New? So what does that make the admission of the little bibleschool lawyer who took the 5th but not before she admitted breaking the law in Justice hiring practices?

I for one am shocked that the Bushling Admin would put idealogical cronies in what was supposed to be non-partisan positions.

a new report found Tuesday.

Posted by Roy_Batty

Brilliant... we're done for if we believe this is "new" news.

So what does that make the admission of the little bibleschool lawyer who took the 5th but not before she admitted breaking the law in Justice hiring practices?

Posted by oldwhiskeysour

That was sublime... she spoke about having taken an oath of loyalty to the president... a LAWYER said that.

In this case Bush did nothing wrong.

Every single President has filled the Justice Dept. with attorneys he feels fit in best with his own party's ideologies and goals. If Bush wanted to, he could legally fire all the federal U.S. Attorneys in the Justice Dept. at any time. Clinton cleaned house and brought in all new U.S. attorneys when he was elected. Bush did the same and so will all the Presidents who come after him. This is a non-story.

it is a story, CC.

Every president does fire them. But not in the middle of a 2nd term. And not for the sole reason that they refused to go after the opposition party only.

Alberto Gonzales' testimony on the subject should be cause for alarm all by itself.

"In this case Bush did nothing wrong."

You're joking, right? The Department of Justice has three admitted lies still on the table:

The USAs were fired because of incompetence...no, wait, they were fired because...

We don't know who compiled that list.

We don't know why that list was compiled.

What kind of American doesn't demand the truth from The Department of Justice, for God's sake?!?

What kind of American doesn't demand the truth from The Department of Justice, for God's sake?!?

Posted by Danforth

The average American, I guess.

more rethug corruption.

Come on, guys, you just CAN'T have federal lawyers who care about the law. herm

It was a snark-free workplace.

a LAWYER said that.

And we all know lawyers never lie.

In this case Bush did nothing wrong.

Every single President has filled the Justice Dept. with attorneys he feels fit in best with his own party's ideologies and goals. If Bush wanted to, he could legally fire all the federal U.S. Attorneys in the Justice Dept. at any time. Clinton cleaned house and brought in all new U.S. attorneys when he was elected. Bush did the same and so will all the Presidents who come after him. This is a non-story.

Posted by CalifChris

HUH? Did you bother to read the story? This was about HIRING, not firing, and it certainly IS illegal to discriminate on the basis of ideology.

Pays to read the fine print.

Ecxcuse me??

This is NOT about the USAs.

This isn't about political appointees.

In this case Bush did nothing wrong.

Only because it was his appointees and who they hired that BROKE civil service law and not him directly!

People were excluded for working for organizations that helped abused spouses, (deemed a "liberal" idea), fer chrissakes!

"I'm shocked there's gambling going on here!"--

As the police chief is given his winnings....

Clinton did the same thing...

Bush 1 did the same thing...

Reagan did the same thing....

Carter did the same thing....

Blah blah blah

So for Obama--if elected--he would never dream of hiring only like minded folks in his administration?

Riiiiiight!

Name any conservative folks hired under Clinton--name just one!

Clinton did the same thing...
Bush 1 did the same thing...
Reagan did the same thing....
Carter did the same thing....

No, they didn't. You join the "I didn't bother to read or find out a thing before posting" club.

Chris:
"Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.
The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department's inspector general,"

What part of "illegally" isn't in your vocabulary?

Murphy-when did the DOJ accuse Clinton of illegally appointing people? Name just one! Better yet-just give us a list of everybody hired or appointed under Clinton and we'll see who is who, okay.

"Clinton did the same thing...

No, they didn't

...restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale.

Sounds like at least one (Clinton) of them did.

Should be italicized above as:

No, they didn't

And blockquoted

...restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale.

(note to self: do not attempt to use tags before second cup of coffeee)

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley characterized the findings in the report as "the Bush administration's attempt to make the Justice Department into kind of a goon squad for the Republican Party."

Turley noted with a smile that "it's ironic. ... The Bush administration has lost so many terrorism cases -- maybe this is the reason. You don't get a very good government when you have political commissars selecting people not because they've achieved something, but because they toe a party line."

