Minnesota Lawyer Blog

While the recent revelation that the Department of Justice may have displayed .... errr, partisanship? ... in its hiring Under U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzales hardly came as a shock, it was an interesting twist to learn that an affiliation with a a few well-respected local legal groups may have actually hindered applicants' chances of being interns or getting into the honors program by getting them red flagged as "liberals." (Click here for prior post on the topic.)

Some argue that the Claude Rains-like protestations of those "Shocked, SHOCKED" to find ideology mattered at the DOJ to be disingenuous and over-the-top. They maintain that during the Clinton Administration, for example, politics were not completely irrelevant to hiring decisions for the programs. Without passing on the truth or falsity of those assertions about past administrations (primarily because I have no solid evidence one way or the other), I still have never been much of a fan of the "everybody's doing it" defense.

This much is perfectly clear to me: "Deselecting" otherwise highly qualified individuals from DOJ service merely because they were affiliated with prominent legal groups that someone may have perceived as "liberal" is wrong. Period. And yes, it was also wrong when the media distorted and demonized the fact that then-Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and then-U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose happened to be members of the perfectly fine (and, yes, conservative) Federalist Society. However, as my mother was wont to say in my childhood days, two wrongs don't make a right.

It's unfortunate that guilt-by-association tactics are once again in full bloom. If we don't watch ourselves, we may become a society where the only reasonable thing to do is to belong to no group at all that is either socially active or makes us think. Fortunately, the high-definition flat-screen digital television has arrived just in time to help ease the transition. I only pray that you remember to keep it strictly tuned to the "correct" channels. Otherwise, you may one day find yourself "deselected" for something.

Poor Alberto Gonzales. First he resigns from his post as U.S. Attorney General under what can only very charitably be referred to as "a cloud." Then, just as things are starting to look up for him and he is selected as the "Lawyer of the Year" by the ABA Journal, he is almost immediately afterward stripped of the title. Oh indignity of indignities!

We blogged about it when the ABA Journal bestowed the title on Gonzales -- speculating at the time that perhaps the editors there had broken into the holiday cheer a little early. The dubious "distinction" came complete with a bizarre list of runners up, which included Stuart "Scooter" Libby and a fictional movie character.

No doubt they knew at the ABA Journal that the selection of Gonzales would inspire controversy. But they also knew a lot of ink would be spilled talking about their choice, and there's no such thing as bad publicity, right? Wrong.

A torrent of nonstop criticism fell on the magazine and the ABA as whole, creating a public relations disaster of seismic proportions. It was soon announced that the "Lawyer of the Year" designation had been changed to "Newsmaker of the Year" to clarify that the title was not intended as an honor. (Hmmm. I don't mean to quibble, but shouldn't that be Legal Newsmaker of the Year?)

So in the end, the ABA Journal got the national exposure it wanted -- it just wasn't all it was cracked up to be. It puts me in mind of one of my favorite Oscar Wilde quotes: "There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants; the other is getting it."

The ancient Chinese curse says, "May you be born in interesting times." Well, this week will be an interesting time at the Department of Justice with Monica M. Goodling, the department's former liaison to the White House, gearing up to give her much-anticipated testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Goodling, you may recall, left the DOJ in April after invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in reference to her role in the U.S. Attorneys firings. She has received a limited grant of immunity to provide the testimony.

Add to the mix the fact that the Senate is threatening to take up a no-confidence vote against U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as early as this week, and you have quite a chain of events shaping up.

I can't quite decide whether this is a good or a bad week for Justice -- all depends on your point of view, I guess.