Jeff Hoard has warned that "nobody should be taking anything I say too seriously," and his post about Monica Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee lives us to that billing. As Byron York of National Review explains, Goodling's testimony was a huge let down for those who have tried to leverage the firing of eight or nine U.S. attorneys into a scandal that will bring down Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove. When Goodling, a Justice Department aide and liaison to the White House, pleaded the Fifth Amendment rather than testify, the Dems thought they had finally found their magic bullet. They thus granted Goodling immunity and waited breathlessly for fireworks.
At most, they got a few sparklers. To be sure, there is now a conflict between the testimony of Goodling and Paul McNulty, the Deputy Attorney General. But Goodling has left the Department and McNulty is leaving, so the Dems will be unable to claim any new scalps. There was testimony about a meeting in March where Gonzales stated his general recollection about the process that led to the discharge of the U.S. attorneys. This made a Goodling "a little uncomfortable," but she was clear that Gonzales was not trying to influence her testimony. And Goodling admitted to "crossing the line" herself in processing some applications for career jobs at DOJ based on political considerations. However, there was nothing in her testimony to suggest that improper motives entered into the decisions to dismiss the U.S. attorneys and nothing new about White House involvement.
Thus, the Dems were left to take shots at Goodling for attending a law school founded by Pat Robertson. Hoard seems to think this makes her an "interesting character," but doesn't say why. While Regent University Law School is not an elite institution, neither is the University of Memphis law school, alma mater of Rep. Stephen Cohen, who carried the Democrats' water on this subject. And although Goodling "crossed the line" in her job, her misdeeds have no apparent relation to the law school she attended. Bill Clinton, a Yale law grad, committed perjury and lost his law license. Sandy Berger, a Harvard law grad, stole important documents from the National Archives and just lost his law license.
It's been noted that 150 graduates of Regent University Law School have gone to work for the federal government since 2001. While many law schools focus on placing their grads in big law firms and liberal "public interest" outfits, Regent encourages its grads to consider public service, according to Goodling. Neither Hoard nor other like-minded critics have pointed to evidence that any of the 150 was unqualified for the position he or she received, or that their actions as public servants have failed to adhere to principles of church-state separation. The best Hoard can do is link to Cenk Uygur's claim that "the Christian Taliban has infiltrated the Justice Department," a claim even less serious than the fare Hoard is serving up.
I wonder whether Hoard favors employment discrimination against individuals with certain religious beliefs. Does he think that it's okay for the government to hire any graduates of Regent University Law School? If so, does he think there should be a quota limiting the number? If so, what is the proper number?
Or was he just joking about all this?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. The blog: "Neither Hoard nor other like-minded critics have pointed to evidence that any of the 150 was unqualified for the position he or she received, or that their actions as public servants have failed to adhere to principles of church-state separation. The best Hoard can do is link to Cenk Uygur's claim that "the Christian Taliban has infiltrated the Justice Department," a claim even less serious than the fare Hoard is serving up."
Paul, lawyer to lawyer, I respectfully disagree. As someone like myself who graduated from a good law school, don't you find it a little strange that a fourth tier law school, that has spent most of its life unaccredited, has become the favorite hiring pool for the federal government and the young hirees have been shot to top positions. In Goodling's case, with her vast experience of actually handling 3 cases and somehow ending up in the number 3 spot in the DOJ, making decisions on the hiring and firing of attorneys who make her experience look like a joke, I find it MORE than strange. I also have serious concerns about both Regent University and Goodling.
MY PROBLEM WITH REGENT: In California, where I got my license, we had a swearing in ceremony. Its a fun affair where you en masse swear to uphold the laws and constitutions of California and the United States, then go to lunch.. Of course, the First Amendment establishes separation of church and state. Yet, at Regent, the aim is to EXPRESSLY violate the First Amendment separation of church and state by having its graduates reflect on "the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system." In other words, it asks its graduates to reflect on violating the First Amendment.