Selecting people not because they've achieved something, but because they toe a party line... where have we heard that before? Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, Mike Brown...

LOL. Good for Bush. Many corporations use your political afiliation to determine who will be downsized.

We need to purge the poyroll of liberals.

(note to self: do not attempt to use tags before second cup of coffeee)

Posted by goatman

lol... note to goatman: I think one cup is more than enough for you since your problem is clearly a hair-trigger finger over the publish button.

Simply Amazing that these fuck on the Right will try an spin anything, as long as this Administration an there precious Republician Party, isn't held responsible for anything.

These were not U.S. Attorneys, serving these were rank an file Attorneys that worked for the Justice Department, most of them were recent qraduates from the best Law Schools in the United States.

This Bush Administration has taken the best, most competant of all of the agencies in the Federal Government an POLITICIZED it, THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!! Where the Fuck is Congress!!!!!! If we would have had a Republician Congress an a Democrat Administration did this there would be hearings YESTERDAY!!!! Polosi WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!! USELESS BITCH!!!!!

I think one cup is more than enough for you since your problem is clearly a hair-trigger finger over the publish button.

Actually, I believe you are correct. I need to slow down, smell the roses, and proofread.

Clinton cleaned house and brought in all new U.S. attorneys when he was elected. Bush did the same and so will all the Presidents who come after him. This is a non-story.

Posted by CalifChris

Sorry Chris, wrong again.

Presidents typically appoint new AG's throughout the land but not U.S. attorneys. The Attorney General is a political appointment, but U.S. attorney is a career, civil service position.

We need to purge the poyroll of liberals.

Posted by timbci

but Timbicile, who'll cut your welfare check?

And your buddies in corporate America are happily purging their payrolls of everybody, liberal, conservative...

Unless, of course, you're illegal. Then you're almost as good (cheap)as an off-shore worker.

what some officials saw as a liberal tilt

Hey, if that quote about "some officials" makes people read the article, good job! Please by all means post that as some kind of proof that things were tilted "left" under Clinton.

No proof of course. Nope. Just the same lying sacks of shit that were guilty of the illegal hiring covering their asses with the standard "blame Clinton" bullshit.

RTFA. It kills that point more so than any words I could post.

Celery, it sounds like it was going under Clinton, too. Do you have any capital letters and exclamation points saved for him, or did you use up your daily quota on your last post?

As for this story, it only makes sense. the Department of Justice is about J-U-S-T-I-C-E. Anybody who is obviously a leftist crank doesn't belive in justice, they believe in using the government's power to ideological ends: turning loose terrorists from luxurious Club Gitmo, for example, only because they don't like Bush

By choosing Conservative attorneys they have a much better chance of achieving true justice

No proof of course. Nope.

No proof it's not, either. But it was in the article and in fairness should be considered.

But I guess any citation that's open to interpretation is always interpreted to the benefit of the left. It seems in your eyes, Yav, to do otherwise is just plain wrong.

"Clinton cleaned house and brought in all new U.S. attorneys when he was elected. Bush did the same and so will all the Presidents who come after him. This is a non-story.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-06-25 01:27 AM"

Wrong, CC. I expected better from someone with a legal background.

I'll let CC speak for herself, but you are technically correct. The Clintons kept one or two -- it wasn't actually "all".

That's not what I meant, Goat. There is a difference between a wholesale housecleaning at the beginning of a term and a selective political housecleaning based on decisions made by the attorney.

"Clinton cleaned house...

Every new president begins with a changing of the guard. When Bush took over from Reagan an outstanding USA in St Louis was let go. But they don't just bump people out of office without some damn good reason.

By choosing Conservative attorneys they have a much better chance of achieving true justice

Sure, Monica Goodling is a case in point.

Goat - do you know how many attorneys Clinton rehired, if any, after he got rid of them all?

Goat - do you know how many attorneys Clinton rehired, if any, after he got rid of them all?

No, do you?

Clinton fired them all then kept one because of the urging of a senator. Then Clinton hand picked those he favored for the positions.

Whether at the beginning or in the middle of a term all presidents can hire and fire these attorneys even for their personal politics.

