In yet another black eye for the Gonzales-era justice department, an inquiry has demonstrated that certain candidates for prestigious internships had been rejected because of their political leanings, in direct contravention to civil service policy and law:
(In) 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal ‚Äî and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn’t get a job offer.
Not hiring qualified candidates for taxpayer-sponsored jobs because of their political views – who did these hiring committee people think they were working for?
I wonder what the same results for 1993 – 2001 would look like?
Exactly, SSG Jeff. The Powerline lawyers have some inside info and thoughts along those lines..
This is troubling, but I suspect it might be a little more nuanced than merely looking at which party was on the application.
Like many things in life, a personal networking connection helps. I suspect that in a Republican administration, more Republican intern candidates would have a person who could vouch for them or otherwise provide them with an introduction. After all, sometimes, it’s not what you know, but who you know.
Nuanced my a** and troubled… not a chance . To the victor ( the party in power) belongs the spoils plain and simple. Contacts are everything in D.C. … credentials secondary … that said I do agree that it sucks when you’re on the outside looking in… but someone always is are they not?. Best
XB
Report indicates the “vetting” went so far as to exclude candidates from consideration based on their work history (if they clerked for a Clinton appointed judge they were excluded), school clubs (if you belonged to the Federalist Society you were in) and membership in other organizations (NACDL you are out) providing any indicia of political affiliation or “liberal” leanings. Report details one political appointee who spent “hours” researching various student groups to determine whether a candidate would be selected for an interview or not.
Rule in Justice for career jobs has always been merit wins out. When I interviewed for a job in the civil rights section after my clerkship for a Reagan appointed judge, I was told I was competing against the best and brightest.
Now it seems the more recent applicants were competing against the best and brightest conservatives.
As one former career Justice employee put it, it will no longer be possible to credibly say to a moral certainty that prosecutions are not politically motivated.
And, Lex, this was begun during Ashcroft’s regime, fell off for a while, and then reappeared for Gonzoles with a vengeance.
Respects
OAM
OAM, it appears I have shown my ass. One further review, this is more than troubling. It is wrong.
Not necessarily. Snake thinks it’s all good and to the victor go the spoils.
Justice, in my judgment, is supposed to be different than other posts in government. It may not be, but one would think it’s supposed to be.
Respects
OAM
Before passing judgment, I concur with SSG Jeff. If similar practices were employed by the previous administration, Snake has the best assessment.
OAM, No I don’t think it’s all good that to the victor belongs the spoils… it is wrong but I’ve been around long enough to expect nothing less…it precludes dissappointment… Best
PS, XB, I was unjustifiably hard on you… my appologies DAT- man
SSG and butch- I thought two wrongs didn’t make it right. . .
OAM nailed it, methinks. Justice dept. IS supposed to be different. That’s why they aren’t elected by the populace and why they don’t have set terms. They are supposed to be the best and brightest who will work for the overall goal of preserving the American rule of law. They are supposed to be above party politics. Or, such was the idea . . .
Janet Reno above party politics? or Roger Taney during Lincoln’s administration? Who among us doesn’t seek to hire like-minded folks? I go to the zoo to get my diversity.
Snake speaks the truth. I’m sure it’s just a momentary shift from the norm…
Justice is still a part of the Executive branch and those within serve at the pleasure of the President. Why should interns be any different?
That’s why I never got the hullalbaloo (sp?) about the firing of the prosecutors – they were appointees who became unappointed.
We had to put up with a bunch of wussies with 3 and 4 stars when Clinton was president. Was that any different?
Rose colored glasses…hard to get rid of those..
Tom G.
AG Reno may have played politics…that did not mean it was right to do so. Nor did that give later AGs the clearance to do the same.
And Justice Tanney was not a Lincoln appointee. He was appointed by Andrew Jackson. Tanney was, in fact, quite a nettle in the side of Lincoln.
Actually, expect for the Dred Scot decision, Tanney was seen as a quite able Chief Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney
As I have often heard about the DOJs attorneys, their clients are the Constitutiona nd the people.
Nice synopsis OAM
AR, I’m not defending the behaviour, only pointing out it’s been with us for a long time regardless of who appoints whom. And it does seem like a natural result when a GOP administrations seeks to hire/approve GOP aspirants. I’m also assuming the 20 libs hired for full-time Honors jobs recanted their heresy…(-*