At this point, the only thing about this story is why anyone might find it surprising.
The Bush administration increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws that preclude such considerations, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.
At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.
Two newly appointed immigration judges were failed candidates for the U.S. Tax Court nominated by President Bush; one fudged his taxes and the other was deemed unqualified to be a tax judge by the nation’s largest association of lawyers. Both were Republican loyalists.
That last point may sound like just another anecdote, but it’s worth remembering. The White House, from the moment the Bush gang took office, has sought to reshape the one branch of the government that was only tenuously under the Republicans’ control. “Loyal Bushies,” regardless of qualifications (or lack thereof) weren’t just given plum jobs in the administration that should have gone to deserving public officials, they were also given a robe and a gavel, and asked to be “independent” judges. When the White House couldn’t force these hacks behind one bench, it would look to another.
And when it came to the immigration courts, we basically see a dumping ground for well-connected Republicans who frequently didn’t fit anywhere else. Sure, there are pesky regulations — the reality-based community calls them “laws” — against basing these judicial slots on partisan loyalty, but since when has the administration let criminal behavior get in the way of establishing a permanent Republican majority?
The Post analysis is the first systematic examination of the people appointed to immigration courts, the relationships that led to their selection and the experience they brought to their position. The review, based on Justice records and research into the judges’ backgrounds, encompassed the 37 current judges approved by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales or his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, starting in 2004.
That year is when the Justice Department began to jettison the civil service process that traditionally guided the selections in favor of political considerations, according to sworn congressional testimony by one senior department official and a statement by the lawyer for another official.
Those two officials, D. Kyle Sampson and Monica M. Goodling, have said they were told the practice was legal. But Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said that immigration judges are considered civil service employees who may not be chosen based on political factors, unlike judges in federal criminal courts.
All the judges appointed during this period who arrived with experience in immigration law were prosecutors or held other immigration enforcement jobs. That was a reversal of a trend during the Clinton administration in which the Justice Department sought to balance such appointees with ones who had been attorneys representing immigrants, according to current and former immigration judges.
Some pesky observers believe immigration court judges are supposed to have a clue about what they’re doing.
“Immigration law is very complex,” said Denise Slavin, an immigration judge since 1995 in Miami, who is president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, a union. “So generally speaking, it’s very good to have someone coming into this area with [an] immigration background. It’s very difficult, for those who don’t, to catch up.”
That approach is so 1990s. Asking competent public servants, chosen for their record and qualifications, to fill an important role in an even-handed judicial system? Please. This is Bush’s America.
I also liked this gem from the Post article: “Department officials say they changed their hiring practices in April but defend their selections.”
In other words, “We were breaking the law, but that was before.”