Bee Swell

Wrong, CrackPipe. If the attorney is fired because s/he was, for instance, about to indict a politican from the President's party, that is impermissible and a violation of federal law. But thanks for trying.

"No, do you?

Posted by goatman at 2008-06-25 04:22 PM"

No. I thought the way it worked was that the incoming President asked for all the attorneys resignations, and that they would just resign. But I figured the incoming President would then hire some number of them back again, but I've never heard anything about that.

Clinton fired them all then kept one because of the urging of a senator. Then Clinton hand picked those he favored for the positions.

And WTF does that have to do with this story?

But I guess any citation that's open to interpretation is always interpreted to the benefit of the left. It seems in your eyes, Yav, to do otherwise is just plain wrong.

Considering the findings of the investigation and the only defense was "eew, we felt the DOJ was too liberal, so we had to hire bottom feeders over Rhodes scholars and high ranking Law School students" I'd say *my* "liberal" interpretation is dead-nuts on.

Considering the findings of the investigation and the only defense was "eew, we felt the DOJ was too liberal, so we had to hire bottom feeders over Rhodes scholars and high ranking Law School students" I'd say *my* "liberal" interpretation is dead-nuts on.

Of course you'd say that. And from I read in the article, I'd say that there is a chance you are correct.

But I refuse to allow my judgement to be clouded by politics and think that this wasn't going on with Clinton, especially since it was suggested in the article that it was.

You read the article with your left eye, Yav, I'll read it with both and we'll come to our respective conclusions.

And please don't say you use both eyes. Re-read the last paragraph of your last post with its mocking quote and it's clear that you don't. To each his own.

Clinton did the same thing...
Bush 1 did the same thing...
Reagan did the same thing....
Carter did the same thing....

No, they didn't. You join the "I didn't bother to read or find out a thing before posting" club.

Posted by YAV

Can't go by poor, ignorant little murphy. Her husband doesn't grant her full access to the news.

"By choosing Conservative attorneys they have a much better chance of achieving true justice..." Vern, conservative lawyers belong inside that luxurious Club Gitmo over which you rant. Nothing like conservative lawyers to abuse laws to hurt people who care about people. herm

but I've never heard anything about that.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-06-25 04:36 PM | Reply

Thanks, Monty, for posting from a point of (admitted) ignorance.

Aren't there some tweakers waiting to trade a vial of crack for you to pretend you are a horse jockey?

"conservative lawyers belong inside that luxurious Club Gitmo"

I'd be happy to put all those fucking vampires in luxurious Club Gitmo.

This is such an old story. There is nothing confusing about it.
The Airbusto Gone Zonzo refused to testify as to who compiled the list.
Said he didnt know who or why those who were on it were on it.
Monica Goodling TOOK THE FIFTH then admitted that she had taken politics into account in hiring DOJ lawyers which was illegal and that she knew it was wrong, but she was a loyal Bushie, as opposed to say a loyal American. Bush over law and country. Kinda like Goat, Crackie et al.
So absolutly nobody made up the list or knew why the names were on the list. Now there is some steaming bull shit there!
They all know this was illegal, but as long as they pretend not to understand the violation they can squawk about Clinton.

Pretense is not debate. You tools know damn well W's crew subverted the DOJ and the law. You also know that the little bible school girl who took the fall was covering up for Rove, Gonzoles, and Bush.

But go ahead and pretend. You live in a pretend world by your own choosing.

Anyone who pretends that Bush's admnistration is the first to do this sort of thing is in as much naive denial as those who refuse to admit it is going on now.

But Goatman, there are currently three lies on the table from our Department of Justice. Why aren't you demanding the truth from the governmental folks charged with seeking the truth?!?

"GOATMAN".....All right you dumb Bastard lets try this again, President Clinton as have other Presidents before him removed all of the U.S Attorneys at the beginning of his term. These Attorneys in this case were not U.S Attorneys they were Lawyers hired by the Justice department to handle all of Justice departments cases.

These were everyday Lawyers just hired out of Law School, what about that don't you understand you fucking Idiot???????

