Politicization of immigration judges exposed.
Politicization of immigration judges exposed.
ThinkProgress noted last week that the Justice Department has expanded its internal investigation of partisan hiring practices after Monica Goodling admitted that she “considered party affiliation in screening applicants to become immigration judges.” The Legal Times sheds new light on this controversial process:
Historically, those hired for the positions were vetted by the Executive Office of Immigration Review and its recommendations were forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General — where they were almost uniformly approved. Sometimes this process took place without public advertisements for the posts and without competing candidates. But in recent years, that process came to be inverted: instead the attorney general’s office exercised “direct-hire” authority in selecting a candidate who was then sent to EOIR. Rarely, if ever, did EOIR object to a candidate — even if the person lacked any background in immigration law. [...]
The effort picked up speed under Gonzales’ tenure, when Goodling took over Sampson’s hiring responsibilities. If Sampson or Goodling had a suggestion, [EOIR] didn’t look for any other candidates. “In the past year, we were just asked to give the city and then we would get a name or two,” Rooney says.
Members of the immigration judiciary noticed the shift. “A lot of my colleagues in [the immigration] bar seemed to have applications pending for years without ever being interviewed while people with contacts at the White House were being appointed at warp speed,” says Bruce Einhorn, who retired as an immigration judge in Los Angeles in January.
This hiring process has since been ended, following a lawsuit by a Hispanic immigration lawyer who charged that the Justice Dept. “discriminated against her on the basis of her race and gender when it chose two white men for the vacancy.” But the legacy of Gonzales lives on.
Muckraker and emptywheel have more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sadly the destructive legacy of Gonzales will linger on for many years at DOJ.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:11 amSo we have a corrupt dictatorship...I mean, government.
Yawn.
It's not like the Democratic Congress is really going to do anything about it.
I mean, this is beginning to sound like the little Dutch boy, putting his finger in the Dike. There's leaks all over the place, but no one will fix the damn Dike. Just ask the people in New Orleans.
The only thing the Democratic Congress is going to do is keep us entertained with juicy tidbits and feigned indignation.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:21 amInstead, the Justice Department’s leadership, which oversees the immigration courts, used a little-known power to appoint two lower-level attorneys — both of whom Gonzalez had supervised at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in El Paso — to the $115,000-a-year positions.
Well then maybe someone should remove that tool from the toolbox.
Get the 110th Congress on it, they will whip something right up.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:22 amLordy, flush the whole system and start over.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:28 amYes, Tundra, you are happy the Dems won't investigate. Do you know why that is? Really, do you have a vested interest in the corrupt Republicans not getting caught?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:33 amGee JPark,
The only thing about them sitting on their lazy behinds that I find funny, is the amount of people on here who screamed the blank check was stopping. The same people who said Investigations are under way and we will all see.
My response was simply "They are politicians they aren't going to do a thing"
I have zero faith in any of them and was called out for it. "No Democrats are honest and will fight"
"they aren't like the ReTHUGS or CONservatives, they are going to clean house and do the right thing"
"Don't go third party, it's not viable the Democrats are the way to go to stop BushCo"
May 30th, 2007 at 12:46 amI don't think it is funny at all, Tundra. If you are happy with the status quo, you are a rare bird. You can rip Dems all you want for their crap. It is true. The only thing is...Republicans are worse.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:54 amLOL -- this "dictator" leaves his throne on January 20, 2009 -- not sure what law school teaches that as the definition of "dictator" but I'm glad mine never went there.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:00 amThe Bush Administration is now officially the most corrupt in US history. America may not be able to survive 20 more months of Bush Regime.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:01 amJake, can you prove, after the newest presidential directive (you DO know which one I am talking about, right?) that Bush will leave?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:04 amThanks to Gonzales, Superman's creedo will have to be shortened from "Truth, justice, and the American way!" to: "The American way!"
May 30th, 2007 at 1:05 amI didn't seem to get the "official" word -- thanks for clearing that up -- here I thought that Clinton was much worse.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:06 amYou can rip Dems all you want for their crap. It is true. The only thing is…Republicans are worse.
