May 23, 2007

More on Religious education

Sorry, Tony. I just can't resist. Today in her testimony on the hill, Monica Goodling admitted to political hirings, which is against the law in those positions.
"Both in her opening statement and in further testimony, Goodling admitted to weeding out candidates for assistant U.S. attorney positions because they were not Republicans.

Under questioning from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Goodling admitted that she did block the hiring of an assistant U.S. attorney in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office because she judged him too liberal. "I made a snap judgment and I regret it," she said. When Sanchez pressed as to how many times Goodling had done this, Goodling said she couldn't come up with a number, and that she didn't "feel like there were that many cases."

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) later pressed her on whether she had committed a crime. “I don’t believe that I intended to commit a crime," she said at first. Then, when he pressed, “I know I crossed the line of civil service rules."
Did that mean she crossed the line of breaking the law, he asked? "I believe I crossed the line, but I didn’t mean to," she said."

Evidently at Regent University Law school, you only break the law when you intend to break the law.

Now how is this supposed to make me feel better about religious education in this country?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

This isn't necessarily a reflection upon the 'particular institution.' (Yes, I know the connotation because like Napoleon15, "I studied a little history.") It does seem that Goodling had her own personal litmus test for office holders, which if religious in nature, would likely be unconstitutional. And didn't she go to Regent Law School and not Liberty anyway?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know where she passed the bar exam? Most bar exams are pretty hard, so even if you went to lousy school, you still have to enough to pass. Some, like NY or California, are really hard. JFK jr., IIRC, failed it 6 or 7 times in NY.

Some laws actually require an intent to break the specific law, such as 1st degree murder or criminal possession. In her case, I doubt this would apply, as she should be familiar with civil service hiring policies and rules.

One good thing to come out of this, I hope, is that there will be continued scrutiny in how people are hired and treated.

Streak said...

Yeah, I am really just picking on Regent and LIberty today. I also understand that intent is an important component in many crimes, as you note, but rarely is ignorance of the law an adequate defense. That was the part that I objected to the most--she said that she crossed the line and that she regretted the "mistake," but I don't think it was a mistake at all. I think she did exactly what she had been told to do.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak- Along these lines, you need to read Palast's take on the "real story" that's being missed.-BB
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594#comments