home

Politicizing the Department of Justice

Bump and Update (TL): The full report is here.(pdf)

***

The Justice Department finally gets around to confirming old news:

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.

Remember Monica "I didn't mean to" Goodling?

It's particularly troubling that the Civil Rights Division was filled with lawyers who don't much care about civil rights. [more ...]

The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring. Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office.

Yeah, we sure wouldn't want anyone who cares about social justice working in the Justice Department. Instead:

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

Affiliation with its progressive counterpart, the American Constitution Society, was seen as a "negative mark."

John Conyers:

"When it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys," Mr. Conyers said, "our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics. It appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test."

Wouldn't want a liberal fetching coffee for the big shots at Justice, after all.

< What Obama Said About Telco Immunity | Hoyer: The New King Of High Broderism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    the question now (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    it seems to me, is what do we do about it?
    even if there is a new democratic administration how much can they really do to undo the damage?
    its a serious question.  I have no idea.

    This will take more than one administration to fix (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by aquarian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    Generally speaking, government positions are either political appointment or career service.  When the administration changes, you expect political appointees to reflect the ideology and political agenda of the current administration.

    The stability of government, however, has always been vested in career staff --those highly experienced administrators below the top level who have seen it all before and concentrate on "limiting the damage" of the change in administration.  This is really a checks and balance system.  Political appointees always have grand visions about how to change the landscape of government.  Good career staff make sure that really bad ideas don't get implemented, or, if the political appointee is persistent, they find a way to let the sun shine and encourage broader, more public scrutiny.

    The legacy of Bush and his Federalist Society wingnuts is that the career staff were forced out in droves -- throughout all government, not just DOJ.  Bush's wingnuts then hired career wingnuts who in turned hired more wingnuts as minions.  Getting rid of the wing nuts is only half a solution.  The damage is that government has lost its experienced and competent staff.

    Experience and competency takes years to develop, and the government is going to be rudderless, in my view, for another decade.  Strong leadership from political appointees will be critical.

     

    Parent

    Yes, because it's these career bureaucratic (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    that we're so desperately needing:
    The Clinton Administration's War on Privacy
    by Sheldon Richman, July 1996

    The Clinton administration, self-proclaimed champion of civil liberties and small government, is a big fraud.

    President Clinton's Department of Justice, it was recently revealed, is wiretapping more and more American citizens each year. It is increasing the number of federal wiretaps by more than 30 percent annually. What's more, the administration is bulking up the budgets of the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) at a frantic pace. Since 1993 the FBI budget has grown 53 percent, the DEA budget 33 percent. That new money permits expanded intrusion into America's telephone communications. And it isn't only wiretapping. Other electronic spying on Americans allows the government to monitor what phone numbers we dial.



    Parent
    Perhaps you misunderstood my point (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by aquarian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    I did not mean to imply that only republican administrations screwed this up.  Only that this particular administration took purging to an extraordinary level.

    In my experience, many career government employees are not partisan.  The good ones have been around for decades, living through administrations of both stripes.  That experience (and strong stomach to live through the really bad administrations) translates into better government that is responsive.

    Take FEMA for example.  We all know how well that turned out.

    Parent

    Fair enough. My point, made in a rush (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    and not well enough, apparently, is that those lamenting the "politicization" of the DOJ may want to think about some things.

    1. Are we sure it was not politicized before?

    2. Are we sure it was working OK before?


    Parent
    okay (none / 0) (#19)
    by aquarian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    I guess the issue is really two issues -- politicization and competency.  As you point out, politicization is always there to a degree. My concern is that competency will be the lingering issue.  

    Parent