The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
RT in incoherent sputtering rage. (spree: may require registration, so you can go to the WaPo article instead)

While i see how at first appearances, this looks bad. But then I realize we're in a democracy. And the executive branch is structured to have leadership provided by the party that wins in an election, and democracy would not be meaningful if it were otherwise.

And then, I think further, we have courts just in case. And for voting cases, we have special three judge courts, just to be sure, with direct appeals to the Supreme Court. And I realized that the plan has been upheld--twice--by that court.

So my curiousity is sated.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
While i see how at first appearances, this looks bad. But then I realize we're in a democracy. And the executive branch is structured to have leadership provided by the party that wins in an election, and democracy would not be meaningful if it were otherwise.

I basically agree, although I hate the result.

Political appointees and elected officials ultimately trump the professionals and set policy. Here, the Bush administration made the decision to push the boundaries of the law for the benefit of the GOP. They have that right.

The plan, unfortunately, held up in Court. The process was followed -- no secrets or deception. Does go to show you where the priorities lie.

S_A_M

P.S. This kind of stuff, as an exemplar of a general shift in administration policy and enforcement emphasis, may go a long way to explain the huge turnover in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ in the past few years.

They have a perennial notice posted, and the WaPo even wrote a piece on it a couple weeks ago. That turnover may give me the chance to sneak in. I am not Republican, but I do get the veteran's preference.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I basically agree, although I hate the result.

Political appointees and elected officials ultimately trump the professionals and set policy. Here, the Bush administration made the decision to push the boundaries of the law for the benefit of the GOP. They have that right.

The plan, unfortunately, held up in Court. The process was followed -- no secrets or deception. Does go to show you where the priorities lie.

S_A_M

P.S. This kind of stuff, as an exemplar of a general shift in administration policy and enforcement emphasis, may go a long way to explain the huge turnover in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ in the past few years.

They have a perennial notice posted, and the WaPo even wrote a piece on it a couple weeks ago. That turnover may give me the chance to sneak in. I am not Republican, but I do get the veteran's preference.

Not every lawyer there is a political appointee, right? That means lots of Democrats hiding out. So a group that studied the plan found it illegal "not even a close case." The senior management said screw that we think its good- AND wait for it.........A COURT AGREED IT WAS FINE!!!!!!.

Someone was grinding political axes- sure- but maybe it was the group that thought it illegal and not even close- or are you taking the position they are just shitty lawyers?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wikiawesome. But I still don't understand the answer (yours or theirs) to my question, other than perhaps "that shit is fucked up"

Read "Of Time, Space and Other Things" by Issac Asimov, and you will understand. It contains an excelelnt essay on the calendar, and why 13 days had to be skipped in order for the U.S. to catch up to the Gregorian calendar.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not every lawyer there is a political appointee, right? So a group that studied the plan found it illegal "not even a close case." The senior management said screw that we think its good- AND wait for it.........A COURT AGREED IT WAS FINE!!!!!!.

Someone was grinding political axes- but maybe it was the group that thought it illegal and not even close- or were they just shitty lawyers?

Hank -- The "senior management" who approved the plan were and are political appointees.

Sure, they are lawyers too, but relying on them for this substantive analysis is: (a) kind of like asking you or me whether something is an antitrust violation; and (b) a bit naive if you expect an unbiased review given the issue in question.

The "career" staff attorneys were in those in the group doing the analysis. [eta: They were the group picked to do the analysis because this is what they do for a living.] Moreover, the Chief of that section of the CRD wrote a special concurrence to their memorandum.

Thus, I don't understand your response. How does anything you said undercut my post in any way?

If you want to say that its a complex issue which could go either way legally, you're right.

If you wanna say that Delay and the folks who pushed this plan through were motivated by anything other than the desire to gain maximum advantage to the GOP in the 2004 elections you're a fool. To paraphrase Jim Baker from 1990: "Screw the ____, they don't vote for us anyway."

If you think that political appointees generally don't do exactly what the President wants, you're wrong. I didn't say there was anything more nefarious than partisan advantage as a motive -- and said only that they "pushed the boundaries of the law." I think that is a fair description.

S_A_M

[Further eta: One of the points of this process, though, is to be sure that substance triumphs over politics, which is why it is so unusual to have staff reccommendations like these overruled. Rather reminds one of the FDA -- where the reccommendations of the scientific/medical review panels on the "abortion pill" and the medicine designed to prevent HPV (?) have been overruled and/or stalled at the higher levels -- except that DOJ has always been more political than the FDA is supposed to be.]

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


The "career" staff attorneys were in those in the group doing the analysis. Moreover, the chief of that section of the CRD wrote a special concurrence to their memorandum.

I think what he was getting at, and I refrained from suggesting this, is that the staff may well have been hired by Clinton's folks, and thus political in their own way. Which means that their assessment should be given even less credence, because it's not detached apolitical analysis. Of course, there's no way to determine that without checking the backgrounds of each of the staffers on the memo (which are public, because the memo is).

One thing's for sure--someone's going to be learning about federal law on disclosure of confidential information.

As for hiring, I saw those turnover numbers--they didn't look much higher than usual under Bush. There were bigger drops in 2001 and 2005, which is not surprising--hold out for a democrat. But in 2000 and 2004 the numbers were lower, so they balanced out. I doubt the attrition rate was significantly (statistically speaking) different from prior years. But, even if it is, that's not a terrible thing--the staff ought to reflect to at least some degree the leadership. Otherwise one gets only antagonistic relationships.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hank -- The "senior management" who approved the plan were and are political appointees.

