| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"David Fritzinger" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 11:06:07 AM |
| Object: |
Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
This is for Fred, who kept trying to tell us that no law was broken by
Monica Goodling when she questioned potential hires for civil service
jobs about their political affiliations.
From:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/31/justice_
dept_probes_its_hirings/
Title:
Justice Dept. probes its hirings
Investigating for bias toward conservatives
"Under federal law, officials may not take political affiliation into
account when hiring career professionals, permanent, non-partisan
employees who stay on when an administration changes. But last week, a
former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales , Monica Goodling ,
told Congress that she had "crossed the line" by attempting to block
liberal applicants from being hired as career assistant prosecutors and
immigration judges."
More:
"Such allegations dovetailed with the resumes of successful applicants
to several sections of the Civil Rights Division from 2001 to 2006. The
Globe obtained the resumes last year using the Freedom of Information
Act. Starting in 2003, after political appointees took greater control
of the process, the number of new hires with prior experience in
traditional civil rights enforcement plunged. Meanwhile, new hires with
strong conservative credentials -- such as membership in the Federalist
Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association -- rose
significantly, the resumes showed."
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 11:18:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 06:06:07 -1000, in alt.atheism , David Fritzinger
<dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> in
<dfritzin-3371AF.06060731052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
This is for Fred, who kept trying to tell us that no law was broken by
Monica Goodling when she questioned potential hires for civil service
jobs about their political affiliations.
From:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/31/justice_
dept_probes_its_hirings/
Title:
Justice Dept. probes its hirings
Investigating for bias toward conservatives
"Under federal law, officials may not take political affiliation into
account when hiring career professionals, permanent, non-partisan
employees who stay on when an administration changes. But last week, a
former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales , Monica Goodling ,
told Congress that she had "crossed the line" by attempting to block
liberal applicants from being hired as career assistant prosecutors and
immigration judges."
More:
"Such allegations dovetailed with the resumes of successful applicants
to several sections of the Civil Rights Division from 2001 to 2006. The
Globe obtained the resumes last year using the Freedom of Information
Act. Starting in 2003, after political appointees took greater control
of the process, the number of new hires with prior experience in
traditional civil rights enforcement plunged. Meanwhile, new hires with
strong conservative credentials -- such as membership in the Federalist
Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association -- rose
significantly, the resumes showed."
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference. And for this
situation, and any situation that Fred does not bring up, you need
that code reference to substantiate the claim.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 11:51:51 AM |
|
|
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 06:06:07 -1000, in alt.atheism , David Fritzinger
<dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> in
<dfritzin-3371AF.06060731052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
This is for Fred, who kept trying to tell us that no law was broken by
Monica Goodling when she questioned potential hires for civil service
jobs about their political affiliations.
From:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/31/justice_
dept_probes_its_hirings/
Title:
Justice Dept. probes its hirings
Investigating for bias toward conservatives
"Under federal law, officials may not take political affiliation into
account when hiring career professionals, permanent, non-partisan
employees who stay on when an administration changes. But last week, a
former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales , Monica Goodling ,
told Congress that she had "crossed the line" by attempting to block
liberal applicants from being hired as career assistant prosecutors and
immigration judges."
More:
"Such allegations dovetailed with the resumes of successful applicants
to several sections of the Civil Rights Division from 2001 to 2006. The
Globe obtained the resumes last year using the Freedom of Information
Act. Starting in 2003, after political appointees took greater control
of the process, the number of new hires with prior experience in
traditional civil rights enforcement plunged. Meanwhile, new hires with
strong conservative credentials -- such as membership in the Federalist
Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association -- rose
significantly, the resumes showed."
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference. And for this
situation, and any situation that Fred does not bring up, you need
that code reference to substantiate the claim.
Not only that, but the source is (ohmygod) the MSM, and not a
conservative blog. Also, the author of the article is Charlie Savage,
who is one of the few MSM journalists who has been investigating the
Bush signing statements.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 11:45:35 AM |
|
|
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,=20
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.=20
=A7 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status=20
or political affiliation, as prohibited under=20
any law, rule, or regulation;=20
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
--=20
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 11:22:42 AM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 12:50:21 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in the
DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil Rights
division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers were hired, at
least in part, based on their political affiliations and attitudes. That
is illegal. as shown above.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 12:57:41 PM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-FDB8B7.07502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in the
DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil Rights
division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers were hired,
at least in part, based on their political affiliations and attitudes.