Comment by JPark
Hell, I want the crooked democrats and the ones that were lapdogs in the 109th out. Replace them with Democrats and Independants that will do the Right Thing.
Same with the Republicans. Replace them with Democrats and Independants that will do the Right Thing.
To hell and out of office with Republicans. They wouldn't know the Right Thing if they "drowned it in the bathtub".
May 30th, 2007 at 1:06 amHeh
smarfdy, that would be the "neo-American way".
May 30th, 2007 at 1:06 amFor the record, if Bush remains in office and there is a Congress intact on January 21, 2009, even I will support his impeachment.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:07 amThe Bush Administration is now officially the most corrupt in US history.
What are you using as proof of that. We have had a couple impeachment hearings on other presidents and well, Bush hasn't been brought up on any charges. Unless you are convivting him without a trial based on heresay.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:07 amNo, you wouldn't Jakey. There is no indication, after the incredible lies you have bought, that you would suddenly get a conscience.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:10 amTundra, huh? Is cronyism not corruption? If you think BushCo is not corrupt you are an idiot. Heh, well, that is kind of a given.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:11 amComment by Tundra
I have to agree, it looks like alot of Democrats are skunks along with the Republicans.
No impeachment for blatent abuse of power and admitted breaking of the law ( wide open warrantless wiretaps on phones and internet connections. )
They are complicit if they do not defend The Constitution and U.S. Law.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:12 amAnd they are OathBreakers All.
I think I know what I would and would not support. Also, I think it's called "hearsay" Tundra.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:12 amTundra > you are NOT supposed to be a Bushite, so do not defend the criminal Bush Regime on here.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:13 amOh, Jake!!!! Hearsay???? That would have something to do with the rule of law!!! That is not something you believe in.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:14 amComment by Jake — May 30, 2007 @ 1:12 am
Thank you for the correction
May 30th, 2007 at 1:14 amBush hasn’t been brought up on any charges. Unless you are convivting him without a trial based on heresay.
Comment by Tundra
But Bush has admitted to warrantless wiretaps, on TV, you know the magic-sparkle box. That is expressly against the law and the Constitution.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:15 amPeriod.
Jake,
Why are you so annoying? Seriously, what the F**K is wrong with you? I don't get it. You seem to thrive on being disliked. What made you like that? You went to law shool? How is that fact relevant to the definition of the word "dictator?" Do you know the definition of "fascism?" Would you agree that the current Admin. has acted in a fascist manner? Of course you wouldn't, because you would rather be contrarian than to add substantially to the conversation. Must suck to be you.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:16 amJay, did Tundra claim he wasn't a Bushite? That is funny.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:17 amI think I know what I would and would not support. Also, I think it’s called “hearsay†Tundra.
Comment by Jake
Keep posting Lies, moron rape-joker.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:18 amWe know better.
Jay, did Tundra claim he wasn’t a Bushite? That is funny.
Comment by JPark
That it is.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:21 am=D
Tundra > you are NOT supposed to be a Bushite, so do not defend the criminal Bush Regime on here.
Comment by Jay Randal — May 30, 2007 @ 1:13 am
I am not a Bushite Jay (I hate him as much as the rest of the politicians in DC). I'm saying, you said it was official he was the most corrupt.
He hasn't been found guilty of anything yet. There are people in place who can investigate, bring up hearings, impeach for any true crimes that existed.
I honestly hope that they do bring him up on charges and make the next president realize that it's not a one man/woman show up there. Noone is above the law and there are rules in place for a reason. Until he is convicted (or resigns before hand) though, I can't say most corrupt officially.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty is a very important piece of who we are as Americans. (Of course I say OJ was found innocent by a jury of his peers, so he is innocent to me)
May 30th, 2007 at 1:21 amYou're welcome, Tundra.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:21 amBut Bush has admitted to warrantless wiretaps, on TV, you know the magic-sparkle box. That is expressly against the law and the Constitution.
Period.
