by hilzoy
From the Washington Post, more on the politicization of the Justice Department:
"Karen Stevens, Tovah Calderon and Teresa Kwong had a lot in common. They had good performance ratings as career lawyers in the Justice Department's civil rights division. And they were minority women transferred out of their jobs two years ago -- over the objections of their immediate supervisors -- by Bradley Schlozman, then the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights.Schlozman ordered supervisors to tell the women that they had performance problems or that the office was overstaffed. But one lawyer, Conor Dugan, told colleagues that the recent Bush appointee had confided that his real motive was to "make room for some good Americans" in that high-impact office, according to four lawyers who said they heard the account from Dugan.
In another politically tinged conversation recounted by former colleagues, Schlozman asked a supervisor if a career lawyer who had voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a onetime political rival of President Bush, could still be trusted.
Schlozman has acknowledged in sworn congressional testimony that he had boasted of hiring Republicans and conservatives, but he denied taking improper actions against the division's career officials. That account was challenged by six officials in the division who said in interviews that they either overhead him making brazen political remarks about career employees or witnessed him making personnel decisions with apparent political motivation. (...)
Schlozman made little effort to hide his personal interest in the political leanings of the staff, according to five lawyers who spoke on the condition of anonymity because -- like most of those interviewed for this article -- they still work at the department. He and his aides frequently asked appellate supervisors whether career lawyers handling politically sensitive cases were "on our team," the lawyers said.
Schlozman raised the question of partisan politics bluntly in the fall of 2004, they said, when asking appellate supervisors about the "loyalty" of division lawyer Angela Miller, who had once clerked for David. B. Sentelle, a conservative federal appeals judge. He told Miller's bosses that he learned that she voted for McCain in the 2004 Republican primary and asked, "Can we still trust her?"
He also warned section chief Diana Flynn that he would be keeping an eye on the legal work of another career lawyer who "didn't even vote for Bush," according to colleagues who said they heard Flynn describe the exchange. Miller told several of the colleagues that she considered Schlozman's remarks a form of intimidation, and started looking for another job, the lawyers said. (...)
"When he said he didn't engage in political hiring, most of us thought that was just laughable," said one lawyer in the section, referring to Schlozman's June 5 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so.""
Remember: Schlozman is a political appointee, but the other people discussed in this article are not. They are career lawyers in the Department of Justice: people who sign on not because they support one administration or another, but because they want to make their careers in the DoJ, serving Democrats and Republicans alike. They are supposed to be neutral, and it is against the law to hire, fire, promote, or transfer them (not an exhaustive list) based on their political affiliation. It's also incredibly destructive: it really matters that we have a competent Department of Justice whose commitment to the law is unquestioned. George W. Bush inherited such a Department, and his administration has done enormous damage to it.
***
I also have to remark on Schlozman's distinction between women of color and "Good Americans". It reminds me of good old Daryl Gates, LA's old police commissioner, who said "that blacks might be more likely to die from chokeholds because their arteries do not open as fast as they do on ''normal people.''" As a result, people all over the city started calling LA's black and white police cars 'black-and-normals'. Ha ha ha.
So I wonder: what part of being a minority woman disqualifies you from being a "Good American"? Is it being female, or being non-white, or is it something special about the combination of these two things? Is there some extra special degree of double-plus-ungood* UnAmericanness achieved only by non-white lesbian Wiccans who are registered members of the Green Party?
And remember: the person who said this was our acting assistant attorney general for civil rights.
So I wonder: what part of being a minority woman disqualifies you from being a "Good American"?
I'm no expert on these things, but I'm pretty sure minority women could attain "Good American" status through donating to Republicans or other examples of extraordinary work in the service of kleptocracy.
Condoleeza Rice, I'm pretty confident, is indeed a Good American.
Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic | June 21, 2007 at 03:12 AM
Condoleeza Rice, I'm pretty confident, is indeed a Good American.
But probably not "good" enough to become US president. Apart from being a female of color she is unmarried and childless*.