In addition, an important "think tank" for Fundamentalist Christianity is the Family Research Institute, which is headed by Paul Cameron.
What's the problem with Cameron? He's a man who has suggested that the extermination of gays might be necessary. Per the Southern Poverty Law Center: He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.
He was kicked out of the American Psychological Association, and was publicly rebuked by the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. And he has been called the leader of a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, America's number one civil rights organization for tracking the klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The Southern Poverty Law Center went so far as to say that "Cameron's 'science' echoes Nazi Germany." And the SPLC tracks actual Nazis, so they have the right to make the comparison.
Paul Cameron and his organization have stated that the Nazis of Germany had the cure for homosexuality. They gassed or worked to death 2 million gays. He believes that only 1% of gay men will reach their senior years. He reported that lesbians are 300 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than straight women. Yet, he is the expert that many extremist groups quote when attacking the LGBT community. His “research” has been debunked by every reputable scientific organization for its bias and outlandish findings. The ASA commented, "Dr. Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."
As Nazi Germany has shown us, once one target scapegoat group is literally eliminated through genocide, a fascist state turns to others: its political opponents, priests of other religions that disagree with them, union organizers, and political opponents. By the time the Goodlings of the world are done, an entire nation has been "cleansed" of any opposition to a theocratic dictatorship. All possibility of opposing the dictatorship are gone.
What I am wondering is how a university which asks its students to reflect on destroying the First Amendment and is aligned with a hate group ever got accredited. In light of this, I also find it dangerous and scary that Regent is apparently the federal government's favorite recruitment watering hole for top legal jobs.
MY PROBLEM WITH GOODLING: Goodling, who focused on hiring and firing government attorneys admitted to "crossing the line" by violating the legally binding Civil Service Regulations, in other words violating the law. She then added "but I didn't mean to." This can only mean one of two things: (a) that she thoroughly learned the Civil Service Regulations because they were so essential to her job duties and was lying under oath about the "I didn't mean to"; or (b) that she negligently failed to learn the applicable law relating to her job and just made up the rules as she went along, while at the same time committing illegal acts. For a lawyer to add "but I didn't mean to" is even more of a disgrace. Virtually every first year law student learns the axiom that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and purposely violating the law is grounds for disbarment.
I'm very glad Jeff Hoard brought this all to our attention, and even you are not questioning the accuracy of his facts. As an attorney, I'm surprised you are not as upset as he is.
Phil at 8:13PM on May 24th 2007
2. "Regent encourages its grads to consider public service, according to Goodling. "
What a creep this Powerwhiner is. So why don't the Regent graduates become public defenders? Defending minorities who get accused overwhelming of crimes by the color of their skin. That certainly qualifies as serving the public. Or by the same token why don't they work for some tiny DA's office in the middle of nowhere and go after corrupt Republicans like that dude in SoDak?
Why don't they do this and instead work for the bureacracy in the federal goverenment? I know why. Because they are all creeps.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 9:21PM on May 24th 2007
3. Hi Webster Hubble Telescope, as Max Blumenthal of Media Matters discovered when he crashed CPAC and filmed it, one attendee stated that the conservative movement in America (which of course counts on Fundamentalist Christianity) is primarily a white race movement. I'm white, and I think that is disgraceful. Our country is a melting pot, and I wish we could give a tax credit for interracial marriage to stop the race bickering. Believe me, if our First Amendment is not restored and if the Regent hirees are not closely evaluated for their job performance, anyone who is not both white and straight will pay the price. I though you wrote a very good comment!
Phil at 9:57PM on May 24th 2007
4. I have found it too often true that when a liberal accuses the right of some clandestine motive, they are typically commiting the very action that they have accused the right of. That means that the left is infiltrating the Justice Department with people of their own. This is the childish efforts on par with someone that lets out a fart and points at others in the room; very, very puerile.
