The fact of matter is conservatives are far more discriminated against in BIG LAW firms and at most gov. jobs, where the vast majority are partisan and obnoxious liberals, than liberals were at the DOJ (where arguably, public policy opinions arguably matter).

Anyone who complains about the DOJ hiring, should ask themselves do they discriminate when they see Fed. Soc. or Republican affiliation on an applicant's resume at their firm or gov. job.

I took off my Republican credentials on my resume after getting a number of snide comments from interviewers. Compare that to my Democratic friends who usually were able to use their past campaign work as talking points in their interview.

2:32 how true. libs are just that only when you coincide with their view, as soon as you dont they forget about being open etc. and just write you off. sad but its reality

2:32.... who cares about discrimination from a private firm based on politics? That's called "life," so get used to it buddy.

But we are talking about the DOJ here... So stop with the "oh my god they won't hire me because i make babies cry" comments.

2:32 - are firms required by law to not discriminate based on political association? (honest question)

2:44 - You need to go back and review your ConLaw notes from Barbri. No state action & more importantly not a supect class.

2:47 needs to review the question that 2:32 posed (which was not necessarily limited to federal constitutional law, I don't believe) and realize that with regard to firms operating within the District of Columbia and certain other jurisdictions it is indeed illegal under statutory law for private employers to discriminate on political affiliation. See, e.g., the DC Human Rights Act. http://ohr.dc.gov/ohr/cwp/view,a,3,q,491858,ohrNav,%7C30953%7C.asp

2:32, and 2:44:

The question was "by law," not necessarily by the Constitution. Not sure of the answer, but it wouldn't be surprising if some states (California?) required private employers not to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation or association.

Touche. This is 2:47 and I stand humbly corrected (and also unworthy due to my typo).

This situation follows a common pattern: liberal Democrats invent an activity/tactic/law, which is then used for many years without scandal except to those who are disadvantaged by it. Republicans assume power and use the same activity/tactic/law in the same way and now the activity/tactic/law is a scandal.

Examples include: the Independent Counsel law; Congress providing "access" for campaign contributions (invented by Dem Rep. Tony Coello; poorly imitated by Republican Rep. Tom DeLay); the DoJ honors program; the earlier appointment of US Attorneys; wiretapping your opponents (perfected by FDR and JFK; poorly imitated by Nixon); using the IRS to harass your political opponents (perfected by Truman; repeated by Clinton; never used by Republicans); slandering judicial appointees (except Republicans have yet to do this); etc.

Cry me a river, but this investigation will have no credibility unless it extends back and investigates the behavior of the Cllinton DoJ.

This situation follows a common pattern: liberal Democrats invent an activity/tactic/law, which is then used for many years without scandal except to those who are disadvantaged by it. Republicans assume power and use the same activity/tactic/law in the same way and now the activity/tactic/law is a scandal.

Examples include: the Independent Counsel law; Congress providing "access" for campaign contributions (invented by Dem Rep. Tony Coello; poorly imitated by Republican Rep. Tom DeLay); the DoJ honors program; the earlier appointment of US Attorneys; wiretapping your opponents (perfected by FDR and JFK; poorly imitated by Nixon); using the IRS to harass your political opponents (perfected by Truman; repeated by Clinton; never used by Republicans); slandering judicial appointees (except Republicans have yet to do this); etc.

Cry me a river, but this investigation will have no credibility unless it extends back and investigates the behavior of the Cllinton DoJ.

The main reason big law firms are not interested in hiring conservatives is that:

(1) they usually lack imagination - conservative criticism on any subject is inevitably grounded in the "old". Look at the position they take on social issues - they cite the bible for textual support for (ahem) christ's sake.

(2) They always end up being wrong: supply side economics - supply does not create its own demand silly; see New Coke; George W. Bush - I almost died laughing when NPR announced a request for input on "How will history remember George W. Bush's presidency" and that snafu will not be soon forgotten by big law hiring partners (it clearly cost them money), Gay Marriage, first California, then the country.

Nobody wants to work with unimaginative, wrong people.

Way to represent the party of toleranace, 3:33. For what it's worth, I don't want to work with you, either.

3:33. You should have studied economics more carefully in college. Much of the medical field is an example of supply creates its own demand. The more doctors, the more per capital spending on health care. Plastic surgery is a perfect example. Where do you think the most procedures and the most demand are? Right, where the supply is highest.

3:33- by supply side economics, are you also questioning the idea behind the Reagan tax cuts (usually lumped in with criticism of supply side economics)? If so, and you honestly don't believe that helped the economy, then you need to do a little more research.

As for unimaginative and always wrong, perhaps you'd like to point out some social problem the democrats have actually solved. E.g: War on poverty? Failure.

Also, as much as you may revile the Bible, it was actually using those principles that women in many countries have found liberation (not through the Koran or other texts) and through which Christians stood up against slavery. Of course, in your mind, any moral baseline is antiquated, but I'm guessing if someone decided to break into your house, try to kill your family members, you'd be a big supporter of some basic level of moral judgment on society's behalf.

DOJ is a TTT!

Supply side economics (much like true Communism where the citizens of a modern, industrialized nation revolt) has never had a true test. All the supply siders say cut taxes and cut spending, but they always forget to cut spending so we never find out if it would really work.

4:14- I agree with you completely. But, it is true that cutting taxes, every time it's been done, has resulted in an increase to government coffers. Although spending under W has been obscene, the government has also reported record levels of revenue via taxes.

4:16 - it may be true that government income rises when you cut taxes but don't cut government spending, but neither you or I know that would happen if the supply siders actually followed through on their promises of cutting spending. The government spending creates more taxable income itself. I'd like to see a true test and really have no idea what the results would be; I just know that tax cuts without spending cuts does not work in the long-term especially for the strength of the dollar.

Too many republicans postin! Babies are crying!

"The fact of matter is conservatives are far more discriminated against in BIG LAW firms and at most gov. jobs". Probably so. Anyone who still buys into that discredited bullshit at this point is a moron and shouldn't be hired. Particularly not by a company attempting to make a profit. As Daffy Duck pointed out, "rodents should freeze."

I gotta tell ya, three points: (1) it's not good to give jobs based on anything other than merit, so this bothers me and should bother anyone, (2) this really doesn't reflect on the integrity of the process, though, since the quality of applicants is so high that even picking NO liberals or the reverse would still yield a top crop of lawyers, and (3) I have a sneaking suspicion this has always gone on and will always go on, Republican or Democrat.

Dear Republican apologist posters: The point here is the perversion of a program that is supposed to be about merit, not constitutional rights violations.

This is interesting - Sean M. Gerlich v. US Department of Justice- Class action Privacy Act complaint by top-tier law school graduate who was not selected by defendant as part of its Honors Program for graduating law students during the Fall of 2006 as a result of a blatantly politicized process of agency decisionmaking. Plaintiff seeks $100,000 for each class member plus declaratory and injunctive relief. Paid download.

It's being brought by former DOJ attorney Daniel J. Metcalfe.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176455062969