Now,there is a certain unintended irony in all of this. Ms. Gorelick is one of the people whose behavior in the 9-11 commission has been questioned; her participation in Clinton departmental house cleanings has been suggested; and James Lundgren posted on her financial opportunism at the Volokh Conspiracy, and finally there is the ultimate ‘funny.:’ Ms. Gorelick is one of the high powered attorneys Duke University has hired to try to prevent the lacrosse team from successfully suing Duke to get all the shabby details of who really trashed their lives out in public. Apparently,if Ms. Gorelick’s actions are any indication, accountability is only expected from Republicans, and by definition Democratic political appointees are superbly qualified members of their profession without exception.

I have a one-word description of Ms. Gorelick’s philosophy, but it probably can’t be printed in so-called family papers like the Washington Post.

Like the prosecution of I. Lewis Libby?

Exactly. And like the IRS during Clinton’s years.

Civil-service jobs exist to conduct the day-to-day business, with consistency and a lack of politicization.
That’s especially important at the Department of Justice.

In order to maintain confidence in the enforcement of law, the DoJ has to conduct itself with impartiality and nonpartisanship.

Like the prosecution of I. Lewis Libby?

Until the Republicans learn to fight as dirty as the Democrats, the country will continue to tack left.

I’d be happy if they just fought back, period. I know how I will pass away. It will be after having to listen for a millionth time to a democrats bald faced lie on some panel show and then the republican next to him saying, “With all due respect to my good friend and collegue, I have to disagree.” My head will probably explode. The danger is that someday a republican will respond, “Actually, sen. schumer is lying sack of..”. That may cause a heartattack.

ON IMMIGRATION JUDGES, and the board that oversees overiding those judges, can’t you look at politics?

We look at politics for every other type of judge, either appointed or elected… why are these judges different?

And once more, on the “detail” positions, they were “Career” lawyers being sent into political positions… thats what the “detail” entails… so of COURSE they would look at the persons politics….

Whats interesting is that they differentiate between “Career” and “political” jobs… I want to know WHO gets to decide which job is of which type…

Justice is not partisan.
The Race Card on July 29, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Justice shouldn’t be partisan, but when a major political party ties itself to the notion that the constitution means whatever it wants it to mean, it has become so.

The separation of powers described by the Framers is crumbling. Legislators want to micromanage wars; justices make law; executive agencies ruin people’s lives with petty regulations.

And what we see from the left is “let’s have the government run everything — everything from the health care you receive to the amount of CO2 you can emit.”

This is a fishing expedition. CP on July 29, 2008 at 9:57 AM

You’ve got that right. It’s time for congress to “fish or cut bait” with respect to Gonzales!

“Even though the report doesn’t directly implicate Gonzales in these misdeeds, he appointed the people who perpetrated them and did nothing to provide oversight to prevent it from happening.”

Which, of course, is perfectly fine if gift-wrapped as affirmative action.

baltowash on July 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM

Perhaps Goodling should argue she was trying to correct the results of prior discrimination against Evangelicals, Mormons, and observant Catholics? I’m sure you could collect some statistics or ancedotal evidence at least as “strong” as race hustlers civil rights activists normally use.

Any defense such as “the other team does it” is a losing defense. There’s little chance to get ahead by kicking someone that isn’t even around to kick anymore.

gabriel sutherland on July 29, 2008 at 10:06 AM

And how well is generally playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules working out for the Republicans?

Until the Republicans learn to fight as dirty as the Democrats, the country will continue to tack left.

Is it such dirty politics bad for the country? No question. Who seriously believes the vote totals that come out of our big cities anymore? Or that judges restrict themselves to the actual text of laws they are supposedly interpreting?

But fundamentally, what reason does the left have to stop as things are now? There is *no* question they gain serious benefits from these sort of antics. There is no cost from the public either – core Democrat voters could care less about the rule of law and moderates are generally woefully ignorant of insider politics.