U.S. Law doesn't allow for hiring based on Political beliefs, what about that you don't understand??? Fuck sake you are a PARTISIAN ASSHOLE without any redeming social value, FUCK OFF!!!!!!

"but I've never heard anything about that.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-06-25 04:36 PM"

"Thanks, Monty, for posting from a point of (admitted) ignorance.

Posted by vernon at 2008-06-25 06:06 PM"

You're welxcome, Vernon. It's too bad pencil-dicks like yourself are so insecure you won't even admit it when you are proven wrong, much less when you are talking out of your ancient dickhole. Tell us that story about $30/barrel oil again, Grandpa.

"But Goatman, there are currently three lies on the table from our Department of Justice. Why aren't you demanding the truth from the governmental folks charged with seeking the truth?!?

Posted by Danforth at 2008-06-25 06:35 PM"

Because the Department of Justice is currently in Republican hands. Just wait until Obama is elected, and he'll have plenty to say. Maybe we'll even get a few of those threads where he makes 50% of all the posts, ala BBob.

This is the same DOJ that had a 30-something lawyer with absolutely NO COURTROOM EXPERIENCE in the NUMBER THREE SPOT AT THE DOJ because she went to Pat Robertson's Law School (Regents).

The place is considered to be a fucking disgrace with many of it's graduates not even being able to pass the bar exam.

Since taking office, Bush has hired over 150 Regents graduates to govt positions, all based on the fact they went to a Christian law school (and an incredibly shitty one at that).

"Aren't there some tweakers waiting to trade a vial of crack for you to pretend you are a horse jockey?

Posted by vernon at 2008-06-25 06:06 PM"

There's our beloved old Vernie, raising the bar, elevating the discourse, as he yearns to do. (Well, not as much as he yearns to suck teenage boys in the Philipines, but yearns nonetheless.)

"Because the Department of Justice is currently in Republican hands"

Nah...it's more than that. It's the koolaid barometer. It separates the patriots from the partisans. What American doesn't want justice from their Department of Justice?!? Only the tinfoil brigade.

Name any conservative folks hired under Clinton--name just one!

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-25 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag

Only one? OK.....William Cohen.....A republican. He served as SecDef.

Equally disturbing to me is not that "liberal" attorneys were passed over for hiring, but that centrist candidates were also passed over. It's not simply that the candidate's ideology was somehow offensive, but that Republicans were packing the department with ideologues representing a small minority of American's views.

This can't help but have a corrosive effect on democracy. The potential for further abuse of power and illegal acts increases exponentially when merit and rule of law become secondary to political affiliation. Since this extends beyond political appointees to civil service employees, there is a clear area of illegality if proven.

No, they didn't

...restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale.

Sounds like at least one (Clinton) of them did.

Posted by goatman at 2008-06-25 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Heaven forbid they hire smart lawyers from elite schools! Too liberal! We need simpletons!

We need some religious nut jobs at the DOJ.....even if they have to take the Bar Exam more times than my Cousin Vinnie.

Anyone who pretends that Bush's admnistration is the first to do this sort of thing is in as much naive denial as those who refuse to admit it is going on now.

POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2008-06-25 06:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Perhaps you are right, however there is no evidence whatsoever to support that contention. If you find some, feel free. Post it. Otherwise the guilt of politicizing the DOJ at every level, including civil service positions, which by law are precluded from political culling, is a Bush 43 legacy.

Until then, the allegation that, in the guilty's opinion, the DOJ was too "liberal" is a thin hook to hang an argument.

And that is being generous.

Name any conservative folks hired under Clinton--name just one!

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-25 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag

Only one? OK.....William Cohen.....A republican. He served as SecDef.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2008-06-25 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

You beat me to it. He is exactly who came to mind when I read murphy's dumb assed question.

Does that woman know anything?

"Does that woman know anything?

Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-06-25 07:46 PM"

No.

Murphy...you laid down the gauntlet, and it was met: yes, Clinton DID hire a conservative.

What say you?

Warning!
PDF of the full report, all 151 pages:

DOJ Excluded Liberal Job Applicants

Good!
This shouldn't be against the law anyway! Libs should keep their mouths shut!!