That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want to
read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 09:14:04 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0=
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
=A7 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in the
DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil Rights
division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers were hired,
at least in part, based on their political affiliations and attitudes.
That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want to
read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Another dodge from Fred. Why am I not surprised?
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 02:55:08 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0=
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
=A7 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in the
DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil Rights
division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers were hired,
at least in part, based on their political affiliations and attitudes.
That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want to
read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the kind
you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_testimon=
y_052307.html
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 09:42:51 PM |
|
|
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180641307.893876.28900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in
the DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil
Rights division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers
were hired, at least in part, based on their political affiliations
and attitudes. That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want
to read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the kind
you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_test
imony_052307.html
Well it's about bloody time, Dave. What took you so long?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 09:54:04 PM |
|
|
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180641307.893876.28900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in
the DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil
Rights division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers
were hired, at least in part, based on their political affiliations
and attitudes. That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want
to read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the kind
you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_test
imony_052307.html --
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
OK, Dave, this seems to be the remark that you're talking about in
context:
"During my five years at the department, I believe that I interviewed
hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of these were
applicants for political appointee positions.But some were applicants
for certain categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed into
confidential policy-making positions and attorney general appointments,
such as immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration
Appeal.I also interviewed requests for waivers of hiring freezes imposed
on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney or interim or acting U.S.
attorney.
In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of
ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified individuals
who were supportive of the attorney general's views, priorities and
goals.
GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in
asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may
have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some
occasions. And I regret those mistakes. "
It is entirely legitimate, Dave, for Goodling to be asking questions as
to whether an applicant would support the views, priorities and goals of
the attorney general, and those would be political questions. That is
NOT an admission of guilt.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 11:40:52 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9941F1F7DF104freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180641307.893876.28900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in
the DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil
Rights division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers
were hired, at least in part, based on their political affiliations
and attitudes. That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want
to read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the kind
you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_test
imony_052307.html --
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
OK, Dave, this seems to be the remark that you're talking about in
context:
"During my five years at the department, I believe that I interviewed
hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of these were
applicants for political appointee positions.But some were applicants
for certain categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed into
confidential policy-making positions and attorney general appointments,
such as immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration
Appeal.I also interviewed requests for waivers of hiring freezes imposed
on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney or interim or acting U.S.
attorney.
In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of
ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified individuals
who were supportive of the attorney general's views, priorities and
goals.
GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in
asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may
have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some
occasions. And I regret those mistakes. "
It is entirely legitimate, Dave, for Goodling to be asking questions as
to whether an applicant would support the views, priorities and goals of
the attorney general, and those would be political questions. That is
NOT an admission of guilt.
First, let me apologize for the multiple posts of the same material.
Google was acting pretty strangely, telling me my post hadn't gone
trough when it had. Sorry.
However, it is not legitimate for her to ask political questions of
career employees, and it is an admission of guilt which explains why, at
first, she took the fifth. These were not political employees, and
hiring of these employees for political or ideological reasons is
illegal, as you have been shown. Sorry, Fred, but you are just wrong,
and no amount of hair splitting by you will change that. I realize that
you believe no one in the Bush administration (at least, as long as they
support Bush) can ever do anything wrong or illegal, but what she did
was both wrong and illegal.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
01 Jun 2007 06:41:23 AM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-4CFAAE.18405231052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9941F1F7DF104freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180641307.893876.28900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which
jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We
are talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service*
positions in the DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers
in the Civil Rights division, but Goodling talked about others.