Making reference to a "Christian taliban" is simply one of those venomous attacks that gives him his "icing on the cake" experience. I haven't met a true liberal that doesn't hate everything about God in general, and the idea of Christianity specifically. No other liberal worth his political salt will complain or challenge such an offensive comment. All liberal bias and bigotry can be justified by the Liberal Dictionary of Redefined Words.
It's kind of like the way they have thrown away Black's Law Dictionary and the definition of "Amnesty". Just ask Phil.
Cdalealden at 10:04PM on May 24th 2007
5. Mirengoff/Cdalealdosophy,
Clearly this is a partisan witch-hunt. If Gonzales' whole staff is fired, pleads the fifth, and admits to at least some wrong-doing, it's only because Bush (as he has shown again and again) is easily swayed by Democrats. He just backs down so quickly! Even if Goodling admits to having a political test for apolitical jobs and says she can't remember anything else she did in her job, there's nothing wrong here! Maybe she's got whatever Reagan had during his Iran-Contra hearings.
lil_turk at 12:49AM on May 25th 2007
6. Paul - I want to dispel any thought you may have that my comments are because I am a "godless liberal" (remember how popular that was in 2004 - and now has been replaced by 28% of the country calling 72% of the country "traitors.")
I respect all faiths except pushy versions of Christianity that focus on hate and cramming their views into our laws. Its, quite frankly un-Christian, and a violation of the First Amendment.
That having been said, I have a STRONG belief in God and an afterlife, and on the belief-o-matic test on the Unitarian website scored a 99% match with Reform Judaism, even though I was raised a Methodist. However, I'm a spec in the Universe, and fully expect a belief tune-up in my afterlife. I don't presume to be a know it all. I also respect atheists rights to express their views, and find them to be kinder than Fundamentalists.
Phil at 2:30AM on May 25th 2007
7. lil_turk
Who cares about Bush! If it wouldn't be a waste of money I would be the first in line for the recall!
After the Scooter Libby incident everyone was afraid that they would be imprisoned for any misstatement. What they should have done was lie about what is is under oath, or mistakenly stuff secret documents down her pant leg and then they would have compassion and understanding, but one misplaced word and to the hoosgow she goes! I understand that the liberals are sensitive like that! By the way, did Clinton ever pay the cover charge or the Oval office duty?
Cdalealden at 2:53AM on May 25th 2007
8. Let's get this religious qusetion settled once & for all! First, Jesus Christ is a liberal! Just read the first 4 Books of The New Testament. He talks about the church and the rich taking care of the poor, elderly, sick, disabled and children. You have these so-called "Compassionate Conservatives,"
say that they want to do the things Jesus preached about, but in the dead of night, try to cut or end all together the programs that help the very people Jesus speaks about! To find the answer to where
"Church & State," comes from, you only have to study
the Bible.
When Christ came to this earth, the Jews were under the rule of the Roman Empire. The Jewish People thought Jesus had came to cause a great war, and would set their nation free. Jesus did the opposite.
He came to bring peace and eternal life to those who
would follow Him. He made it clear that for good or bad,"all people must obey man made laws and pay taxes!" "But, the people must give their hearts, souls, minds and their strength to God!" That's where the policy of "Separation Of Church & State" comes from.
I am a Christian, and have been for over 30 years.
But, where it comes to the religious-right, "their neither religious or right." They are basically what Jesus Christ calls, "HYPOCRITES!"
R.D. BARNES
D. BARNES at 3:43AM on May 25th 2007
9. actually, I believe that all believers are hypocrits to an extent as we all want to appear better than we are. When did Jesus say the the government was responsible for feeding the hungry, etc.? You say "He talks about the church and the rich taking care of the poor, elderly, sick, disabled and children" but He never said the government should do it. What you propose seems like mixing church and state to me. An intersting book has been published recently which tracks where the most generous giving is done and it doesn't seem to support your opinion. It's called "Who Really Cares" by Brooks. A reviewer put it like this, "Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals. " But rather than worrying about whether the other guy is doing his part, I'd rather do my part as best I can and as God grants me the ability. After all, He is in control and Trusting God through what looks like a mess to me is really what faith is all about.