Sure, they are lawyers too, but relying on them for this substantive analysis is: (a) kind of like asking you or me whether something is an antitrust violation; and (b) a bit naive if you expect an unbiased review given the issue in question.

The "career" staff attorneys were in those in the group doing the analysis. Moreover, the chief of that section of the CRD wrote a special concurrence to their memorandum.

I know that. You implied they were acting politically- I just said the guys on the memo had some political beliefs too, couldn't those have factored in?

If you wanna say that Delay and the folks who pushed this plan through were motivated by anything other than the desire to gain maximum advantage to the GOP in the 2004 elections you're a fool. To paraphrase Jim Baker from 1990: "Screw the ____, they don't vote for us anyway."

And this is different from what has been done in States forever how? Where does the name Gerrymandering come from Uncle SAM?

Boil it down- Texas does something politically based- that wasn't the point, you claimed Bush is again fucking people-
Because his people at DOJ declined to follow a memo that siad "it is an illegal plan, not even close."

I agree there might be political hackery involved, I'm just asking you if it wasn't by the guys who wrote the memo. You know the ones who said a plan a court later found fine and legal- WASN"T EVEN CLOSE TO LEGAL. They were either itching a mean political streak or fucking imcompetant.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
While i see how at first appearances, this looks bad. But then I realize we're in a democracy. And the executive branch is structured to have leadership provided by the party that wins in an election, and democracy would not be meaningful if it were otherwise.

And then, I think further, we have courts just in case. And for voting cases, we have special three judge courts, just to be sure, with direct appeals to the Supreme Court. And I realized that the plan has been upheld--twice--by that court.

So my curiousity is sated.

We can complete the circle by inquiring as to who appointed the judges.

Our entire system is political - political appointees, careerists, cooks, bottlewashers and all. From all appearances, DeLay pushed partisanship to the line, but in this case, at least, he seems to have bet well as to where the line was. Republicans should applaud, Democrats attack, and everybody gear up for the next election.

This is why Jefferson was happier to make a political issue out of the Alien and Sedition Acts than to repeal them. Sometimes, when the pigs get greedy, the better trial to hold is the one on the front pages of the paper.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think what he was getting at, and I refrained from suggesting this, is that the staff may well have been hired by Clinton's folks, and thus political in their own way. Which means that their assessment should be given even less credence, because it's not detached apolitical analysis. Of course, there's no way to determine that without checking the backgrounds of each of the staffers on the memo (which are public, because the memo is).

I understand what you're saying. But why did you say "even less credence?" Many of them may well have been hired between 1992 and 2000, but why does that mean that their analysis is so suspect that it is entitled to "less credence.'?

Your statement would apply to any memorandum on any sensitive subject written in any department at any time. Taken to its extreme, it makes one wonder why we even have career civil servants instead of full turnover with each administration. Where is the benefit?

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I understand what you're saying. But why did you say "even less credence?" Many of them may well have been hired between 1992 and 2000, but why does that mean that their analysis is so suspect that it is entitled to "less credence.'?

Your statement would apply to any memorandum on any sensitive subject written in any department at any time. Taken to its extreme, it makes one wonder why we even have career civil servants instead of full turnover with each administration. Where is the benefit?

S_A_M

Seems to me that the Bush administration agrees. There are obviously 6 too many lawyers working in the Justice Department.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
the staff may well have been hired by Clinton's folks,

Do you think Lawyers in the "voting rights division" might have some political beliefs? I bet 99% of those guys are voting straight party line one way or the other.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
We can complete the circle by inquiring as to who appointed the judges.

.

Higganbottham, C.J.--Reagan
Rosenthal, D.J.--Bush 41
Ward, D.J.--Clinton

Of course, district judges can't really be assessed by the appointing president because they're typically handled by the senators.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think Lawyers in the "voting rights division" might have some political beliefs? I bet 99% of those guys are voting straight party line one way or the other.

They might. I've found that most government lawyers are more interventionist, regardless of the area of law, than the typical defense lawyer. Adverse selection in both ways I suspect.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I understand what you're saying. But why did you say "even less credence?"

I should have said less credence. Same point as Hank's--nothing tells us it's not political too. Although we do know for sure the political appointees were political.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know that. You implied they were acting politically- I just said the guys on the memo had some political beliefs too, couldn't those have factored in?

Maybe so. A little harder to see than in political appointees, though.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And this is different from what has been done in States forever how? Where does the name Gerrymandering come from Uncle SAM?

The term comes from the name of Eldridge Gerry, I believe, and the practice has existed for centuries. Although, back then, there was no real issue about suppressing/minimizing the vote of minority groups. heh. heh.

Didn't say it was different, Hank -- just that it was wrong. I strongly support the idea that every state should put the redistricting process in the hands of a non-partisan commission, rather than the state legislatures.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You claimed Bush is again fucking people-
Because his people at DOJ declined to follow a memo that siad "it is an illegal plan, not even close."

Where did I say that Bush was fucking people -- aside from the politics of it? I think that Bush and the GOP were out to fuck the Democrats. Do you disagree?

Neither of us are qualified to judge the competence of the attorneys involved. You should have enough experience to know that the outcome in Court (or the PTO) doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the legal analysis behind the losing side.

S_A_M

P.S. Besides, I think you're misusing that [alleged] quote -- "illegal -- not even close."
[eta: I don't see it in either of the articles linked or any suggestion that the staff memorandum said that -- it is hardly "beaurocratese." The closest language I found to it was a statement by one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs suing the state.]