Another Blow To Justice<\/p>\n
By Jamie Gorelick
\nTuesday, July 29, 2008; A17<\/p>\n
Another stunning report has documented the bold and illegal influence of
\npolitics at the Justice Department over the past eight years. For decades,
\nRepublican and Democratic attorneys general had protected from political
\ninfluence the hiring of career prosecutors and administrative judges. There
\nwas an unbroken rule, embodied in law, regulation and department policy,
\nthat no political questions would be asked of those who wanted to serve in
\ncareer — as opposed to political — positions in the department. We
\ndemanded of our Justice Department, in its core prosecutorial and
\nadjudicative functions, that it be separate from politics. Until the Bush
\nadministration.<\/p>\n
Last month, we learned that political functionaries deputized by Attorneys
\nGeneral John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales had screened the best and the
\nbrightest coming out of law schools, judicial clerkships and other positions
\nto weed out those who appeared to be Democrats or who might hold liberal
\nideas; favor was shown to Republicans, members of the Federalist Society,
\nand those considered to be good and loyal conservatives. As the department’s
\ninspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility noted, this
\nis illegal. It also breaks the promise of justice that is above politics and
\nundermines the department’s best values.<\/p>\n
Now, an equally graphic report by the same two offices concludes that in
\n2003, the apolitical process for selecting immigration judges and
\nprosecutors was stood on its head. A chief aide to Attorney General Ashcroft
\n(and later to Attorney General Gonzales) “outlined a new process for hiring
\n[immigration judges] that listed the White House as the sole source for
\ngenerating candidates.”<\/p>\n
Thus, immigration judges — who, by law, are to be chosen without regard to
\ntheir political pedigree — were no longer picked by the nonpolitical office
\nthat is supposed to find and train the men and women who mete out justice to
\ntens of thousands of immigrants. In the interview files for these candidates
\nwere such comments as “Cons[ervative] on ‘god, guns + gays’ ” — but not
\nmuch about whether they understood immigration law or had the capacity for
\nfairness.<\/p>\n
Even more appalling, others, including a counsel to Attorney General
\nGonzales, illegally selected individual line prosecutors — who wield
\ntremendous power over the reputations, liberty and livelihood of
\nAmericans — using Internet searches on such keywords as “Bush, Gore,
\nRepublican, Democrat, Clinton, spotted owl, abortion, gay, gun, and Florida
\nrecount” to assess their political and policy views.<\/p>\n
Why does this matter?<\/p>\n
In a long career counseling individuals being investigated by the Justice
\nDepartment, I have had to explain to sometimes cynical citizens that
\npolitics are prohibited from influencing such inquiries. My ability to give
\nthat assurance has hinged on both the public perception — and reality —
\nthat the career assistant U.S. attorneys, line prosecutors and lawyers who
\nwork at the department are picked on their merits and proceed without regard
\nto politics.<\/p>\n
Until now.<\/p>\n
During the Bush administration, we have seen U.S. attorneys fired under
\ncircumstances that have led many to conclude they paid the price because
\nthey wouldn’t prosecute Democrats; honors program applicants screened for
\ntheir political leanings; and now the process of hiring line prosecutors and
\nimmigration judges similarly politicized. How do we reassure the American
\npeople that justice is being meted out fairly? Trust and respect lost are
\nhard to win back.<\/p>\n
Worse, the reports lay out evidence that the political appointees behind
\nmany of these missteps knew that what they were doing was wrong.<\/p>\n
But responsibility does not end there. The department’s senior leadership
\nturned over hiring decisions to people with no history and no understanding
\nof the institution, people who came from the Republican National Committee
\nor White House political functions. The predictable result was that the
\ndepartment would have, in essence, political appointees in career positions.
\nThus was the department’s fundamental promise to the American people —
\nwhich had been respected for decades — broken.<\/p>\n
Where were the career people on whom we count to keep the department honest?
\nThe latest report concludes that the two most senior people responsible for
\nprotecting immigration judges from political influence had “sufficient
\nevidence . . . to have realized that political or ideological affiliations
\nplayed a role” and that they should have spoken up to others who could do
\nsomething. The same criticism was leveled at those who ran the office
\noverseeing the honors program and lateral hiring. Where were they? It is
\ndisappointing that they failed to act forcefully to protect the department
\nthey served.<\/p>\n
Attorney General Michael Mukasey, himself a former career prosecutor and
\njudge, pledges to fix these problems going forward. But more is required.
\nThe department needs to hold individuals responsible for their actions. It
\nneeds to offer opportunities to those who were improperly denied them. And
\nit needs to make sure that this never happens again. Restoring the promise
\nof unbiased justice will take the efforts of both this attorney general and
\nhis successors.<\/p>\n
The writer, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, is a
\npartner at WilmerHale in Washington.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Another Blow To Justice By Jamie Gorelick Tuesday, July 29, 2008; A17 Another stunning report has documented the bold and illegal influence of politics at the Justice Department over the past eight years. For decades, Republican and Democratic attorneys general had protected from political influence the hiring of career prosecutors and administrative judges. There was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":370,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2402],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-liberty","p1","y2008","m07","d30","h09"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/370"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}