Study: Goodling’s partisan immigration judges more frequently rule against asylum-seekers.
By on Aug 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Study: Goodling’s partisan immigration judges more frequently rule against asylum-seekers.
A new analysis of immigration judges shows that those appointed through the illegal, partisan process created by Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson have “ruled against asylum-seekers significantly more often than colleagues who were appointed, as the law requires, under politically neutral rules.” Thirty-one judges were appointed under the illegal vetting process, and 28 of those remain; one was recently promoted by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to serve on the the Board of Immigration Appeals.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Doing the job they were appointed to do — activist judges du jour.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:52 amGot to make sure they don’t get Musharaffed by an uncooperative judiciary. The Bushies don’t want to make the same mistake Perves did in Pakistan.
Some actions can be so shocking, the people awaken.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:56 amAttagirl Monica! Mission accomplished.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pmIs Goodling herself vetting these asylum-seekers for their loyalty to Bush?
PEACE
August 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pmThat is exactly why the political litmus test was made before appointing the judges. Hopefully this is something that Obama can undo. He sure is going to have a mess on his hands. George Bush has single handedly destroyed our government and it is going to take a very long time to make things right again.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:07 pmIf they were appointed illegally (the law was broken in the hiring process), why do they still get to keep their jobs for life?
August 24th, 2008 at 12:07 pmFunny thing is the republicans should be embracing Hispanics.
1.) They tend to conservative Christian Catholics.
2.) Strong sense of family.
3.) Most of the ones I have know or worked with, are not only willing to work hard, but often multiple jobs.
If it wasn’t for the fact they are non-white, I think the republicans would embrace them.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pmIf it wasn’t for the fact they are non-white, I think the republicans would embrace them.
Republicans only embrace Hispanics who are anti-Castro.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:17 pmAugust 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I am curious:
August 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Wayne A. Schneider Says:
If they were appointed illegally (the law was broken in the hiring process), why do they still get to keep their jobs for life?
Interesting point, Wayne. Why indeed?
PEACE
August 24th, 2008 at 12:29 pmI guess this has gone on for a long time, but why are the prosecutors picking the judges at all?
August 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pmOnly federal judges who’s appointment has been ratified by the Senate have life tenure.
But even they may be impeached, and some even have.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pmBut what do we do about this. The only possible solution is to remove these judges and other career civil servants from their positions. The imperative for such action is clear:
1. It directly impacts actions taken such as those we have seen in immigration.
2. It leaves behind a fifth column to undermine policies of any new administration which will attempt to play by the rules.
3. It undermines the selection of future career civil service hires since any new system will rely upon career civil service members on selection committees. we can presume that the far right members will attempt to select like minded people.
4. There has to be a consequence for bad conduct. Those who committed these offenses may be embarrassed as they go to their new jobs with a lobbying firm or conservative law firm. Big deal. Likely, they are not going to be disbarred and those leading the conservative attempt to create a one party state will have achieved their goal and will make similar attempts in the future.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:37 pmWhat a load of crap. chimpy will allow mushy asylum, a terrorist and chimpy and his gang will seek asylum. But he will allow his crooks a form of asylum–his pardons.
They can take their damn worthless pardons and shove it. The Constitution wasn’t worth shit to the crooks so their pardons are just a damn piece of paper.
This is such an avoidable mess. Why can’t the goodling’s hires reapply for their jobs? There has to be an unbiased panel doing the hiring. This is until Sen. Obama becomes president.
This has to be brought to justice, people must pay for crimes. I know I damn do.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pmKrazny Says:
Funny thing is the republicans should be embracing Hispanics.
1.) They tend to conservative Christian Catholics.
2.) Strong sense of family.
3.) Most of the ones I have know or worked with, are not only willing to work hard, but often multiple jobs.
If it wasn’t for the fact they are non-white, I think the republicans would embrace them.
Hey and they don’t say. “Where is my mf aguas frescas.”
August 24th, 2008 at 12:55 pmRecompete all of their jobs.
August 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pmCan someone at Think Progress give us an update of poor little Monica Goodling’s where abouts these days?
Is she working for Wal Mart? Bear Sterns?
Heritage Foundation perhaps?
August 25th, 2008 at 3:05 am