Perhaps you are right, however there is no evidence whatsoever to support that contention.

The comment I from the article I cited upthread at 3:38 for one. Yes, you can (and did) argue that they are covering their asses, but without proof of that the staatement cannot be dismissed out of hand.

But if you refuse to believe it, you would probably disbelieve anything else that would support that argument. You don't want to hear anything that is contrary to what you "know". You surprise me, Yav. That's not normally like you.

FTA: It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

'Bout bloody time!

Karl Rove's plan to have a permanent republican majority (which Spud refers to as the "Turd Reich Scenario") was hinged upon stuffing the DOJ with underqualified, overly loyal, bibleschool lawyer types like Monigoo (aka Gonzo's second in command) even down to the lowliest intern and also putting Con ringers on the SCOTUS bench.

Out of all of the many lasting negative aspects to the Bush Legacy (TM), from torture scandals, to lying a nation to war, to turning America's reputation to shit on the world stage, to killing hundreds of thousands, to displacing millions, to using weapons that ought to be illegal, to spying on the ciizenry in unprecedented numbers, to stealing an entire economy etc, it is the damage to the concept and practise of America as a Nation of Laws that will have the most long term negative impact.

TPM has been doing some good work on this story.

Check the vid.

Montecore, Alexandrite, et al,

I stand behind the statement in my initial post:

Every single President has filled the Justice Dept. with attorneys he feels fit in best with his own party's ideologies and goals. If Bush wanted to, he could legally fire all the federal U.S. Attorneys in the Justice Dept. at any time. Clinton cleaned house and brought in all new U.S. attorneys when he was elected. Bush did the same and so will all the Presidents who come after him. This is a non-story.

Every single Attorney General (a Presidential appointee) and the 93 U.S. Attorneys working under the AG -- all serve at the pleasure of the President. That includes the allowing of a President's agenda of only hiring U.S. Attorneys for the Justice Dept. whom he feels would be best suited and experienced for various legal goals he wants to achieve during his term in office.

All 93 U.S. Attorneys (one for each 93 federal districts) can legally be removed from their positions at the request of the President as he so chooses AS LONG AS the President is not having any particular U.S. attorney removed from the Justice Dept. because they had refused to do something considered to be illegal. (That was the allegation over the 8 U.S. attorneys removed last year. I am NOT discussing that particular case. I am responding to my remark that a President can hire any one and replace any one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys as he wishes.)

Removal of the former Justice Dept.'s U.S. Attorneys who worked for a prior Administration is normally done at the time the new Administration comes in but, as with any position where one serves at the pleasure of the President, they can be removed at other times -- sometimes even mid-term.

FACT: Presidents Reagan, G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton all removed the 93 U.S. Attorneys who remained in the Justice Department from the prior Administration and all did so at the beginning of their own term as President.

Trivial Pursuit Question: Who was the ONLY one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys not removed when Clinton came into office?

Trivial Pursuit Answer: Janet Reno removed all all U.S. Attorneys in March 1993 except for one. The U.S. Attorney who got to stay in the Clinton Justice Dept. was named Michael Chertoff, the current Bush Homeland Security Secretary. Back in 1993, Chertoff was the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff's job.

Good research, cc

Good research, cc

Too bad it isn't relevant to:

An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring in the
Department of Justice Honors Program
and
Summer Law Intern Program

All 93 U.S. Attorneys (one for each 93 federal districts) can legally be removed from their positions at the request of the President as he so chooses AS LONG AS the President is not having any particular U.S. attorney removed from the Justice Dept. because they had refused to do something considered to be illegal. (That was the allegation over the 8 U.S. attorneys removed last year. I am NOT discussing that particular case. I am responding to my remark that a President can hire any one and replace any one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys as he wishes.)

~CC

Nobody is arguing that the POTUS cannot remove the USAs.

That's never been an issue.

The issue, CChris, has to do with the illegality of wot was done at the DOJ at the WH's insistence.

Corrupting the honors program was illegal.

No other president before Bush ever did wot he did and has so far gotten away with.

Hiring incompetent overly loyal lackies like Monigoo and Gonzales and using them to justify the unjustifiable from torture to domestic spying.