Comment by Wayne — May 30, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Yes and people have confessed to crimes have been let off for being not guilty. Saying it doesn't make it so, it still has to be PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's how the system works.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:23 amCome on Tundra, you hate Bush but you seem to defend everything he stands for? How is that possible. Do you just hate Bush for no reason?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:23 amAh, ok, Tundra, the confession doesn't mean anything until he is impeached? And NO, there is no "beyond a shadow of a doubt" clause in any court in this land.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:26 amTundra > The Congress will never impeach Bush, but not because he is innocent of any criminal activity, but because they are too wussie and afraid to impeach him. The corruption is massive in DC now and I do not believe the nation will survive till November election 2008.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:26 amTundra:
Another hint -- warrantless wiretaps on enemies during wartime are NOT necessarily illegal -- the Constitution does not protect spies. Period.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:27 amJake, warrantless wiretaps on political enemies is illegal, you brown-shirted little thug.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:30 amIt’s how the system works.
Comment by Tundra
If the system works and certain people follow the Law and their oaths of office, then there will be impeachment proceedings and then trials,for commited and admitted crimes.
If not, we no longer have a government ruling by the contract with We The People, called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
We have a lawless government.
Does that not mean anything to you at all???
May 30th, 2007 at 1:31 amCome on Tundra, you hate Bush but you seem to defend everything he stands for?
Like what?
Patriot Act (Wrong there)
Abortion views (Wrong there)
Faith in God (Wrong there)
Mass spending on social programs (Wrong there)
No Child left behind (Wrong there)
man + woman = Marriage (Wrong there)
But I do believe in the constitution and the laws we have. Please find him guilty of something and make him pay the penalty.
Do you just hate Bush for no reason?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:31 amI hate bush because he reminds me of a used car salesman, and I don't trust him. He gives me the vibe of a spoiled little rich kid who always got his way, and has zero people skills, doesn't know how to share or compromise.
Tundra:
The nation survived the Civil War and World War II. This too shall pass.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:31 amBy the way, you just contradicted yourself, Jake Buscemi. The Constitution doesn't protect spies that tap the American people? I actually think it does.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:32 amTundra, he IS a used car salesman. I am just wondering why you buy all of his Pacers?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:32 amComment by Jay Randal — May 30, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Agreed
May 30th, 2007 at 1:32 amAnother hint — warrantless wiretaps on enemies during wartime are NOT necessarily illegal — the Constitution does not protect spies. Period.
Comment by Jake
No, according to Law, if even 1 US citizen was tapped without a warrant, a crime was commited.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:34 amThanks for showing your contempt of Rule of Law, rape-jaker.
Wow, Tundra, with all of those things you "disagree" with Bush on you would have figured you wouldn't have portrayed yourself as a righty schill...just once.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:36 amDoes that not mean anything to you at all???
Comment by Wayne — May 30, 2007 @ 1:31 am
No it means alot to me, but here we have to call out the people responsible for representing us. Going around saying how bad he is and giving each other a high five isn't going to cut it.
Congress doesn't get the free pass anymore. When it was a republican controlled congress, sure, they couldn't do anything. Now I want no excuses. If they have something on him, they need to bring it. If they don't they need to say so and clear the air about the things they claimed he did.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:37 amFor the record, U.S. citizens have been convicted of being spies -- also, I have never joked about real rape -- if anyone NOT on the "Ignore List" wants to discuss this or the topic of the thread, please let me know.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:38 amHeh, Jakey McRapist!!! Whatever.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:41 amWow, Tundra, with all of those things you “disagree†with Bush on you would have figured you wouldn’t have portrayed yourself as a righty schill…just once.
Comment by JPark — May 30, 2007 @ 1:36 am
Ummmm, you jump on me whenever I say anything bad about a democrat. I don't even have to stand up for Bush to get you going. But I hold both sides to the same standard, which I know is a little hard for you to do being so entrenched where you are.
