Political affiliation considered in hiring US attorneys

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Isn't this what got Gonzales canned?[/quote]

Yeah I'm having a deja vu moment. I remember this coming up before.
 
1. It was for a competitive summer program for entry level attorneys and in turns--thread title makes it sound like it was for US district attorneys or something. Still shitty that politics were involved...

2. US Attorneys are appointed, so of course there's is politics involved there.

3. The Gonzales problem was with forcing the resignation of appointed US attorneys who were not sticking to the Bush platform on certain issues. Once appointed they can only be removed for things like corruption, or ineffectiveness.

4. The fact is the US criminal justice system is very much tied to politics. Police chiefs have to answer to mayors and city councils. State's attorneys are elected. Local judges are appointed by governors or a combination of both. Supreme court judges are appointed.

So overall all it's not surprising that politics come into play even for low level shit like summer programs for new attorneys and interns. Doesn't mean it's right, but that's just how the system is.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I called them "attorneys," how else should i have said it, without it being way to long of a title?[/QUOTE]

"Politics mattered in appointments to summer program in US Attorney's offices."

Or something like that.

US Attorney is the title of the head of each district office. :D
 
[quote name='JolietJake']An entry level attorney is still an attorney. The wording was adequate.[/QUOTE]

It's a summer program for entry level attorneys or interns--not for attorneys being hired for full time.

No biggie, just was expecting a big deal from the title. And after reading the story and seing it was just some dumb ass summer intern program I was like "who gives a shit."

Actually, I was just perplexed since I read it has their being politics involved in hiring US attorneys and though "well no shit sherlock, they're fucking appointed!" :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] Local judges are appointed by governors or a combination of both. Supreme court judges are appointed.[/QUOTE]
Judges, including Texas Supreme Court judges, are elected in Texas. Makes for an interesting court system.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Judges, including Texas Supreme Court judges, are elected in Texas. Makes for an interesting court system.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that was a typo in what you quoted. It should have read "appointed by governors, elected or a combination of both".

There's 4 ways state court judges are put in place.

1. Partisan election
2. Non-partison election (party not listed on ballot)
3. Gubernatorial Appointment
4. Merit System--a commission nominates 3 people, governor appoints one of them, year later (length varies in some states) there's an election where the people decide if they stay on the bench.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']1. It was for a competitive summer program for entry level attorneys and in turns--thread title makes it sound like it was for US district attorneys or something. Still shitty that politics were involved...

2. US Attorneys are appointed, so of course there's is politics involved there.

3. The Gonzales problem was with forcing the resignation of appointed US attorneys who were not sticking to the Bush platform on certain issues. Once appointed they can only be removed for things like corruption, or ineffectiveness.

4. The fact is the US criminal justice system is very much tied to politics. Police chiefs have to answer to mayors and city councils. State's attorneys are elected. Local judges are appointed by governors or a combination of both. Supreme court judges are appointed.

So overall all it's not surprising that politics come into play even for low level shit like summer programs for new attorneys and interns. Doesn't mean it's right, but that's just how the system is.[/QUOTE]

It went quite a bit deeper than what dmaul says, I am starting to think he is an undercover troll.

Here is a link:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/28...orism-prosecutor-because-wife-was-a-democrat/

In one disgraceful example, Goodling refused to hire “one of the leading terrorism prosecutors in the country” because his wife was a Democrat:

He was an experienced terrorism prosecutor and had successfully prosecuted a high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service. … The candidate’s wife was a prominent local Democrat elected official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. […]

[Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Michael] Battle, [EOUSA Deputy Director and Cheif of Staff] Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely on the basis of his wife’s political party affiliation. Battle said he was very upset that Goodling opposed the detail because of political reasons.
 
Does seem like this went too far with politics playing a role here, both since the new stuff shows it's more than just an issue with interns and that it was even more petty than usual.

But there's really not much way to totally eliminate politics, as they're involved in pretty much any possible way of selecting someone for a public office. Merit systems are probably the best, but they really aren't applicable to the federal system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']To the victor go the spoils.[/quote]

And to think I believed in things like "The Constitution" and "The Declaration of Independence" when I was younger.
 
Yeah, this stuff has always gone on--though maybe this went a bit further with looking into wives etc.

It's just the nature of the game--federal judges are appointed (as outlined in the constitution) and thus politics will always play a large role. Really no way to avoid it, hard to do elections, or a merit system (combo of appointments and elections) for federal judges--and besides those are just as political.
 
[quote name='camoor']And to think I believed in things like "The Constitution" and "The Declaration of Independence" when I was younger.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it sucks to grow up. Those things became flights of fancy after about the turn of the century with the leadership of the likes of Woodrow Wilson.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah it sucks to grow up. Those things became flights of fancy after about the turn of the century with the leadership of the likes of Woodrow Wilson.[/quote]

Nice article. I thought the nation started its long march into the sea with Grant.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No. The whole problem reeks of petty politics that have been part and parcel of the government from before the Civil War.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Stuff like this is just amusing when it occurs, in either party, because lovers of the rival parties constantly love to hype it up as if it's new and shocking. Just like so many Dem/libs love to try and throw words like "fascist" around for Bush, as if it's something new and dire for the country. Their American history memories are clearly pretty short.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No. The whole problem reeks of petty politics that have been part and parcel of the government from before the Civil War.[/QUOTE]

Except that it is not petty politics, this shit is important.