These lawyers were hired, at least in part, based on their
political affiliations and attitudes. That is illegal. as shown
above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You
keep telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but
I want to read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the
kind you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_test
imony_052307.html --
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
OK, Dave, this seems to be the remark that you're talking about in
context:
"During my five years at the department, I believe that I interviewed
hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of these were
applicants for political appointee positions.But some were applicants
for certain categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed into
confidential policy-making positions and attorney general
appointments, such as immigration judges and members of the Board of
Immigration Appeal.I also interviewed requests for waivers of hiring
freezes imposed on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney or
interim or acting U.S. attorney.
In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of
ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified
individuals who were supportive of the attorney general's views,
priorities and goals.
GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far
in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and
I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account
on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes. "
It is entirely legitimate, Dave, for Goodling to be asking questions
as to whether an applicant would support the views, priorities and
goals of the attorney general, and those would be political
questions. That is NOT an admission of guilt.
First, let me apologize for the multiple posts of the same material.
Google was acting pretty strangely, telling me my post hadn't gone
trough when it had. Sorry.
However, it is not legitimate for her to ask political questions of
career employees, and it is an admission of guilt which explains why,
at first, she took the fifth. These were not political employees, and
hiring of these employees for political or ideological reasons is
illegal, as you have been shown. Sorry, Fred, but you are just wrong,
and no amount of hair splitting by you will change that. I realize
that you believe no one in the Bush administration (at least, as long
as they support Bush) can ever do anything wrong or illegal, but what
she did was both wrong and illegal.
They aren't career employees until they're hired, Dave.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
01 Jun 2007 12:53:27 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 1:41 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-=
4CFAAE.18405231052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9941F1F7DF104freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180641307.893876.28900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0
7502131052...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
=A7 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which
jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We
are talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service*
positions in the DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers
in the Civil Rights division, but Goodling talked about others.
These lawyers were hired, at least in part, based on their
political affiliations and attitudes. That is illegal. as shown
above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You
keep telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but
I want to read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the
kind you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_test
imony_052307.html --
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
OK, Dave, this seems to be the remark that you're talking about in
context:
"During my five years at the department, I believe that I interviewed
hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of these were
applicants for political appointee positions.But some were applicants
for certain categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed into
confidential policy-making positions and attorney general
appointments, such as immigration judges and members of the Board of
Immigration Appeal.I also interviewed requests for waivers of hiring
freezes imposed on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney or
interim or acting U.S. attorney.
In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of
ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified
individuals who were supportive of the attorney general's views,
priorities and goals.
GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far
in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and
I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account
on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes. "
It is entirely legitimate, Dave, for Goodling to be asking questions
as to whether an applicant would support the views, priorities and
goals of the attorney general, and those would be political
questions. That is NOT an admission of guilt.
First, let me apologize for the multiple posts of the same material.
Google was acting pretty strangely, telling me my post hadn't gone
trough when it had. Sorry.
However, it is not legitimate for her to ask political questions of
career employees, and it is an admission of guilt which explains why,
at first, she took the fifth. These were not political employees, and
hiring of these employees for political or ideological reasons is
illegal, as you have been shown. Sorry, Fred, but you are just wrong,
and no amount of hair splitting by you will change that. I realize
that you believe no one in the Bush administration (at least, as long
as they support Bush) can ever do anything wrong or illegal, but what
she did was both wrong and illegal.
They aren't career employees until they're hired, Dave.
The law that was cited in this thread says that using political
beliefs or affiliations as criteria for hiring is breaking the law.
IOW, Goodling is an admitted felon. I'm not the only one who thinks
the hiring practices of the Bush DoJ were wrong. This thread was
started because the IG of the DoJ also thought the hiring practices
may have been wrong, and is investigating them. This includes not only
the hiring by Goodling, but also hiring of lawyers in the Civil Rights
Division.
Nice try, Fred, but you lost this one, bigtime.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honlulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
01 Jun 2007 01:04:26 PM |
|
|
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180720407.724777.63830@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 1, 1:41 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-
4CFAAE.18405231052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9941F1F7DF104freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180641307.893876.28900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0
7502131052...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which
jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We
are talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service*
positions in the DoJ. The article I referenced was about
lawyers in the Civil Rights division, but Goodling talked
about others. These lawyers were hired, at least in part,
based on their political affiliations and attitudes. That is
illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too.
