posted by Damozel |Wan Kim, the Justice Department's current assistant attorney general for civil rights, seems to be concerned that the Senate Judiciary Committee is rushing to judgment about the division's hiring practices under his predecessor, Bradley J. Schlozman. (Boston Globe )
Before the Senate, Kim stated that he was unaware at the time of any politically motivated firings until he read about them in WaPo and urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to wait till an internal Justice investigation is complete before drawing conclusions. Boston Globe. (Poor Kim was invited to appear before the committee for "what was billed as a routine hearing on the civil rights division's work" (Washington Post). Imagine his surprise!)
Other lawyers from the division would beg to differ about hiring practices under Schlozman. "'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'" (Washington Post, emphasis mine). Wan Kim says that his own management is free of ideology. "'Talent and competence and ability to me matter, and other things don't matter," he said" (Washington Post).
Kim (the second in command at the time) conceded that some of Schlozman's statements were "At a very minimum...intemperate, inopportune remarks." The Washington Post, Senators Deride Justice Reassignments. Good. That's fine. But is it really too soon to conclude that Schlozman's management of the civil rights division was driven, or sometimes driven, by his own political agenda (promotion of the Bush Administration's political ends) or at least that the evidence and allegations accrued thus far indicate that his actions had that effect (promotion of the Bush Administration's political ends)?
In [a] 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....
Appellate lawyers said that before Schlozman arrived, the small staff enjoyed a collegial work environment generally free of partisanship. Its lawyers concentrated on framing constitutional arguments for pending judicial decisions on hot-button issues such as voting rights, racial discrimination and religious freedom.
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.
Schlozman and several deputies also took an unusual interest in the assignment of office responsibility for appellate cases and, according to the lawyers and one of the supervisors, repeatedly ordered Flynn to take cases away from career lawyers with expertise and hand them to recent hires whose résumés listed membership in conservative groups, including the Federalist Society.
Colleagues were especially surprised when Sarah Harrington, who graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and was one of the most highly regarded lawyers in the section, had four cases -- including one concerning religious freedom -- taken away at Schlozman's instruction. The Washington Post, Political Hiring in Justice Division Probed (emphasis mine). .
The three minority women who were pushed out of the civil rights division---Karen Stevens, Tovah Calderon, and Teresa Kwong---all had good performance ratings from supervisors and their supervisors objected to the "reassignments." The Washington Post. Kim wouldn't comment on Schlozman's motives, suggesting that the internal investigations "would uncover any impropriety." The Washington Post, Senators Deride Justice Reassignments. No doubt. But I think anyone who has followed the story ---which ought to include Wan Kim, of course----would have to admit that there is already, without more, an unmistakable appearance of impropriety. And when it comes to this particular department---the one in charge of, you know, "Justice"----the appearance of impropriety is enough for me.
The June 21 statement of Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, summarizes the issues that stand out for me:
Several reports from former career attorneys in the Division highlight how the current Administration has abandoned the priorities upon which the Civil Rights Division was founded. New evidence continues to emerge demonstrating that President Bush’s political appointees have reversed longstanding civil rights policies and impeded civil rights progress. There are disturbing reports that career lawyers have been shut out of the Division’s decision-making process, that the Division’s civil rights enforcement on behalf of racial minorities has sharply declined, and that the Department has packed the Division with attorneys who have no background in civil rights litigation.
Of the many stories about corrosive political influences affecting our government, the reports of the politicization of the justice department’s Civil Rights Division are some of the most disappointing. After all, this law enforcement Division is entrusted with defending our most precious rights as Americans, including our fundamental right to vote and our rights against discrimination. I am deeply troubled by what appears to be an effort by the White House to manipulate the Justice Department into its own political arm....
Investigative reporting appearing in the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and other papers has chronicled this Administration’s political makeover of the civil rights division....As we have learned from previous Committee testimony, the Bush Administration’s political appointees implemented a major policy change in its hiring process. Until 2002, hiring for career jobs in the Civil Rights Division under all administrations, Democratic and Republican, had been handled by civil servants, not political appointees. After the Bush Administration disbanded the hiring committees – comprised of veteran career lawyers – a noticeable shift in backgrounds of its attorneys emerged. According to internal documents obtained by the Boston Globe, “only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003 . . . have civil rights experience” which is a downward turn as compared to two years before the change where “77 percent of those [] hired had civil rights backgrounds.”..
It should come as no surprise that the result, and of course the intent, of this political makeover of the Civil Rights Division has resulted in a dismal civil rights enforcement record..... The American people deserve a strong and independent Justice Department with leaders who enforce the law without fear or favor. Every week brings new revelations about the erosion of independence at the Justice Department. This Administration was willing, in the U.S. Attorney firings and in the vetting of career hires for political allegiance, to sacrifice the independence of law enforcement and the rule of law for loyalty to the White House.
And Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Wan Kim the question that is foremost in my mind: ""Over and over again, you see symbols that suggest the [agency's] management was in a state of considerable partisanship. What are you doing right now to remedy this very difficult situation?" The Washington Post, Senators Deride Justice Reassignments.
See related posts:
Senate Subpoenas DoJ Officials and White House
I like you on facebook and follow through google reader!
Posted by: North Face Outlets | December 15, 2011 at 03:50 AM