No administration in living memory has come close to politicizing every single thing the way Bush and Rove have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Except that it is not petty politics, this shit is important.

No administration in living memory has come close to politicizing every single thing the way Bush and Rove have.[/quote]

I disagree. Clinton and Reagan remade the landscape into their own image during their respective presidencies.

Nixon predates me by a few years, but I'm sure he could have taught Bush the Lesser a few things about partisanship.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I disagree. Clinton and Reagan remade the landscape into their own image during their respective presidencies.

Nixon predates me by a few years, but I'm sure he could have taught Bush the Lesser a few things about partisanship.[/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure Rove worked for Nixon as well but I digress, you can disagree all you would like but the reality is that the party of Bush, Rove and DeLay/Abramoff attempted to turn this country into a one party state.

Maybe if they were competent they might have succeeded.
 
[quote name='Msut77']... the reality is that the party of Bush, Rove and DeLay/Abramoff attempted to turn this country into a one party state.

Maybe if they were competent they might have succeeded.[/quote]

I'm certainly not disagreeing with that. However, I believe most pols want their party to have as much power as possible.

Most of the failure of the Republican party in this decade rests on Dubya's shoulders, but the earmark friendly and fiscally irresponsible Republican House and Senate helped him along.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm certainly not disagreeing with that. However, I believe most pols want their party to have as much power as possible.

Most of the failure of the Republican party in this decade rests on Dubya's shoulders, but the earmark friendly and fiscally irresponsible Republican House and Senate helped him along.[/QUOTE]

They gave him everything he wanted while he was popular and basically able to hand them lots of campaign cash and an easy re-election.

Oddly enough fiscal responsibility only seems to matter to them when Democrats have power and some money might possibly go to feed poor children.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Did you look at the link I posted? As much as dmaul inaccurately claims it was just interns or whatever it went much deeper than that.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't inaccurate at the time of the original which was only about summer interns, I've amended my views according to the current news.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It wasn't inaccurate at the time of the original which was only about summer interns, I've amended my views according to the current news.[/QUOTE]

'Grats.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/washington/31capital.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

On May 17, 2005, the White House’s political affairs office sent an e-mail message to agencies throughout the executive branch directing them to find jobs for 108 people on a list of “priority candidates” who had “loyally served the president.”

“We simply want to place as many of our Bush loyalists as possible,” the White House emphasized in a follow-up message, according to a little-noticed passage of a Justice Department report released Monday about politicization in the department’s hiring of civil-service prosecutors and immigration officials.
 
If you haven't seen what Bush & co. have done to expand exec power and erode the checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers then you haven't been paying attention.

Cue conservative "but the prez needs these powers in case of emergency" backlash in 3...2...1...
 
[quote name='camoor']If you haven't seen what Bush & co. have done to expand exec power and erode the checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers then you haven't been paying attention.

Cue conservative "but the prez needs these powers in case of emergency" backlash in 3...2...1...[/QUOTE]

I won't excuse any of it. It's true that conservatives are tend to defend a conservative presidents idiot tactics, just like many liberals defended Clinton's. But it's important to note that it's not a conservative ideal to centralize power for the president.

But I will argue that what Bush has done is par for the course for presidents in war time. Presidents have expanded their power, frozen citizen rights, and even arrested dissenters (Woodrow Wilson - Democrat) in wartime.

It amazes me that people act as if Bush is doing so many unprecedented things in our country.
 
thrust, I think most people take issue with Bush doing these things in the modern era. The periods that are conjured to relate with aren't our best moments but our worst. The Alien and Sedition Act. Woody arresting people almost a hundred years ago.
 
I was going to post about that new article, but after the shit i got about them being "interns" or whatever, i decided against it.

Anyone who thought it would stop at them was naive.
 
[quote name='speedracer']thrust, I think most people take issue with Bush doing these things in the modern era. The periods that are conjured to relate with aren't our best moments but our worst. The Alien and Sedition Act. Woody arresting people almost a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE]

That's all true. I mention them to help illustrate just how deeply and fundamentally flawed much of our government is, and has been for a century and a half. We are cyclic, we continue to allow presidents do things totally against the constitution and bill of rights out of fear. We never can learn our lesson.

As for Bush and the modern era, I think it's important to take a step back and try and examine history, looking for patterns. This is what we need to do to try and fix what's wrong with our system. Instead we love to play divide and conquer with politics and just demonize the people that did it (Even though we allow it). It gets old and it doesn't change anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top