You keep telling me that she admitted this and she admitted
that, but I want to read the exact transcript. Your claim, you
support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the
kind you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_test
imony_052307.html --
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
OK, Dave, this seems to be the remark that you're talking about in
context:
"During my five years at the department, I believe that I
interviewed hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of
these were applicants for political appointee positions.But some
were applicants for certain categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed
into confidential policy-making positions and attorney general
appointments, such as immigration judges and members of the Board
of Immigration Appeal.I also interviewed requests for waivers of
hiring freezes imposed on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney
or interim or acting U.S. attorney.
In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of
ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified
individuals who were supportive of the attorney general's views,
priorities and goals.
GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too
far in asking political questions of applicants for career
positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political
considerations into account on some occasions. And I regret those
mistakes. "
It is entirely legitimate, Dave, for Goodling to be asking
questions as to whether an applicant would support the views,
priorities and goals of the attorney general, and those would be
political questions. That is NOT an admission of guilt.
First, let me apologize for the multiple posts of the same
material. Google was acting pretty strangely, telling me my post
hadn't gone trough when it had. Sorry.
However, it is not legitimate for her to ask political questions of
career employees, and it is an admission of guilt which explains
why, at first, she took the fifth. These were not political
employees, and hiring of these employees for political or
ideological reasons is illegal, as you have been shown. Sorry,
Fred, but you are just wrong, and no amount of hair splitting by
you will change that. I realize that you believe no one in the Bush
administration (at least, as long as they support Bush) can ever do
anything wrong or illegal, but what she did was both wrong and
illegal.
They aren't career employees until they're hired, Dave.
The law that was cited in this thread says that using political
beliefs or affiliations as criteria for hiring is breaking the law.
IOW, Goodling is an admitted felon.
Nope.
I'm not the only one who thinks
the hiring practices of the Bush DoJ were wrong. This thread was
started because the IG of the DoJ also thought the hiring practices
may have been wrong, and is investigating them. This includes not only
the hiring by Goodling, but also hiring of lawyers in the Civil Rights
Division.
Nice try, Fred, but you lost this one, bigtime.
Yawn.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
01 Jun 2007 02:06:30 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 8:04 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1180720407.724777.638=
30@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 1, 1:41 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-
4CFAAE.18405231052...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9941F1F7DF104freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180641307.893876.28900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0
7502131052...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
=A7 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which
jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We
are talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service*
positions in the DoJ. The article I referenced was about
lawyers in the Civil Rights division, but Goodling talked
about others. These lawyers were hired, at least in part,
based on their political affiliations and attitudes. That is
illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too.
You keep telling me that she admitted this and she admitted
that, but I want to read the exact transcript. Your claim, you
support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the
kind you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_test
imony_052307.html --
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
OK, Dave, this seems to be the remark that you're talking about in
context:
"During my five years at the department, I believe that I
interviewed hundreds of job applicants, and the vast majority of
these were applicants for political appointee positions.But some
were applicants for certain categories of career positions.
Specifically, I interviewed candidates who were to be detailed
into confidential policy-making positions and attorney general
appointments, such as immigration judges and members of the Board
of Immigration Appeal.I also interviewed requests for waivers of
hiring freezes imposed on districts with an outgoing U.S. attorney
or interim or acting U.S. attorney.
In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of
ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified
individuals who were supportive of the attorney general's views,
priorities and goals.
GOODLING:Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too
far in asking political questions of applicants for career
positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political
considerations into account on some occasions. And I regret those
mistakes. "
It is entirely legitimate, Dave, for Goodling to be asking
questions as to whether an applicant would support the views,
priorities and goals of the attorney general, and those would be
political questions. That is NOT an admission of guilt.
First, let me apologize for the multiple posts of the same
material. Google was acting pretty strangely, telling me my post
hadn't gone trough when it had. Sorry.