And there are plenty of posts on this board where I agree with the mainstream, just not much to say after one post is done. You most likely miss them because they are the ones that say "Wow that (republican) is such a hypocrite", or "Yeah some leader of the church there" and you skip over them because they agree with your stance.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:42 amTundra, I have never seen anything even slightly less than Bush-loving from you. I am asking for any regular to set me straight. And I am one who gives people the benefit of the doubt. I would love to hear Exley or Mr. President's view of you. Do you know why? Because those two are pretty right wing but I usually get along with them because they are not always Limbaugh's zombies. You? I have never seen anything but right wing trash.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:47 amAnother hint — warrantless wiretaps on enemies during wartime are NOT necessarily illegal — the Constitution does not protect spies. Period.
First off we never declared war did we? Doesn't it take congress for that? So the wartime provision is out.
Second, American citizens are covered by the constitution. A warrant is required and a special court was even put in place that would basically look at the evidence and grant within a couple hour time frame. This court could even be used after the fact if they had to move now. They choose not to and that's what's the illegal part (Provided of course that the scenerio outlined is proven in a court of law)
May 30th, 2007 at 1:47 amFor the record, blah, blah... I have never joked about real rape --- if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†wants to discuss this or the topic of the thread, please let me know.
Comment by Jake
For the record, rape jokes, even not about real rape are disgusting and was offending to the women who were posting that day.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:48 amI am willing to discuss that with anyone, because I am not a Coward who hides behind a made up “Ignore Listâ€, so I can get away with posting crap without having to back up idiotic claims.
Here JPark here is one from earlier.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/ledeen-cult/
May 30th, 2007 at 1:49 amFine, one point for you Tundra on the thinking person scale for your response to Jake. Do you wonder, however, why Jake the nut thinks you are his ally?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:52 amTundra > kind of hard to prove things about Bush in a court of law, because he tends to operate above the law. Cheney has basically told his pals that he will never testify under oath before the Congress and intends to ignore them.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:52 amhttp://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/27/i-lose-my-son-to-a-war-i-oppose/#comments
Another one certinally not rightist from yesterday.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:53 amIf anyone NOT on the "Ignore List" wants to know why if stopped answering questions from people who refused to return the same Common Courtesy in a civil manner, let me know. Someone else made a lame analogy of the U.S. "raping" Iraq, not me.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:53 amWell, I give you minor credit for being human, Tundra, but the right stopped claiming Phelps since he started picketing military funerals.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:54 amTundra, I have never seen anything even slightly less than Bush-loving from you.--- JPark
Not True.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:54 amTundra is pretty libertarian type conservative, though and seems to be an equal oportunity basher =)
For that matter, I agree with some, but not all of the libertarian views myself
Tundra, do you need proof of high crimes and misdemenors for impeachment? If the Dems wimp out as I suspect they will, will that make Bush less of a criminal?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:55 amDo you wonder, however, why Jake the nut thinks you are his ally?
Comment by JPark — May 30, 2007 @ 1:52 am
We are civil, he hasn't made any personal attacks at me, so I have nothing against him. He is welcome to his opinions and I'll throw mine out there. When he brings up a good point, I'll back it. If he brings up a point I don't agree with I won't. Then again I have backed Jay, Zoo, Wayne, Bruce, Katie when I agree with what they say.
Anyway guys good conversation, but I must be crashing out for work in the morning.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:57 amOk, another, Tundra. What happened to you? And why are you gloating today that the Democratic Congress is not going to impeach no matter how much evidence they have? That is not American.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:57 amTundra:
I don't think you are an ally -- I simply appreciate your fairness and open mind on the issues -- I wish I had the time and space to point out all the exceptions to warrants and how the AUMF is the legal equivalent to a declaration of war. Neither Bush nor Cheney can be FORCED to testify by Congress, just as neither of them can be indicted on criminal charges. You are correct that impeachment and removal must occur first. Have a good night.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:59 amWayne, I have never seen it. I have seen him...especially before his recent appearance...defend Bush to the bitter end. It is possible he has had a recent change of mind.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:59 amTundra is pretty libertarian type conservative, though and seems to be an equal oportunity basher =)
I don't discriminate, but you don't tow any line either. You got plenty of Libertarian in ya. haha
May 30th, 2007 at 2:00 amAnd Wayne, I am sure some people would say I am a trusting fool with some people. I don't know if he changed but he certainly used to be a real righty Bush-lover.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:00 amJake, don't talk about my posts. I am on your lipstick list.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:01 amComment by JPark — May 30, 2007 @ 2:00 am
ok one quick last one. I am a vet and have defended the soldiers till the end, but never Bush, unless it was a "rule of law" type thing. I have defended staying in Iraq (although I never wanted to go in the first place). i have the we screwed it up we have to fix it mentality (or did, not so much anymore).
