Illegal hiring practices at the Justice department

US Attorneys are political appointees. Political appointees change with each administration. It is 'blatant' and 'sleazy' if you're PO'd at the politician in power. Otherwise, it's business as usual for DOJ.
 
social and environmental justice
Click to expand...

I still don't know what that means, justice for socialites? Justice for trees and birds? Is social justice like economic justice? If so what is economic justice?
 
The double standard on this board is funny. The Bush administration is found to be breaking the law in a way that violates the potential freedom of every citizen and people say "oh well" but if Obama chooses one word poorly they are all over him trying to portray him as the next Hitler.

Seems a lot of you are forgetting that the Justice department employs thousands upon thousands of people and that only a very small percentage of those positions are appointments.

You also seem to be missing the point that these activities are NOT standard practice and are in fact VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW.

You also seem to be ignoring that the report found that member of the justice department willing provided false information to congress.

I keep hearing how "Clinton did the same thing" but I am not seeing where that is true at all. Where did Clinton come under fire fr illegal hiring practices at the Justice dept?
 
Clinton did not come under fire because the media is decidedly on the left. That does not mean that Clinton never did it. Look at this article from 1998. (Note that this article was written before Bush even took office)

Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House.
Click to expand...

How about this article that points out Reagan replaced 88 of the US attorneys during his Presidency, although he spread the firings out over his entire first term, instead of all at once. Bush the first replaced 89 of them. Clinton 93 of them, and Bush the second replaced 8.

BTW- I don't like GW, I didn't like his dad, I liked Clinton even less, and although I did like Reagan, I think he spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. I don't have a good impression of Carter, but I was 12 years old when he left office, so I don't directly remember him much, although I do remember the church bells ringing every day at noon for the hostages. So, I don't think I am being partisan (I am not a Dem or a Republican)
 
Clinton did not come under fire because the media is decidedly on the left
Click to expand...
That's crap. The media did not investigate these illegal activities. Plus, the media is NOT a left wing organization. It might appear to be from where you are standing, but it is not. That is a myth and a lie.
How about this article that points out Reagan replaced 88 of the US attorneys during his Presidency, although he spread the firings out over his entire first term, instead of all at once. Bush the first replaced 89 of them. Clinton 93 of them, and Bush the second replaced 8.
Click to expand...
What about it? They all three did so in a legal manner. That is not the case here. Plus, you seem to be forgetting the the Justice department does not just employ 93 people.

This was not a case of replacing previous appointments. This was a case of deliberately trying to stack the justice system with yes men and party loyalists at all levels.
 
Yes, there is a double standard, so what?
Click to expand...
When anyone allows themselves to adhere to a double standard they invalidate themselves entirely. If your ethics and morals are conditional then you have no credibility.
 
For all those who say, "Oh well, SOP, they all do it", that isn't a very valid defense. It's a bit like saying tax evasion is OK because lots of people cheat on their taxes, or that speeding is OK because everybody speeds.

If the charges are true, I hope that they nail those responsible to the proverbial wall. It's disgusting. Corruption may come and go, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted with vigor.
 
the media is NOT a left wing organization
Click to expand...

True it is not organized,but fully 90% of those in the media vote democrat. I think their bias shows, I see bias on the right just not to the same extent. The writers and commentators who are completely objective don't exist.
 
True it is not organized,but fully 90% of those in the media vote democrat
Click to expand...
Where are you getting that number? Are you referring to the study where the majority of reporters considered themselves liberal? I hate to break it to you. The same statistics apply to the vast majority of persons with college educations.

Being liberal does not mean you vote democrat. I am very liberal and I have primarily voted republican my entire life on state and federal levels. My dad is a complete conservative, as was my grandfather, and they both voted primarily democrat.
 
PBP said:
When anyone allows themselves to adhere to a double standard they invalidate themselves entirely. If your ethics and morals are conditional then you have no credibility.
Click to expand...

Good point. How upset were you in 1992 that Clinton fired every last one when he took office?
 
US Attorneys are political appointees. Political appointees change with each administration. It is 'blatant' and 'sleazy' if you're PO'd at the politician in power. Otherwise, it's business as usual for DOJ.
Click to expand...
Plus one.
Good point. How upset were you in 1992 that Clinton fired every last one when he took office?
Click to expand...
Plus 2

Just because we have a certain law in place does not mean that violating that law is a bad thing. From an objective stand point, so the AG's are going to align with the presidency on different issues. OK. I sort of like the fact that the AG's office is aligned with the presidency, when the guy I like is in office.

I also like the fact that the AG's are changed every 4 or 8 years.
Sometimes incompetence is a good thing. We don't need more people prosecuted by our federal agencies. We need less. We need less laws, so we have less crime.
Less experienced prosecutors mean less convictions, but, they also mean less competent filings, as well.

I also think conflict of parties may be designed into the system, and, I'm not sure how this one sits. I would really
have loved to have an AG that was Republican in office, unwilling to play lap dog for Clinton when he went after the gun companies, and threatened them into gun locks.

I also think the presidency was designed to be a figure head, and, due to the time restraints on communication, the term limits were designed to make sure that figure remained nothing but a figure head. Our increase in communication and travel speeds have made the presidency more effective then it should be.

It certainly is clear that we need to be able to shake up congress more quickly then the system allows, and, that the people in office need to be working shorter hours, less pay, and writing fewer laws.

It's become real clear that the existing structure does not work well to address our current real needs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top