*but in the eyes of the "right" people she would be also disqualified as a wife with children because then she should have "other priorities".
Posted by: Hartmut | June 21, 2007 at 04:26 AM
You don't understand hilzoy, these three women, much like the Gittmo prisoners who committed suicide, were engaged in an act of asymmetric warfare against the United States of America. I mean, just look at their names. Teresa Kwong - obviously from axis of evil member North Korea. Tovah Calderon, an even more popular name for those from the middle east than Mohammed.
Finally, and perhaps most frighteningly, there is Karen Stevens. The mere fact that here name sounds so American sends chills up my spine - definitive proof of her evil doerness. Some might say that the name "Karen Stevens" is a perfectly normal American name, but as a wise SecDef once said, absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence of known unkowns and known knowns. Clearly Mr. Schlozman did the right thing in ferreting out this sleeper cell of highly educated women and transferring them to other places in the Justice Department, foiling their nefarious plans to protect the civil rights of ungood Americans.
In fact hilzoy, I'm getting mighty suspicious of your insistence on applying "standards," and "reason," and "the law" to a U.S. cabinet department that obviously has no need for such things. Don't you know that WE ARE AT WAR!
Posted by: Ugh | June 21, 2007 at 07:48 AM
I'm getting mighty suspicious of your insistence on applying "standards," and "reason," and "the law"
indeed. don't forget what Martin Luther said:
But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.
again, Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore. we'd all do well to avoid partaking of it whenever possible.
Posted by: cleek | June 21, 2007 at 07:55 AM
Another example of the good deeds done by our rulers:
The D.C. Circuit Court on Wednesday, after pondering the issue for more than two months, on Wednesday refused to delay any longer putting into effect its decision that Guantanamo Bay detainees have lost all rights to pursue habeas challenges to their prolonged imprisonment.
...
the Justice Department appears likely to act quickly to get 12 District Court judges in Washington to dismiss habeas challenges by scores of detainees, and also to wipe out so-called "protective orders" that assure the detainees' lawyers access to their clients at Guantanamo and access to information the military may use to justify continuing to hold them.
Clearly the forces of good are winning the battle to create a legal black hole from which not even light can escape.
Posted by: Ugh | June 21, 2007 at 08:18 AM
Slightly off topic but something not discussed much is the extent to which Bush has also politicized the Pentagon in the same fashion as the DoJ. Only those officers who play the Bush political game get ahead, and those who speak truth that is politically inconvenient have been cast aside. Do that for six years running, and you are going to get a screwed up military that cannot give meaningful military advice. There are no Shinsekis and Tagubas left.
Posted by: dmbeaster | June 21, 2007 at 08:33 AM
Why is it that every time I read this blog my ACLU contribution goes up?
Posted by: Dianne | June 21, 2007 at 08:41 AM
dmbeaster, is it really that different from the past with the Pentagon? This is an honest question because I seem to have difficulties to see that institution as apolitical (after WW2 that is) but can't judge the extent/degree to which it has been politicized during the past say 60 years.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 21, 2007 at 09:14 AM
As this story develops, the thing that concerns me most is the response to such shenanigans. In particular, I'm worried that a response that reaches too far (i.e., one that attempts to create more security for career lawyers will serve to ensure the DOJ remains comprised predominantly of "good Americans." In other words, come 2008, when a Democrat takes over the White House and tries to restore some balance to DOJ, you're gonna hear cries from RedStaters that this is hypocrisy.
What can be done to restore balance, but not purge the DOJ (or be open to criticism that that's what's happening) come 2008?
Posted by: Edward_ | June 21, 2007 at 09:31 AM
As this story develops, the thing that concerns me most is the response to such shenanigans. In particular, I'm worried that a response that reaches too far (i.e., one that attempts to create more security for career lawyers will serve to ensure the DOJ remains comprised predominantly of "good Americans." In other words, come 2008, when a Democrat takes over the White House and tries to restore some balance to DOJ, you're gonna hear cries from RedStaters that this is hypocrisy.
What can be done to restore balance, but not purge the DOJ (or be open to criticism that that's what's happening) come 2008?
