Justice Department passes of Dems and Liberals

[JimH52]

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

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

 

[Swamp Fox]

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[jillian]

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

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.

 

[ReillyT]

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 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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[JimH52]

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.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

Can you be more disingenuous?

From the original article...

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.

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?

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

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.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

 

[ReillyT]

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.

Okay, now that you made the claim, I will ask you to back it up.

It is the Justice Department itself that says that political ideology was impermissibly taken into account. Why are you so reluctant to believe the Justice Department criticizing itself?

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

Why does it matter? Obviously both conservative and liberals do. Since it is an illegal criteria that shouldn't factor into hiring, what could it hurt?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay, now that you made the claim, I will ask you to back it up.

It is the Justice Department itself that says that political ideology was impermissibly taken into account. Why are you so reluctant to believe the Justice Department criticizing itself?



Why does it matter? Obviously both conservative and liberals do. Since it is an illegal criteria that shouldn't factor into hiring, what could it hurt?

Last I checked I do not, in fact have to PROVE anything. It is my OPINION. And I submit it is a reasonable opinion based on our Knowledge of the political games the appointees Clinton made, played.

You don't like my Opinion? To damn bad. You want me to change it? Prove me wrong. Provide information that would force me to change my opinion.

 

[ReillyT]

Last I checked I do not, in fact have to PROVE anything. It is my OPINION. And I submit it is a reasonable opinion based on our Knowledge of the political games the appointees Clinton made, played.

You don't like my Opinion? To damn bad. You want me to change it? Prove me wrong. Provide information that would force me to change my opinion.

That is fine. You can keep your opinion, unsupported as it is by facts or evidence. I expect nothing less from you.

It all remains beside the point of course. Regardless of whether it has happened in the past (be it the Clinton, Reagan, or Jefferson administrations), it remains illegal and wrong.

 

[JimH52]

Last I checked I do not, in fact have to PROVE anything. It is my OPINION. And I submit it is a reasonable opinion based on our Knowledge of the political games the appointees Clinton made, played.

You don't like my Opinion? To damn bad. You want me to change it? Prove me wrong. Provide information that would force me to change my opinion.

Have we stumbled onto a new definition for a LIE?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Have we stumbled onto a new definition for a LIE?

Hey num Nuts , an opinion is by definition not a lie. Well unless your a left wing idiot trying to make ignorant claims about others.