Report: Justice Dept. passed over Dems, liberals - Yahoo! News

Typical of bush. The Justice Department was just another cabinet for these thugs.

__________________
Why do people gravitate to extremes? What makes the left attractive to some and the right attractive to others? From the middle you can see both sides well.

And the Democrats always pick the best candidate and not the one that agrees with them. Right.

__________________
The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.

Genghis Khan

Leroy Green: The truth will be revealed only to eyes unclouded by desire.
Sho'nuff: It's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinkin' they the Last Dragon that gives kung-fu a bad name.

Read the piece, it is clear that IN FACT Liberals and Democrats got hired. The complaint is that not ENOUGH got hired. Meanwhile the claim that Conservatives were hired is that the few that applied did get jobs.

What a joke.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

The justice department was pretty pristine, actually. The Honors Program was always a place where it was a meritocracy. No one's ever politicized it.

So in answer to your question.... yes, IN THIS PROGRAM.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

The Justice Department is supposed to hire on the basis of competency and qualifications, not political ideology. Making hiring decisions based on political ideology, which is what the Justice Department did, is not only illegal, but intentionally politicizes positions which should not be political. I would think even staunch Republicans would view this as problematic.

I suspect they would view this as problematic .... if a democrat did it. If Clinton had done it, it would have been one of the articles of impeachment.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

This charge comes on top of the sharce by various attorneys working for the Justice Department that the Bush administration pressured them to find questionable election outcomes when there was not overwhelming evidence to support the case, too.

Just another example, I fear, of the nature of the administration that, thank god, will be leaving office soon.

Of course, expect nothing whatever to come of any of it.

And yet JUST because people stupid enough to announce they are this or that party looking for a NON partisan job don't get selected is NOT proof they were discriminated against.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

We do not , in fact know how the Clinton admin hired and fired , well except he DID fire all the republican appointed attorneys when he took office.

As for the bullshit claim about the 8 fired Attorneys, once again they had served their 4 years and there was absolutely no reason they had to remain , nothing illegal at all about that.

Lets go back and review the records of the Clinton admin and see how many "conservatives" were not hired and how many " Liberals" were, shall we? Ohh wait the republicans didn't play petty games like that. This is all about Clinton getting impeached, until the Dems can pin something as bad on a Republican they won't stop. And you support this crap while claiming you decried it for Clinton.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

How republicans can turn their back to an administration that blantantly uses what should be an non-partisan, independent body of government is incredible. I have never seen anything like it. Volumns wll be written on the abuses of this administration. I can only hope that some of the abuses that have occurred in this administration has not set a precedent for future White Houses, either Democrat or Republican. How Nancy Pelosi can turn her back on this is beyond me.

__________________
Why do people gravitate to extremes? What makes the left attractive to some and the right attractive to others? From the middle you can see both sides well.

Can you be more disingenuous?

From the original article...

20% of self-identified liberals received positions. 91.3% of self-identified conservatives received positions.

After all this, you are still maintaining that there is no proof that political ideology was illegally taken into account?

Are you repeating that garbage again? EVERY president asks for the resignation of EVERY attorney general when they take office. Do you think if you keep spewing that over and over and over and over that it will take on some meaning?

And, yes, we DO know Clinton didn't politicize the AG's office. It would have been part of Kennyboy Starr's investigation BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Now go back to the Clinton years and provide the SAME information. Then we will talk.

This is nothing more than the democrats trying to create problems where there are none. But prove me wrong, provide us the break down for the 8 years Clinton was in office.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

You want me to prove to you that the Clinton administration didn't do the same thing? Give me a break.

I have never heard that the Clinton administration politicized the non-political positions within the Department of Justice. If you think they did, then you find the evidence (although since there was never an investigation of the Clinton administration for this, the evidence might not exist). It does not make the Bush administration's activities any less illegal.

You have become quite a shill.

By the way, US Attorneys (not Ass't USAs) are political appointees. The problem with the Bush administration's earlier dismissal is that it was alleged they were dismissed to influence pending cases or potential cases. However, generally speaking, they are political appointees and it would not be uncommon for a new president to pick new appointments.

These positions referenced in the article are not political appointments. They are to be merit-based civil service appointments. It is apples and oranges.

No it is not. Having failed to get anywhere with the 8 fired Attorneys the Democrats have turned to this.

And there is absolutely no way, in my opinion, that Janet Reno did not do just what is alleged here but the other way round. Ohh wait, it is not the Attorney General that hires and fires these Interns, it is a panel of 3 APPOINTED members that do so.

Yup political appointees under Clinton sure were know for their inclusive behavior.

Further the numbers are so small as to be meaningless.

Explain again why someone seeking a NON Partisan position would identify themselves as Liberals to begin with?

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)