So the only potential reason to stop is the possibility of equivalent responses from the Republicans. And as long as they are more concerned about holding the high moral ground then winning, the concern disappears too.

I think you can certainly argue that this particular tactic was a poor one, but the general notion that we play by the rules no matter what the opposition does is simply a way to lose in the long run. The Republicans should have thrown down the gauntlet after the failed coup in 2000 and we have seen the costs these last few years in them not doing so.

HR management is hard.

factoid on July 29, 2008 at 12:10 PM

You’re right. I might add that all the HR managers I’ve dealt with have been utterly useless (unless they were hiring me).

BULL! I sure hope you are sitting down when you find out the truth and I will be watching these pages to see you issue an apology to Gonzales and a complete correction.

http://www.rollovermartin.com

http://www.countryaboveself.com Like Ragu.. Its in there. But you have to read the detail and not just look at the pictures.

[...] And some of those non-political prosecutors like Patrick Fitzgerald.

BigD on July 29, 2008 at 9:53 AM

All three of those were political appointees, not career.

Ed Morrissey on July 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM

In fact, Fitzgerald is not only a political appointee, he is a Republican political appointee (in the sense that he was appointed by a Republican President, on the recommendation of a Republican Senator).

HR management is hard.

This comment thread is the single most illustrative instrument available to show how Republican hypocrisy matches the Dems.

The Dems have nave not been caught by DOJ. We have. WTF is wrong with you sycophants that you can’t apply fair standards to your own party?

My bad. That’s the definition of a sycophant. Scorpion meet turtle.

Goodling’s use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates.

Which, of course, is perfectly fine if gift-wrapped as affirmative action.

Left-wing partisan trolls hiding under the “professional staff” shield have systematically sabotaged Bush at every turn. There needs to be a way to clean house. If you can’t screen them at the time of hire, there must be a way to quickly fire them if they fail to carry out the assignment, or if they pervert it.

landlines on July 29, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Double Ditto!

As long as we accept the liberal democrat definition of all the words in Mr Ed’s post, the conclusion is inescapable. Conservative Republicans are NOT QUALIFIED to serve in federal government.

On the other hand, if you want to debate this post you have to first argue over the definition of every word in the post, and every conclusion in the report cited, and every definition in that report.

That’s the way the liberals win every argument. They define the words, the terms, and the conclusions.

We’re one step away from having the GOP outlawed as a political party, when it is the democrats who should be hanging from the street lights.

It came from the IG and the OPR, two organs within the DoJ and not inclined towards partisan viewpoints.

If you believe this, I’ve got some prime swampland to sell you!!

Left-wing partisan trolls hiding under the “professional staff” shield have systematically sabotaged Bush at every turn. There needs to be a way to clean house. If you can’t screen them at the time of hire, there must be a way to quickly fire them if they fail to carry out the assignment, or if they pervert it.

I don’t want an open borders advocate as an Immigration Judge.

I don’t want ISLAMIC Attorneys making decisions on WOT.

I don’t want a Gay activist making decisions on Culture wide family issues.

Sounds like this is all about what type of Immigration Judges were being looked at. And the funny thing about the “detail” part is that they are SUPPOSED to be filled by a Political type… but when one is not available “career” types get “detailed” to fill them temporarily… so they are complaining about her looking at someones politics to fill a political position…

Interesting charges here when you look at the absurdity… key here is WHAT is to be considered a “Political” vice “Career” position… and who gets to make that distinction.

But Republicans should never act like DemocRATs! People in government should be hired based upon their qualifications to do the job and not on their political affiliations!

How about this idea, no one with a government job is allowed to vote while holding that job?

By the way, everyone with their panties in a wad over this. Do you know that no one from the ny times has been in court over the national secrets about the war on terror the ny times has published on their front pages but Bill Gertz had to testify last week about some of his sources? I wonder if those were career employess that made the decision to subpoena Gertz. And don’t use that judith miller as an example, that was democrats and liberals throwing her in jail because they were trying to implicate the White House.