However, it is not legitimate for her to ask political questions of
career employees, and it is an admission of guilt which explains
why, at first, she took the fifth. These were not political
employees, and hiring of these employees for political or
ideological reasons is illegal, as you have been shown. Sorry,
Fred, but you are just wrong, and no amount of hair splitting by
you will change that. I realize that you believe no one in the Bush
administration (at least, as long as they support Bush) can ever do
anything wrong or illegal, but what she did was both wrong and
illegal.
They aren't career employees until they're hired, Dave.
The law that was cited in this thread says that using political
beliefs or affiliations as criteria for hiring is breaking the law.
IOW, Goodling is an admitted felon.
Nope.
Yup. From the code (thank you Douglas Berry, for the url):
" Sec. 2302. Prohibited personnel practices
-STATUTE-
(a)(1) For the purpose of this title, "prohibited personnel
practice" means any action described in subsection (b).
(2) For the purpose of this section -
(A) "personnel action" means -
(i) an appointment;
(ii) a promotion;
(iii) an action under chapter 75 of this title or other"
See where it says "appointment"?
I'm not the only one who thinks
the hiring practices of the Bush DoJ were wrong. This thread was
started because the IG of the DoJ also thought the hiring practices
may have been wrong, and is investigating them. This includes not only
the hiring by Goodling, but also hiring of lawyers in the Civil Rights
Division.
Nice try, Fred, but you lost this one, bigtime.
Yawn.
Yeah, your running from the facts is getting pretty boring.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 05:47:17 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0=
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
=A7 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in the
DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil Rights
division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers were hired,
at least in part, based on their political affiliations and attitudes.
That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want to
read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the kind
you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_testimon=
y_052307.html
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 05:53:00 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-FDB8B7.0=
7502131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns994186EBA4B3freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
=A7 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See alsohttp://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Refresh my memory again, who was being considered for which jobs?
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in the
DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil Rights
division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers were hired,
at least in part, based on their political affiliations and attitudes.
That is illegal. as shown above.
I'm still waiting for that citation from the transcript too. You keep
telling me that she admitted this and she admitted that, but I want to
read the exact transcript. Your claim, you support it.
Here, Fred. I know you like this kind of link, since that is the kind
you usually give.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_testimon=
y_052307.html
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 05:11:41 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:50 am, David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
Gee, Fred, why don't you read Monica Goodling's testimony. We are
talking about lawyers being hired for *civil service* positions in the
DoJ. The article I referenced was about lawyers in the Civil Rights
division, but Goodling talked about others. These lawyers were hired, at
least in part, based on their political affiliations and attitudes. That
is illegal. as shown above.
Whoa! Unless they were members of the Liberal party, "liberal" is not
a political affiliation. Taking "attitudes", even political ones, into
account is perfectly legal.
You cannot say, "you must be a Republican to get this job", but you
can say, "you must be loyal to this administration".
She may have crossed the line regarding political affiliations, and
she may have come perilously close with political opinions. But the
main problem was the lying about it and forgetting how it happened.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 12:44:16 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Thank you. I wonder if Fred will bother to look...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 12:58:13 PM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in news:dfritzin-
38A1A8.07441631052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Thank you. I wonder if Fred will bother to look...
Yes, I looked. Considering the way you looked at what I cited for you, I
wonder why I bother.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 04:48:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:35 -0400 there was an Ancient Brian E.
Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
The actual section of US Code:
http://tinyurl.com/2tydrq
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 12:14:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:35 -0400, in alt.atheism , Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> in
<MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net> wrote:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Cool, thanks. I wonder what dodge Fred will use now.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Law on non-political hires in DOJ |
31 May 2007 01:47:11 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:nj0u53leqpmapcpij63b34a3pu18fage41@4ax.com...
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:35 -0400, in alt.atheism , Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> in
<MPG.20c8c5bccf6aebaa98a58d@newsgroups.comcast.net> wrote:
In article <99tt535cd93rcbukt98dcbugdq5v4le3kf@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein said...
Ah, but that does not contain the code reference.
§ 2302(b) of title 5
[...] (E) on the basis of marital status
or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation;
See also http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm.
Cool, thanks. I wonder what dodge Fred will use now.
Increasingly impractical levels of detail and specificity.
Eventually this will lead to non-public information where Fred can hide his
god.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
