out there as if to say "see, we are being fair" when in fact the damage has been done. I wish they would survey recent hires over the last 4yrs to see in fact how many are Democrats or related to anything anti-Bush.
Austin Cooper wrote on April 30, 2007 5:18 PM:Wake up America. Had it not been for the Democrats winning in the last election the GOP would have the election processed "fixed" by now by using 'voter fraud' as the means to purge voter rolls of Democratic voters. They have already found a way electronically to steal an election in many areas of the country and if the current House Resolution on voting (I think it's HR 811) the fix is in with 4 people (EAC) deciding any disputes...permanently.
Private corporations, with secret electronic equipment they will not let you check counting the vote...which experts have already hacked into(but oh, we 'corrected' that).The whole DoJ has been politicized, most just haven't been called upon to do their "part" yet. The DoJ needs an outside investigation into their practices over the last 4yrs. because this is such a serious situation which demands attention if we are to believe in our democracy again.
"Bushies anointed one ideal as being god-sent and struck down its competitors."
Sharon A
This may not look like any great revelation, but I think you're on to something.
With this crowd, a fundimentalist religious litmus test has been paramount. There are so few places, publicly (aside from coded references in speeches or press conferences), where the Bushites could deliver to them -- but if they're being hired into government positions by persons with orders to pander to that part of the base...
This isn't an argument that people with religious views shouldn't be allowed, or retained, in public service. But DoJ appointees like Goodling, or Paulose, are something else, something other -- people for whom a line between state and religion is a fiction; or, between the State and their peculiar blend of religion interpretation, which includes a venemous dislike of both persons and groups that comprise an opposition political party.
One-party rule, the rule of god(with a small 'g')'s party, is their aim -- because the rest of The People are just hellbound tools of satan, anyway. And the Righteous, like Goodling or Paulose, don't work for us. They work for a bright, apocalyptic future.
And so do the others like them who have been brought into the federal government with the same agenda. How do we deal with that?
god (with a small 'g')-sent ideal, indeed.
Code = wood, as in ---shed)
shipwreckedcrew wrote on April 30, 2007 6:10 PM:So, I guess its just completely unacceptable for conservatives to be career staffers at DOJ?
What have I been thinking for the last 15 years?
I better get my membership in order at the ACLU and immediately resign from the Fed.Society.
Imagine -- conservatives in a conservative administration trying to hire more conservatives.
What a scandal.
bcg wrote on April 30, 2007 6:40 PM:"...here's the real question. John Ashcroft put political appointees in charge of the hiring process in 2002. And for four years the department has been pumped full of Federalist Society members, so that in some departments ... the career staff are indistinguishable from the political appointees. With Congress bearing down, the leadership in the Justice Department has finally decided to relinquish control of the hiring. But perhaps that decision is made easier because the mission has already been accomplished?"
It may not be that all of the positions among the career staff that they'd like filled with "loyal Bushies" are so occupied. It may also be that just the "key" staff positions are all occupied by people with the desired outlook. In this case, the "key" positions would be those that would allow the process that was begun by political appointees to continue under the guise of business as usual. That would mean that the career staffers who are now charged with hiring are people whose political credentials and commitment have been vetted. They, now, will only hire those of a similar background (say, Regents U. grads, Federalist Society Members and others of a similar ilk.) In this way, the machine could still run towards its destination without the appearance of political interference.
I'd suppose that this is a theory that it'd be possible to check by looking into the background of those DoJ officials who've now received the renewed careerists' power to hire and fire.
pre AmeriKKKan wrote on April 30, 2007 7:22 PM:conservatives not caring that the sheriff is owned by the rich guy, no surprise there.
when '08 is over, it's a clean slate and senate confirmation.
the real problem is supreme court and other judgeships. those guys are rife with partisan hacks.
AlanDownunder wrote on May 1, 2007 4:55 AM:Before the 2009-13 Democratic Presidency, Congress needs to pass a Commissariat Elimination Act. Whether Bush vetos it is neither here nor there - the point will have been made and the bill can receive assent in 2009.
All Bush hires not terminable upon inauguration, like USAs, in accordance with established procedure would be subject to a retrospective review of their appointment. This would at least get rid of the objectively grossly underqualified, such as the likes of Goodling, Sampson, Paulose & Griffin within DoJ, as well as any Deutsch clones in other Departments.
Each hire should then be subject to performance review. Groundless prosecutions in aid of political schemes would be cause for firing. Then there should be provision for panels comprising qualified career employees only to adjudge whether fellow-employees given tenure by Bush can be reasonably terminated for performance that is more commissarial than professional.
There should also be a provision for priority re-hirings of career officers who resigned or were fired due to interference or frustration by Bush's commissars.
Further provisions should place hirings in the hands of qualified career professionals only in order to forswear and prevent any hint of the emergence of a Democratic commissariat. This may entail little more than restoration and entrenchment of long-established practises and safeguards abandoned by the Bush administration.
By all means allow for judicial review of terminations of alleged commissars on grounds that they weren't really commissars. Let subpoenas and discovery air the dirty linen either way. Let the career officers make their cases or fail if they overreach.
Nothing short of this kind of measure, and more, will come near destroying this malign infestation of the administration.
code word: every - as in every last commissar