C Gith at 7:58PM on May 25th 2007
10. Jesus called for all men to a personal relationship with God, but there is no place in the New Testament where he requires religious practices in government. There is also no requirement for Christians to stay out of politics. It should also be noted that in the book, "Who Really Cares" that Christian Dems gave and equal percentage as the conservatives, but there are less Christians in the Democrat ranks.
The real hypocrites are the people who use the term, "Seperation of Church and State" as a method to intimidate Christians from excercising their free speech, their rights to participation and their faith in the public square. Any person with true faith is not seperated from that faith when he walks into the public square, and the laws of this country guarantee that the government will establish no religion, NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF.
Most people like the part about honesty and integrity when it is in their benefit, but when some people operate outside of the laws, they don't want a Christian around. That's when they want a hypocrite! Most Christians will mature over time and will not force their faith down another persons throat, but their public policy is not going to be divorced from what they believe to be right or wrong, just like NAMBLA promotes having sex with young boys because that is what they believe in. As Christians we cannot divorce ourselves from our faith and endorse the rape of young children. We are going to do everything that we can to influence the law to protect the children, but we are not trying to prosyletize the world or establish a theocracy. It is a simple matter of trying to effect society in a positive way by supporting issues that we believe are right. Honest men with honest intentions trying to do what we believe is best for society and the nation.
If Jesus was a liberal, he wasn't a liberal with everybody else's money! God says, "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods". There are a lot of greedy people that call their selves Christians, who practice greed and play benefactor with the fruit of extortion. It isn't true love and compassion by stealing from the haves and giving it to others. That is just a theif calling himself a Christian. If a person is giving from their heart and away part of what belongs to them (not tax dollars), then that is charity and compassion.
There are a lot of people that hide behind Christianity and the Bible, as if they steal in the name of God, it's O.K.. There is no such thing as sanctified greed and theft, according to the scriptures.
I can guarantee that atheists would be miserable if there were no Christians to moderate the chaos in this world, but even the atheits should be able to expect for people that call themselves Christians to demonstrate it. I haven't met everyone so I haven't found all Christians to be hypocrites; there are many however, that have allowed themselves and their world to be defined by people that do not understand the scriptures.
Christians don't have to force faith on anyone, and we still have the right and should be involved in the policy making of the U.S. It is not illegal to speak about God or faith publicly, even if we hold public office. We don't have to allow 'tolerance' to be redefined as acceptance. And we don't have to fear the repercussions of refusing to accept the twisting and redefinitions of others. I agree that it's a good thing to be liberal, loving and giving on a personal level, but it is wrong to impose that liberal ideology on others; we can donate our own money to charity, but not the American tax dollars.
Cdalealden at 9:18PM on May 25th 2007
11. To the "Lawyer to Lawyer",Phil", you obviously are oblivious to what the First Amendment says and means. For such a bright lawyer from such a "good law school" you need to go back to the basics.
Your complaining about Ms.Goodling's position and lack of experience rings like jeolousy. You're demeaning another Attorney from 'your holier than thou' judges' seat. Hmm, the definition of hypocrite; does your "good law school" have its very own definition for that word for you?
Beth Straley at 10:53PM on May 29th 2007
12.
Good Article, Paul
Beth Straley at 10:59PM on May 29th 2007
13. Good Article, Paul
Beth Straley at 11:07PM on May 29th 2007
14. @ Cdalealden (comment 10)
Jesus in Matthew 5:3-10
And all that believed were together; had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts, 2:44-45
Do not store up for yourselves treasure on earth.
Jesus in Matthew 6:19
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.