Other than that not a whole lot I defended him on.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:06 amThanks for your input, Tundra.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:08 amOk, Tundra, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you believe that you have changed your views. I still want to know why you were gloating about the Dems being wimps on the investigations?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:11 amFor the record, Tundra, I never read any of your posts as "gloating" FWIW. Hope you had a good night sleep.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:16 amRules... Laws is the new Uma... Oprah
May 30th, 2007 at 6:04 amAmazing how the Republicans have to so thoroughly rig the system. Their version of democracy seems to need a lot of help to work properly.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:50 amYep, your government at work - totally out of control!!!!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 7:57 amOur good friends::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR0AGsCwBfI&mode=related&search=
No you mean to say, "blacks go home."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlMWj0Lh9o&mode=related&search=
The whites are duying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk&mode=related&search=
We don't need to control the borders since these guys will do it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_UO_FgG4IE
Amnesty heck why not let these guys in too...(adult youtube members only)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v7jjURStl0
May 30th, 2007 at 8:15 amYou can ALWAYS count on these criminals to reveal EXACTLY what they are up to, by listening to what they are accusing others of doing (while doing it themselves):
How many times did you hear Bush rail against "ACTIVIST JUDGES" - while at the same time, hiring ONLY judges who would ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA.
Their hypocrisy knows no limits.
Their TACTIC is exposed.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:58 amAbility means nothing. Ideology is everything.
Obey your chimp.
Wow, it's no wonder Republicans can't govern worth a tin shit. All they care about is an oath of obedience.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am.
"This dictator leaves the throne January 20, 2009."
A recurring thought that has entered my mind is throwing a party on a grand scale that will dwarf any party in the history of mankind.
A grand party of this magnitude will be a nice touch to the most incompetent, corrupt, and evil administration in the history of the United States.
Let's party for a week. The biggest names in show business and music would perform--whatever the cost. Let's have parades. Let's dance. In addition, there would live broadcasts around the world.
Let's get real. America throws a big party every January and it's called the Super Bowl. A little oblong ball generates thousands of parties, and big money.
Seeing George W. Bush's sorry ass leave office in January of 2009 should be the SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER, SUPER BOWL OF ALL PARTIES.
I would gladly pay a $1,000 to fund such a party. I bet you would, too. Currently you and I are paying thousands of dollars to support and fund a useless war with a mounting death and casualty list.
When I say a grand party, I mean grand. I think a $100,000,0000,0000,000 party would be quite grand. The day Bush's sorry ass is not in the White House will be a happy, happy, happy, happy, happy day. What better reason for a party, and a grand party.
This fascist administration ruled with an iron fist for eight long years, and if they didn't like the rules they made their own rules. They screwed America and laughed all the way to the bank.
How could we stop these fascist thugs. They stole the 2000 election and the 2004 election. These fascist thugs won and the American electorate lost. Voting was a waste of time. Ha! Ha! Protesting is finally gaining a little ground, but it's been a hard-fought battle.
A grand party is in OUR hands. Finally, we have the power to do something. LET'S DO IT.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:21 amI would not gladly pay a $1,000 to fund such a party.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:01 amJake,
LET'S PARTY LIKE IT'S 1999 in January of 2009.
The year, 1999, was a P-R-I-N-C-E of a good year. That was the last good year America and the world will see for a while.
To not throw a big party in January of 2009 would be a shame.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm