How horrible, a U.S. attorney who quotes the Bible!

I guess what these leftists want is a U.S. attorney who goes around quoting the Kinsey Reports and On the Origin of Species. I mean, the separation of church and state means that Christians are not allowed to hold public office, right?

yeah those GOP deputy AGs who worked in that office....they were actually liberals.

This is crap, Lat. You are always so eager to get the dirt on people, even ones who accidentally found themselves in the spotlight (Gera Ginsburg).

But now that the spotlight is on a friend of yours, you "may" reprint an email exchange you had with her. If it were anyone else, you'd have printed it already, complete with comments and markups.

Ridiculous.

The main problem with the Department of Justice today is that John Ashcroft, as much as he was very smart and well-meaning and clearly had the best interest of the country at heart, also had a hard time dealing with the dirt that is so common in American politics. When you believe that you should "turn the other cheek" as conservative Christians do, it is not surprising that you wouldn't do what it takes to eliminate your ennemies and political opponents. If Ashcroft had been more political and devoid of his religious scrupples, he would have gotten rid of all the left-wing troublemakers immediately when he took office and we (i.e. the GOP) wouldn't be having all these problems today.

Lat, that would really be muckraking (and unethical) to reprint personal emails, when she probably had no intention of writing to you as Lat a la blogger. Have some decency.

At least this one went to a decent law school (YLS) unlike Goodling who was clearly unqualified for the position.

At least the Dems nominate people with substance and ideology where as the GOP only requires the latter.

spill the details! no gossip in this post. if you've got some, at least post it anonymously or under the guise of sources at yls!

9:25 "I mean, the separation of church and state means that Christians are not allowed to hold public office, right?"

If being Christian means using public office to enforce the Bible, then yes. In case you missed the day they taught the First Amendment in law school, the separation of church and state means you keep the church out of the state (and to a large extent, vice versa, although the state has supremacy). If you can't manage that, then you are not fit to hold public office. It's as simple as that. This applies to all religions, not just Christianity. I wonder how she would take it to be bombarded with Talmudic quotes all day long.

Or what about quotes from... THE KORAN.

I'm not a hard-core church-state separationist. But I think it is inappropriate to quote the Bible to co-workers in a work-related context (e.g., as support for an argument).

White Guys With Indian Girls!!!!!!!!!!

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state. The idea was made up out of thin air by leftists in the media and academia and, unsurprisingly, leftists on the Supreme Court adopted the concept.

To say that the prohibition on an establishment of religion means a complete separation of church and state is as farfetched as saying that the right to bear arms grants a constitutional right to purchase nuclear weapons.

Actually 2:02am, it was Jefferson among others of his era who first discussed the separation of Church and State and it dates back to the 18th Century. There is even a book written by a respected Columbia professor about it.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HAMSEP.html

Actually 2:02am, it was Jefferson among others of his era who first discussed the separation of Church and State and it dates back to the 18th Century. It is also the universal interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. There is even a book written by a respected Columbia professor about it.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HAMSEP.html

Don't feed the trolls.

Administration response to Paulose concern: By questioning anyone the current administration appoints, the members of the liberal elite media are supporting terror. Paulose is the front lines against Al Queda, and personal attacks against her are a vote of confidence of for the terrorists. With each word criticizing her, you are putting bullets in the hands of our enemies and helping to kill our brave men and women in Iraq. The blood is on your hands, media, not ours. This is clear evidence that not only are the dems soft on terror, but they hate Jesus as well. God bless 'merica!

9:25 PM -- Christians hold, what, 95% of all elected offices in this country. It's the ones who use their power as a bully pulpit for dogmatic views that folks are worried about.

She's only 33 years old? Has she even tried one case in her career?

Wait, you mean that quoting the Bible is *not* an effective management style? Crap, now I'm going to have to start over from scratch with my plans of world domination...

It was nice meeting you last night, David!

12:29

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

9:09am-

Have you read Hamburger's book? It argues that the modern conception of separation of church and state IS a largely extraconstitutional principle, with its roots in 18th-cent anticlericalism and 19th anti-Catholicism. You're obviously off base citing him for claims about the constitutional pedigree or the universality of the interpretation you support.

Damn. She looks EXACTLY like Jen, last of the Gelflings and the protagonist in the Dark Crystal.

9:09 am-- You're an idiot for citing Hamburger's book, which makes exactly the opposite point you are trying to make. Hamburger, by the way, is absolutely right.

This US Attorney, is she married or single?

OFF TOPIC, please help:

I'm looking for a post from the last month or so about an associate from hell at Hughes Hubbard who oversees the temp attorneys--anybody know how to find the post? I used the site search and google and couldn't find anything. Thanks

So has there ever been another AUSA with only 10 years of legal experience, or is everyone just piling on because she's young and FEMALE? Quoting the bible seems inappropriate, but I don't hear anyone saying that she's incompetent.

11:59 -- she may have tried cases. after all, she spent a whole 3 years as an AUSA. that clearly makes her qualified to be a U.S. attorney and run that whole office.

and also, those who have worked at a biglaw firm for at least 3 years are qualified to be the managing partner. and those who have spent three years as a line programmer at microsoft can do bill gates' job.

no, seriously, those of you who know young AUSAs or ADAs, ask them why they've been slaving away at that job for 3, 4, or even 5 years and haven't reached the top yet.

guess they're just not superstars like her.

6:15 -- not piling on because she's female -- piling on because she's vastly underqualified and got the appointment because of who she knows. if she had spent all 10 of those years rising rapidly through the ranks at that USAO, notching big trial wins ... then i wouldn't be complaining.

Ok, Google and I will answer my question for me:

-Asa Hutchinson was 31 years old when he was appointed US Attorney for W. Arkansas by Reagan.

-George Phillips was appointed in the Southern District of Mississippi by Reagan when he was 30.

-Alexander Acosta was appointed by Bysh in the Southern District of Florida 12 years after graduating from YLS.

William Shaheen was appointed in New Hampshire by Carter when he was 34.

-Brock Adams was 34 when Kennedy appointed him to the Western District of Washington.

Yeah, because when people "pile on" a female USA, it could ONLY be because of her gender.

Give me a break.

How many of the young male lawyers you listed had mass-defections within their staff only a month after their appointments? How many of them have demonstrably terrible skills at management and leadership? Did you bother to read the substance of the complaints against Paulose AT ALL?

Gahhhhhhhh.

When did knowing the Bible not make somebody qualified to do absolutely anything? Seriously, with God as your copilot what could go wrong? Would he ever lead us astray? He's been giving George II great advice of late.

"Christians hold, what, 95% of all elected offices in this country."

Yes, if you count atheists like Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards as "Christians".

7:11 p.m., no one is arguing that she is qualified solely because she is a Christian. Centrists and conservatives are arguing that she is qualified because of her incredible background, which includes, among other things, YLS, while liberals and leftists are arguing that the fact that she is a Christian alone disqualifies her despite her impeccable academic background.

I'm not piling on because she's a chick (and a pretty hot chick at that, albeit a diva). I'm piling on because I seriously doubt a 33-year-old former AUSA has the experience necessary to be the USA for an entire district (which, in this case, is the entire State of Minnesota).

If her career as an AUSA was like most of the young AUSA's I've seen, she mainly did felon-in-possession cases, which are not exactly rocket science (Was the defendant a convicted felon? Did the defendant possess a weapon? BANG, you go to jail!). Maybe she did some trafficking cases too, but that's not very impressive either. Or maybe she got assigned to the misdemeanor trial docket where she got to prosecute people for exciting things like speeding or littering on Federal property.

I'm not slamming the work of AUSA's - everyone has to start somewhere. What I am slamming is how she went from a slogger AUSA to the freaking US-bloody-A of a pretty damn big district without much apparent effort.

Guess Rove was right... they want "Bushies" in the top spots, qualifications be damned.

(Hell, at least she went to Yale instead of Regent.)

Had she won big (or even recognizeable cases) like Sean Berkowitz, Beth Wilkinson, Jamie Gorelick, etc. during her time as a prosecutor, there might not be the uproar. But having prosecuted minor felonies (see, e.g. Goodling's pled out three cases for time served) and not done much of anything impressive beyond apparently figuring out to throw herself a big "look-at-me" party? Un-freaking-impressive.

"Did you bother to read the substance of the complaints against Paulose AT ALL?"

I didn't really see much of substance in those articles at all -- can anyone point to anything in particular besides the lack of experience, the lavish swearing-in, and the bible thumping?

Don't get me wrong - I love to pile on the Bushies as much as the next person - but I'm skeptical about how this particular episode is playing out.

Perhaps I'm naive, but YLS alone doesn't QUALIFY anyone to do anything (the theoretical bent of YLS in fact seems to weigh against that...). Perhaps that is the point--who cares where she went to law school if she hasn't earned a senior position by getting experience and especially results in litigation.

Oh yummy! I can't wait for those e-mails, Lat!

Career prosecutors who earn their positions should not be driven to resignation by incompetent management. The A-USAs who resigned spent years earning their department head positions. For her top 3 A-USAs to find her so intolerable that they couldn't wait 2 years to see if she'd be out the door shows just how atrocious her management style must be.

She's incompetent. It's not a gender thing. It's not a Yale thing. It's not an age thing. If you believe that Harriet Meiers was the best person for associate justice, then you may believe that Paulose is the best person for US attorney.

On the other hand, I believe, as do many here, that any one of the three who just took voluntary demotion as well as other senior staff who have left in a less public manner since Paulose took over were more qualified, capable, and deserving. It may turn out to be less of a grand conspiracy, but she is incompetent and we deserve better.

I'd do her.

But c'mon, the Bible? Who gives a shit about the Bible?

Y'all fear death (or after-death) so much you gotta look to that for guidance? And if you do, at least read it in ancient Greek, as it was written, rather than some fucking translation.

The installation of incompetent and inexperienced ideologues has become very common in the Bush Justice Department. Managers with decades of successful litigation experience are routinely micromanaged by young right wingers who often never have litigated any cases at all. This micromanagement usually occurs without the benefit of meaningful consultation with the career employees.

The results are drastically reduced effectiveness and poor morale. It is as if medical students were telling heart surgeons where and how to make the cuts -- as a matter of policy!

So, when us crazy liberals say that the whole Federalist Society ideological-purity career network is a bad idea, and point to this endless string of incompetent a'holes as proof, you all will find some way to blame that on us, right?

As a non-Yale graduating law student, I find the "at least she went to YLS not ______" comments absolutely hilarious. I have never seen a better example of people putting too much weight behind four letters on a resume.

In the end, the Bushies' lack of consideration for other people is always their undoing. How can you all stand to be on that side?

The Federalist Society is not an "ideological-purity career network". It is an organization of lawyers and law students who question the left-wing orthodoxy of the legal academia and legal profession. The average member of the Federalist Society is, on average, less far to the right than the average lawyer who is not a member of the Federalist Society is to the left (this is at least the case at top law schools).

Robert F. Kennedy was appointed Attorney General at age 35. But probably not because he knew anybody important.

I don't care if the Federalist Society worships Baal, I have seen how it functions. It is a finishing society for the elect, to paraphrase our blog host. ACS and other organizations have tried to accomplish the same level of network, but they fail because they don't enforce staying on message as much.

I think it is pretty clear that preferencing loyalty over competence is the chief source of public screwups in the Bush administration. I accuse the Federalist Society of operating on the same model, or, alternatively, of being at the center of the problem. Go ahead, be flattered by my assumption that your group has power. Your twilight days approach, so enjoy your brief ascendency!

People actually liked RFK though. Except maybe for that one guy.

So I guess the moral of the story is if you are going to be nepotistic, go whole hog. Stay in the aristocracy and don't let people buy/kiss their way in, even if they love Jesus as much as you.

"It is an organization of lawyers and law students who question the left-wing orthodoxy of the legal academia and legal profession."

The funniest thing about the Federalist Society is that they can have members dominating all levels of the executive and judicial branches (getting elected on their platform is hard) and yet, they still act as if oppressed by the "left-wing orthodoxy."

1:12 a.m., you are joking, right?

For one thing, the judiciary is WAY to the left of the legislature. In almost every case where the Supreme Court strikes down a law, they do so to move the country in a liberal direction.

But aside even for that, it is preposterous to say that conservatives have any power over the judiciary in a society where the law of the land says, among other things, that homosexual sodomy and abortion are constitutional rights.

Technically, they are liberty interests. Liberty being the textual constitutional right, and being something you conservatives support, at least when it comes to things you have, like property.

"In almost every case where the Supreme Court strikes down a law, they do so to move the country in a liberal direction."

You can say things like that and a few people will believe you. Then someone else will mention Lopez, or Morrison, or Seminole Tribe, or even Raich. Then we can talk about Michigan v. Long and several hundred 4th Amendment and habeus cases.

But you are proving my point. You don't even know your own success. Just leave your same-sex neighbors alone to get married and let your daughter take the morning-after pill. Once you get past your obsessions with what other people do you will see that you are rich, privileged, and powerful. You don't need Russia, you have Poland and France.

"In almost every case where the Supreme Court strikes down a law, they do so to move the country in a liberal direction."

Empirical support, please?

For the earlier post about Alex Acosta (U.S. Atty. in Miami), he graduated from HLS in 1994, not YLS. We were classmates. There's a guy who never tried a case.

I'm not in any way defending appointments like Paulose... But political appointments of friends of the president and his allies is nothing new in American politics. And yes, many of them in the past have been equally as unqualified and incompetent. There's really nothing to be shocked and indignant about here.

Strom Thurmond Jr. was in his late 20s when he was appointed U.S. Atty in South Carolina. Not sure where he went to law school but his younger brother went to the University of South Carolina. Now represents the estate of the Godfather of Soul.

GET THESE GODDAMN CHRISTIAN BIBLE-WORSHIPPING FREAKS OUTTA THERE!

she has crazy eyes

It's such a shame when the divalicious are bible-thumpers.

I would totally let her walk all over me... in heals and a leather mask. Rowr!

Jesus H Christ on a cracker - fuck religion and fuck the religious.

Strom Thurmond, Jr. NEVER went to law school; he simply clerked for some judge in South Carolina. Back in that day, apparently, you could do that.

Being United States Attorney and running a big and important operation like that takes management skills this woman obviously does not have. I'm not saying she's untalented or that a political appointment isn't legitimate. However, the person getting the appointment better be able to work with his/her employees--who are ALSO bright, highly skilled attorneys. This issue has very little to do with politics or "Bible-quoting" (there've been plenty of fantastic jurists who like to quote the Bible. Remember Senator Sam Ervin, once a darling to the "liberal establishment"?) It seems to have everything to do with an abominable management style

The Christian persecution complex in full on display.

There are to be no religious litmus tests for constitutional offices.

Yes, the wacky leftist Supreme Court that was appointed largely by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the Bush's.

The religious extremists want the freedom to force their beliefs down everyones throats and now they are going to use the government to do it.

Funny how these anti-government folks are lining up at the trough for political patronage jobs like Teamsters.

-GSD

5:18 - Strom Jr. was 28 when appointed, went to USC - in South Carolina that's the University of South Carolina, not Southern California. Nepotism - what a gig.

Please don't forget the imminently qualified US Attorney for SC, Strom Thurmond Jr. He was reviled by most in that office. He was only 28 at the time and had two years of experience as a small town prosecutor. Not exactly great experience.

All religiuos fanatics are nuts.

How many of you would be praying if you did not think you were going to get a prize at the end of this cracker jack box we call life. That seems very selfish to me.

Is their any difference between the Christian right and the Muslim fanatics.

The Christain Fanatics are supporting an admin that has terrorized and destroyed one of the sites on this planet.

What Chrsitain would support that.

Yet the muslims line up to blow themselves up for fruit and 40 virgins.

Whats worse I cant tell the difference between Bush/Cheney or Bin Laden.

Cheney quotes bin laden like he wrote the bible.

They all sound alike. You all deserve to be with each other in Hell.

If their is a heaven do you really beleive George Bush is going to heaven with all the blood on his hands. I wonder if you get your ticket revoked for voting for him.

Acts 10:25,26 - Cornelius fell down to worship Peter. Peter forbade it saying that he himself was just a man. God deserves worship, but men do not. (Cf. Acts 12:20-23; 14:8-18.)

Revelation 22:8,9; 19:10 - John sought to worship the angel, but the angel forbade it because he was a "fellow servant." "Worship God."

Romans 1:25 - People who worship and serve created things, rather than the Creator, have left the truth of God.

To worship any created thing - whether man, angel, heavenly body, or some other object in nature (mountain, ocean, etc.) - constitutes idolatry.

Being a Christan means your are worshiping an idol.

You Christians really are wacked.

Criticism of strong women on the left is "sexist." Criticism of women on the right is "righteous." The hypocrisy...