From one end of the DOJ to the other from the highest position ie AG down to the lowliest intern the sytem was stacked with people who didn't care about the law but only their own unconstitutional agenda.

Many decent USA's quit rather than play ball with BushCo.

Tim Griffin was rewarded fer his work disenfranchising mostly poor and minority voters in Florida's caging scandal with a gig as USA that somehow managed to avoid vetting by the senate due to a little known or understood section of the (soc-alled PAtriot Act.

Timing political persucutions in order to influence elections is just the tip if the iceberg here.

The "Bill Clinton fired all his USAs" meme is a long discredited right wing talking point and it fails to acknowledge the seriousness of wot was done at the DOJ at all levels.

To be repeating it at this point shows a willfull misunderstanding of the issue or a woefull lack of understanding.

Be Well.

This is ridiculous. If liberals can't work for the government, what are they going to do? Just because they're not employable in the private sector doesn't mean we should just let them starve to death.

for california chris:

"Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department's honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, "constituted misconduct and also violated the department's policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations."

"This is ridiculous. If liberals can't work for the government, what are they going to do? Just because they're not employable in the private sector doesn't mean we should just let them starve to death.

Posted by rightisright "

Har har har. The "comedy" stylings of rightisadouchebag on display tonight.

Tater

The issue, CChris, has to do with the illegality of wot was done at the DOJ at the WH's insistence.

I'm not disputing that nor the probable illegalities involved with the letting go of those eight U.S. Attorneys back in 2006 either. I am not talking about U.S. Attorneys who may have committed crimes. That's another issue altogether.

I was only making the point a president has the right to hire U.S. Attorneys whom he feels have his same ideology and views (in Bush's case -- rightwingers) to work for him in the Justice Dept. during his term in office. That's it.

Clinton did it, GW Bush did it, and Reagan did it. They ALL did it.

I have to run now but I'll be back later and add another comment.

Good!
This shouldn't be against the law anyway! Libs should keep their mouths shut!!

Posted by Eddie at 2008-06-25 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now there's some real thinking in action!

So, as long as you don't think it should be against the law (which it is), then it's ok to break that law?

That's some fucked up logic you have there.

Had Liberals pulled this stunt, the Cons would be OUTRAGED and trumpeting it on Rush, et al. for the illegality it is.

So CC's position is that even if it is illegal, W should be allowed to do it because...and here is the funny part...he (CC) is pretty sure that everybody else has done it.

Just a bit short on proof of that aren't you Chris.
I'm wondering how this would play in a courtroom...

CC: "Your honor, I submit to you that even though the inspector General's investigation reveals that the Bush Administration's conduct was illegal, I think that previous Administrations did it too"

Judge: "And, Mr CC, You have evidence to support support this contention?"

CC "well, no your honor, but Goatman agrees with me on this one".

Now THAT is a legal mind at its finest.

And you righties think constitutes a defense?

As Jackie Gleason would have said "Well harr dee harr harr".

"And, Mr CC

That would be Ms CC, who seems oblivious to the fact that the US Attorneys have always been the choice of presidents WITH the advise and consent of Congress, but that this program was for INTERNS.

The punchline for the story is that some guy who belonged to a group that favored the reintroduction of wolves onto federal lands was excluded because they thought THAT was a liberal position.

What's worse is that instead of picking these INTERNS (getting the idea Chrissy) based on scholastic records and community participation they chose lesser qualified applicants based on their religious beliefs.

Anyone who knows that prig Ashcroft is not surprised by this. I'll always remember when he lost his senate seat and broke down in tears. What a wimp.

They don't even want real conservatives. They just want people who won't think for themselves at all.

Ozark- Ashcroft lost to dead man too. LOL.

That reminds me of why two of Bush's picks for cabinet positions pissed me off so much. Going against the will of the voters, he chose two total assholes that had just lost their regular jobs in the lower elections.(I could swear there was a 3rd that lost in 2000, but I can't think of who it was)

Ashcroft.(lost to Mel Carnahan in Missouri, RIP) Spencer Abraham.(who lost to Debbie Stabenow in Michigan)

Having to see spencer abraham again really made my day. : (

Whooptee fucking doo. This is nothing.

