The discussion revolves around allegations of politicization in the hiring processes within the Justice Department during the Bush administration. Participants examine the implications of these practices on the department's credibility and independence, referencing specific instances of political influence in hiring decisions. The conversation touches on broader themes of governmental integrity and the role of nonpartisan civil service.
Participants express a mix of skepticism and concern regarding the politicization of the Justice Department, with no clear consensus on the implications or the extent of the issue. Some agree that the department's integrity is compromised, while others argue that such practices are not new.
Participants reference specific instances and reports but do not resolve the broader implications of these practices on the functioning of government agencies. The discussion reflects varying perspectives on the nature of political influence in governmental operations.
Readers interested in political science, governmental integrity, and the dynamics of civil service may find this discussion relevant.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/29/america/29justice.phpSenior aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales broke the law by using politics to guide their hiring decisions for a wide range of important department positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department's credibility and independence, an internal report concluded Monday.
The report, prepared by the Justice Department's inspector general and its internal ethics office, singles out for particular criticism Monica Goodling, a young lawyer from the Republican National Committee who rose quickly through the ranks of the department to become a top aide to Gonzales.
Ms. Goodling, who testified before Congress in May 2007 at the height of the scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys, introduced politics into the hiring process in a systematic way that constituted illegal misconduct, the report found.
*snip*
In one case, for instance, Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a "liberal Democrat." After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.
And in another case, colleagues said that Goodling refused to extend the appointment of a female prosecutor because she believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor, according to the report.
And in another case cited by the inspector general, Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The candidate was regarded as "head and shoulders above the other candidates" in the view of officials in the executive office of United States attorneys, but they were forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable to Goodling.
In forwarding a résumé in 2006 from a lawyer who was working for the Federalist Society, Goodling sent an e-mail message to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, saying: "Am attaching a résumé for a young, conservative female lawyer."
Goodling interviewed the woman herself for possible positions and wrote in her notes such phrases as "pro-God in public life," and "pro-marriage, anti-civil union." She was eventually hired as a career prosecutor.
Goodling also conducted extensive searches on the Internet to glean the political or ideological leanings of candidates for career positions, the report found. She and other Justice Department supervisors would look for key phrases like "abortion," "homosexual," "guns," or "Florida re-count" to get information on a candidate's political leanings.
mgb_phys said:I'm not sure this is news.
I'm pretty sure it's being going on since the senate really was the senate and the guy in charge was called caeser.
If this (meaning the whole disaster in "Justice", spanning the last few years) isn't, then the word 'news' becomes somewhat meaningless.mgb_phys said:I'm not sure this is news.
The June 16 e-mail from Robbi Farrell, who heads the agency's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, instructs managers to remind employees "at your next staff meeting" that if they "are contacted directly by the IG's office or GAO requesting information of any kind . . . Please do not respond to questions or make any statements."
I thought that was the American system, the whole administration changes with a new government - isn't it supposed to be more democratic than the British system of having the same civil service run the country irrespective of who happens to have been elected.edward said:I think it would be difficult to find a federal department or agency in the Bush administration that has not been corrupted.
mgb_phys said:I thought that was the American system, the whole administration changes with a new government - isn't it supposed to be more democratic than the British system of having the same civil service run the country irrespective of who happens to have been elected.
mgb_phys said:I thought that was the American system, the whole administration changes with a new government - isn't it supposed to be more democratic than the British system of having the same civil service run the country irrespective of who happens to have been elected.
We have the NAO National Audit Office - extremely fair and independent but totally useless. They famously publish a report years later suggesting that some obvious pork barrel project "might not have delivered the best value to the tax payer"!edward said:All Departments and Agencies are held accountable by the GAO (Government Accounting Office) also neutral.
You could have another revolution, it's been ages since the last one.Our system of checks and balances has been run through Bush's paper shredder.