Posted by: Edward_ | June 21, 2007 at 09:31 AM
Apparently, Republicans are too dumb not to understand that, when Democrats come back into power--and they inevitably will--the Democrats will use exactly the same tactics in the DoJ as the Republicans did.
Posted by: raj | June 21, 2007 at 10:01 AM
What annoys me re: the Pentagon is the way the administration and its supporters hide behind well-regarded Generals like Petraeus. It's not just that the president is the generals' boss & you don't publicly break from your boss if it's good for your career--he is their commanding officer. And even if they're free to retire, if they do, it's not like they can just get a comparable position in the next administration.
Look at how Taguba testified to Congress v. what he told Sy Hersh about what he was really thinking. And Taguba is not a trimmer who won't risk his careeer to do the right thing--his report's quite honest--but there are limits to what a sitting member of the military can do & say.
Posted by: Katherine | June 21, 2007 at 10:16 AM
14 more of our fellow Americans have martryed themselves in pursuit of our dear leader's quest for Trumanesque glory! The benevolence and inspiration of our President must be truly great to inspire such sacrifices in honor of his petulance.
Posted by: Ugh | June 21, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Edward is right -- by doing what they've done, the DoJ has been seeded with idealogues chosen preciesly because they put party above the law.
Weeding them out may not be possible, not within the current law and certainly not within the sort of additional safeguards Congress is likely to pass. (Not that safeguards matter when one branch of government simply decides to stop obeying them).
Luckily, it appears 'competence' is not their strong suit and they may weed themselves out simply because they are in over their heads.
How much damage will be done in the meantime remains to be seen.
In Other News: Dick Cheney has reiterated his belief that the VP's office is not part of the executive branch, and is therefore not required to adhere to any law or regulation targetting the executive branch.
Posted by: Morat20 | June 21, 2007 at 01:00 PM
Dick Cheney has reiterated his belief that the VP's office is not part of the executive branch, and is therefore not required to adhere to any law or regulation targetting the executive branch.
Can he be impeached for that?
Not "Can Congress/the Senate muster the votes to impeach him", which is a different argument, but as a matter of law: if the Vice President of the United States has declared himself to be a fourth branch of government, outside the checks and balances of Executive, Judiciary, and Congress, ought he not to be impeached?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 21, 2007 at 01:11 PM
I agree with some other posters here, and do not think the racism criticism is fair (though all the other ones are).
Posted by: Justin | June 21, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Apparently, Republicans are too dumb not to understand that, when Democrats come back into power--and they inevitably will--the Democrats will use exactly the same tactics in the DoJ as the Republicans did.
They're not dumb. Many of them simply believe that Democrats already do this on a constant basis, and that the DOJ is loaded from top to bottom with Democrats as a result; Republicans don't seek to hire conservatives in order to stack the deck, but simply to try and bring matters closer to parity.
Posted by: Steve | June 21, 2007 at 03:06 PM
I agree with some other posters here, and do not think the racism criticism is fair (though all the other ones are).
If it sounds like racism and it acts like racism, it would behoove the originator to show that it isn't racism.
From a real American.
Posted by: gwangung | June 21, 2007 at 03:09 PM
Republicans don't seek to hire conservatives in order to stack the deck, but simply to try and bring matters closer to parity.
Ah, yes. Like if you're uncomfortable because you have one foot stuck in too-hot water, you can balance it out by sticking your other foot into icewater.
You don't help the public handle a lie by spreading the opposite lie. You don't fight corruption by putting in new corrupt judges etc.
These people are extremely stupid. Or they're lying.
Posted by: J Thomas | June 21, 2007 at 10:11 PM
They're not dumb. Many of them simply believe that Democrats already do this on a constant basis, and that the DOJ is loaded from top to bottom with Democrats as a result; Republicans don't seek to hire conservatives in order to stack the deck, but simply to try and bring matters closer to parity.
Otherwise known as the Nixon dirty tricks defense.
Posted by: dmbeaster | June 22, 2007 at 04:49 AM