The Washington Post (“Immigration Judges Often Picked Based On GOP Ties,” June 11) is trying to create another crisis for the Bush administration. Reporters Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen charge that immigration judge appointees are unqualifed. Here's their lede:
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.
But as Jan LaRue writes on the Culture and Media Institute's Website, the resume of immigration judge Bruce Taylor blows the Post's thesis. In LaRue’s piece, “Washington Post Ignores Qualifications to Paint Picture of Judicial Cronyism," she notes that Taylor has 30-plus years’ legal experience, including two stints at the Justice Department, and has argued before the Supreme Court.
If he’s a hack, we could use more hacks.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"At least one-third of
June 12, 2007 - 17:03 ET by ckc1227"At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice
Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been
administration insiders,"
So, wouldn't this mean that an overwhelming majority, two-thirds, of immigration judges appointed during this time didn't have Republican connections or were not administration insiders?
ckc1227 - Immigration judges
June 12, 2007 - 21:25 ET by ding7777ckc1227 - Immigration judges are civil service employees - none of them should have been appointed because of their political connections.
Where does it say they were a
June 13, 2007 - 13:19 ET by jimpryor99Where does it say they were appointed BECAUSE of their political connections. It simply says 1/3 of them do have Republican connections. The other two thirds, also appointed, have other connections. In other words, the appointments are equally spread across the board. In any group of people, 1/3 are normally republicans. 1/3 are democrats. 1/3 are other or non-affiliated.
on 2nd thought.... scratch th
June 12, 2007 - 18:11 ET byon 2nd thought.... scratch that
Ya gotta love it!
June 12, 2007 - 18:24 ET by c5thenWhen the left can only point to 33% of political appointees being from the administrations own party.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
How funny, the rest of us thi
June 12, 2007 - 18:37 ET by general companyHow funny, the rest of us think Bush treats the immigrants better then the citizens?
The actual news is on the l
June 13, 2007 - 05:09 ET by sarcasmoThe actual news is on the last page of the article. The DOJ just LOST a discrimination lawsuit. You people can try to spin that in whatever way you want, but I see a DOJ in crisis and flailing -- not media bias -- in this case. If anything, the media bias is in putting any mention of the DOJ's losing that lawsuit only on the last page, when if this discrimination had been by a big corporation instead of big government, we all know what page one woulda been, don't we? (And in real media bias news you won't see from the NB masthead...)
JMR