Thread: Justice Dept Hiring Process

This should disturb some.

eport: Justice Dept. passed over Dems, liberals

Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.


By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON —

Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.
In one case, a Harvard Law student was passed over after criticizing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In another, a Georgetown University student who had previously worked for a Democratic senator and congressman didn't make the cut.


Even senior Justice Department officials flinched at what appeared to be hiring decisions based - improperly and illegally - on politics, according to the internal report.


"Individuals at the department were rejecting any of our candidates who could be construed as left-wing or who were perceived, based on their appearances and resumes and so forth, as being more liberal," Kevin Ohlson, deputy director of the department's executive office of immigration review, complained to Justice investigators.


The report marked the culmination of a yearlong investigation by Justice's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility into whether Republican politics were driving hiring polices at the once fiercely independent department.


The investigation is one of several that examine accusations of White House political meddling within the Justice Department. Those accusations were initially driven by the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006 and culminated with the ouster of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general last September.


The report issued Tuesday concluded that politics and ideology disqualified a significant number of newly graduated lawyers and summer interns seeking coveted Justice jobs in 2006.


As early as 2002, career Justice employees complained to department officials that Bush administration political appointees had largely taken over the hiring process for summer interns and so-called Honors Program jobs for newly graduated law students. For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.


But in 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal - and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn't get a job offer.

Link: Politics | Report: Justice Dept. passed over Dems, liberals | Seattle Times Newspaper

utterly lame shit.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal - and 80 were rejected.

911 students applied! Interesting numerical coincidence.

GWB administration can't take the risk of having people in the Justice Dept who are actually committed to do just things.

The Bush administration attempted to politicise everything, the attorney generals department being the most ovious example. Good riddance, but yet again there are grounds here for legal action against their senior miscreants.

When Clinton got into office he fired 93 US attorneys. That's all of them except one. He didn't wait for any of them to show allegiance or independence he conducted a purge immediately in order to be sure the 'correct' people filled those slots. people who would push his agenda via prosecutions. His requirement was to increase the arrests and convictions for crimes involving assault weapons and hate speech so he could point to a rise in both which in turn led to legislation concerning hate speech and legislation concerning the types of weapons US citizens could own.

For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.

I like how she tucks this last bit in there. It's all totally neutral until "other experiences". What experiences? Doing volunteer work for the 'correct' people or correct non profits? If a job applicant did volunteer work for Pat Robetson or the Moral Majority do you think he would have been given honest consideration by the Clinton administration?

Originally Posted by attaboy

For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.

I like how she tucks this last bit in there. It's all totally neutral until "other experiences". What experiences? Doing volunteer work for the 'correct' people or correct non profits? If a job applicant did volunteer work for Pat Robetson or the Moral Majority do you think he would have been given honest consideration by the Clinton administration?

You're reading a lot into and drawing a longbow with "other experiences".

Besides this is about a government report into Bush administration politics in appointments, unless there is a corresponding report on Clinton's administration it's irrelvevant. Red-herring even.

Well then the reporter should explain because "other experiences" is where the bias sneaks in.

Clinton is not a red herring. He established precedent for firings. A "report on Clinton's administration"? There were so many people got tired of hearing about another one. That was Clinton's strategy; wear them down. Get the people sick of hearing about another transgression or crime so eventually they begin to tune it out and even begin to blame the messenger for pointing them out.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Well then the reporter should explain because "other experiences" is where the bias sneaks in.

So you're suggesting an impropriety or inherent bias on the part of this Lara Jakes Jordan woman of the Associated Press? On what basis? I don’t understand why you’ve seized on that one two-word paragraph conclusion; aside from having an unusual name I don’t quite see what relevance she has to any of this. It strikes me as a bit of a strawman to be honest.

Clinton is not a red herring. He established precedent for firings. A "report on Clinton's administration"? There were so many people got tired of hearing about another one. That was Clinton's strategy; wear them down. Get the people sick of hearing about another transgression or crime so eventually they begin to tune it out and even begin to blame the messenger for pointing them out.

Ok, be that as it may, but again what relevance has that got to the findings of undue political bias in Bush administration appointments? Any sort of moral-relativism ('he/they did it so it's ok if we do it') is hardly something to pin a banner to much less somehow suffice as an excuse.

What rabbit hole are you going down? I'm saying that the article implies that the selection process was neutral until Bush came along. I'm say neutrality can exist in judging the person by their grades, law school and clerkship but "other experiences" what does that entail? That is where the bias can sneak into the process of judging an application.


Clinton established a precedent. So, yes, when considering if any crimes occurred they should also look at Clinton's handling of a similar act to assist in determining whether it is normal behavior or standard procedure or a matter of policy.

Well than we're back to my inital point that I think you're reading a lot into and drawing a longbow with "other experiences". It's not for the reporter to define each and every phrase in the article that might be open to interpretation; that's unrealistic.

Clinton established a precedent. So, yes, when considering if any crimes occurred they should also look at Clinton's handling of a similar act to assist in determining whether it is normal behavior or standard procedure or a matter of policy.

It's quite apparent that it's not 'normal behavior or standard procedure or a matter of policy'. It wouldn't even be newsworthy if it were much less the subject of investigation.

If there are criminal charges to be faced then saying 'well he/they did it as well' is no defence.