Jesus in Matthew 19:24
What more does the Bible need to say about the evils of capitalism and greed? Any Christian who applauds Bush's giveaways to the rich either hasn't read Jesus's words or is too dumb to understand them.
What you are saying is that rich people shouldn't be taxed if that tax in part pays for looking after poor people.
Well, saying that Jesus did not tell us this is about as hypocritical as you can get, as a Christian, because HE didn't say anything about government at all as far as I can see... but you imagine Jesus to be thinking that it is a choice and not a duty to help the poor.
I, for one hope that there is an Awful Judge that you feel you can explain yourself to... hope I'm on the Awful Jury too... Mr. Word-play Hellbound...
Don't even bother mentioning that I'm not a Christian... shoot, I'm probably more Christian than you, you cheap, 'deal yourself an afterlife', smug, 'letter of your faith' not 'spirit of your faith' wordsmith. Yea, you heard me.
pboyfloyd at 12:26AM on May 30th 2007
15. A previous post by Paul brought up the question of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and I thought I would comment upon that question.
The full text of the amendment is:
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The specific component in question is the beginning which reads ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
The most common definition of the word “respecting” can be found in most dictionaries and reads as follows:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
re•spect (rĭ-spěkt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. re•spect•ed, re•spect•ing, re•spects
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.
This then could mean that:
1. Congress cannot make any laws showing deferential regard to religion
2. Congress cannot make any laws esteeming (a) religion
3. Congress cannot make any laws interfering with religion
4. Congress cannot make any laws relating or referring to religion
I could continue in that general theme for some time but in the interest of brevity let me pose the following question:
How can the 1st amendment which reads ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” be in any way interpreted to mean one of the following:
1) Separation of Church and state.
2) The Church (i.e. religion) may not influence, affect, interfere with, etc. the government.
3) People who are religious may not be in government because they could do any of #2.
4) People who are religious must not influence the government with their moral values.
Now, while I know nothing about Regent University Law School, I can confidently state that Paul’s claim “Yet, at Regent, the aim is to EXPRESSLY violate the First Amendment separation of church and state by having its graduates reflect on "the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system." In other words, it asks its graduates to reflect on violating the First Amendment.” is of no value because the first amendment does not in any way address the question of how religion affects government. The first amendment is limited in scope to how CONGRESS makes laws regarding religion, and the free exercise of religion. The free exercise clause specifically protects the rights of people (like Monica Goodling) to freely exercise their religion without the interference of congress and/or federal law.
Thus, while I would support the prosecution of Monica Gooding if she did, in fact, violate the law in hiring and firing of US attorneys, I would also strongly oppose allowing people to actively misinterpret the constitution in an attempt to make it say and do things that would violate the very protections it is intended to provide to American citizens.
I also wanted to comment on the series that discusses whether, or not, Jesus would support things like feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, etc.
I would agree with those people who state that Jesus both did and would support those good actions.
We encounter a problem when we try to make these things into law, however, because Jesus is a religious figure and the Congress is SPECIFICALLY barred from making laws respecting religion. (i.e. the first amendment)
Thus, either helping the poor, etc. is a religious duty as stated by a number of prior postings or helping the poor is something that is generally good for society.
If helping the poor is something that is generally good for America as a whole, entirely separate from any religious obligation then it is constitutionally allowable for the Congress to make such laws. But if this is a religious obligation, and it is for many religions, then the constitution forbids congress from making such laws. I will state for the record that MY religion does NOT require the government to help the poor but would not oppose such because helping the poor is a good action.
I would argue that the action of forcibly taking wealth from one person/group and giving it to another (however good people may believe that action to be) is a religious action and best left to religion.
I cannot see, either by looking at current countries or at history, how such actions benefit the general populous of America. Thus I would tend to list this tendency as religious obligation and will argue that based upon the proper reading of the first amendment to the constitution that the congress is forbidden from making laws to that effect.
Nathan at 12:20PM on May 31st 2007