In an article that appeared in the Legal Times, and which can be read by clicking on the link in this entry's title, there is a discussion about how an immigration judge named Garry Malphrus got his job. Malphrus had no experience in immigration cases. He had apparently never practiced immigration law. He was, however, politically connected. Indeed he was one of the so-called "Brooks Brothers" rioters who intimidated the Dade County Board of Elections into shutting down its recount. Obviously a person who really respects the rule of law.
According to Monica Goodling's testimony, she was told by Kyle Sampson that political hires could be made for the immigration service. Goodling took this as meaning that she could look into the political background of applicants and take such consideration into account. As it turns out, she couldn't and she was forced to admit this week before the House Judiciary Committee that she broke the law.
Overlooked in all of this is how little experience Monica Goodling had compared to the power she was given. She had no experience as an attorney either prosecuting or defending criminal cases or in handling civil cases. She was a political hack who was given her job precisely because she wasn't qualified. According to Wikipedia, this was her background:
Ms. Goodling worked alongside Tim Griffin as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign. She joined the Department of Justice's press office after George W. Bush was elected president. She moved to the department's executive office, which is responsible for budgeting, management, personnel management and evaluation, later becoming deputy director of the executive office. After less than a year, Goodling moved again, to the attorney general’s office, working as the the White House liaison
How in the world does that type of experience qualify a person to be hiring and/or firing United States Attorneys for the various Federal Court districts around the country? It is hard to imagine the presumption of a person like Goodling who would assume that she was capable of carrying out such duties given her lack of experience.
We would love to see some Democrat in the future go through her background and then ask her just why she thought she was qualified for the job she had before she resigned. How in the world could a person who had never been in a courtroom, never presented a civil or criminal case to a jury or a judge, never wrote a brief, or handled a client's legal problem, know who should be an United States Attorney? Only in the Bush Administration could this kind of inexperienced incompetent end up making decisions on who to hire and who to fire.