When our chickenhawk "fearless leader" idiot hires twenty something Republican kids straight out of a Christian College, to be in charge of rebuilding Iraq, you know Shrub has a fucking screw loose.

If liberals can't work for the government, what are they going to do?

Posted by rightisright at 2008-06-25 11:33 PM | Reply

You make a good argument. A liberal lawyer in the private sector is like cancer. They destroy industries and destroy jobs. They destroy doctors. They become senators from North Carolina.

Polosi WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!! USELESS BITCH!!!!!

Posted by celisary at 2008-06-25 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who is this Polosi?

it is a story, CC.

Every president does fire them. But not in the middle of a 2nd term. And not for the sole reason that they refused to go after the opposition party only.

Alberto Gonzales' testimony on the subject should be cause for alarm all by itself.

Posted by Alexandrite

Why do you think "[e]very president" fires them!?!?!? To you it CAN'T have anything to do with politics!?!?!? Come on.

"I was only making the point a president has the right to hire U.S. Attorneys whom he feels have his same ideology and views (in Bush's case -- rightwingers) to work for him in the Justice Dept. during his term in office. That's it."

Chris...as others have been saying, this isn't about the appointed US Attorney positions. This is about rank and file civil service employees and summer interns. The government is specifically prohibited from discriminating in hiring practices on the basis of various things including political affiliation or ideaology. Just as it is illegal for my company to not hire someone because their resume says, for example, that they belonged to the College Republicans, it is illegal for a manager in the federal government to do the same thing.

The talk about the US attorneys -- who are, as you indicated, political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president (mostly) -- is nothing but a deflection from the actual issue and isn't relevant at all.

Shocking. An administration that hires those whom it likes. Yikes. What next? Congressmen with libidos??

From the article: "...a series of investigations growing out of last year's scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys." So, the increasingly-irrelevant NYT uses the word "scandal" to describe a time-honored tradition in Washington: the purging of those who are against you to make room for those who do. I am not defending the action last year, because I know enough about one of the nine to know she was a superb lawyer.... but to claim scandal is, I think, naive and shows the the NYT working an agenda beyond the story.

If Obama gets in and does not purge and replace like every other president before him, then that will be shocking. And, if it happens, refreshing.

Just as it is illegal for my company to not hire someone because their resume says, for example, that they belonged to the College Republicans, it is illegal for a manager in the federal government to do the same thing.

Excellent point, DCinMA. The only gotcha is the "team fit" aspect of hiring that is so much a part of the hiring process these days. Let's assume there is little doubt that the DOJ did what the article says... the issue now becomes whether it was illegal, or simply unseemly. For example, if I indicate in my interview that I am willing to write software code for Microsoft Windows, but I also say that I think Windows sucks and everyone should use LInux, then regardless of my qualifications or my demographic profile, does my potential employer violate any law if he decides not to hire me to code in his Windows shop? Or if I apply for a job in NYC in a department full of Yankees fans, and I put on my resume that I am presdient of the local Red Sox fan club, what are my chances?

Please, like Clinton or Carter would have welcomed conservatives into their Justice Departments. Suuuuuure.

Ahh, but that's right, Bush is the devil. Sorry, I forgot my audience. Back to your usual Bush-bashing. I'm sure Obama will be much better. After all, he won't mangle the English language and stumble over simple words (like inhaler/breathalyzer) causing everyone in the world to regard him as a buffoon.

Obama confused the words "inhaler" and "breathalyzer" once?

My good God man, why is the libral media keeping this very important news from us!!!!!! This could swing an election!

(

This thread is a testament to the fact that the current batch of "conservatives" are anything but. It is also starkly clear that they are cynical thugs who can't be trusted to govern(and probably won't be for a generation).

My favorite so far:

Anybody who is obviously a leftist crank doesn't belive in justice, they believe in using the government's power to ideological ends....By choosing Conservative attorneys they have a much better chance of achieving true justice

Posted by vernon at 2008-06-25 03:58 PM

It's just tooo fucking funny.