Civil Rights Division losing lawyers

Civil Rights Division losing lawyers

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 (UPI) -- Almost one-fifth of the veteran lawyers in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Department have quit this year, the Washington Post reports.

Critics of the Bush administration say a buyout program was aimed at replacing veterans with lawyers sympathetic to the administration's views on civil rights. They point to a 40 percent drop in gender and race discrimination cases brought by the department.

Richard Ugelow, who left the division in 2004 to join the faculty at American University, said everyone knew the traditional civil rights caseload would drop when President Bush took office.

"But I don't think people anticipated that it would go this far," he said, "that enforcement would be cut back to the point that people felt like they were spinning their wheels."

Eric Holland, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the attrition rate in the division has only been slightly higher under Bush than in the Clinton administration. He said there were a record number of prosecutions in 2004, many of them for human trafficking offenses that became part of the division's responsibility under a law passed just before Bush became president.

Yeah, here is something else this administration can be proud of....

I can't believe that I have witnessed so thoroughly the complete dismantling of all that was good in our nation. What a disgrace...

[edit on 13-11-2005 by loam]

Actually this may not be a bad thing, some of the descrimination cases are just flat silly, of course your never descriminated against if your white(which automatically means your not poor). Ive seen many white men descriminated against, of course they just keep quiet about it, a phenomena i call 'white guilt' which is done by systematically having the media imply that all the evils are caused by white men. The only thing whites ever did was the same every other race does which is tribal warfare, they just happen to have excelled at it.

Why should, the other races, in America get special treatment then the whites?
For example, a Black person is wearing a shirt that says Black Pride, no one says anything, but when a white person wears a shirt that says White Pride, harsh words fall on him. Its like the other races are conspiring against the white man, even his own race.
One day the white man will be the minority.
The same goes for Asians, and the Mexicans and and all the other races out there.
I say we send each race back to their homeland.

Send the blacks back to africa, the mexicans back to mexico, the asians back to asia, and the whites back to europe. Let the Native Americans reclaim their land. Let all the races reclaim their lands in the name of the "GOD"s so they shall rage an "HOLY" war, like we did so many years ago. Any may the best come out victorious.

As for the topic, so I don't lose any points, This is not a good step for the US to do, without the lawyers and people discriminating, the US will fall out of place.
The US was a place that you could discriminate against each other and get something done.

I think that is what the "secret camps in the US" are for, people who do not conform to the new US standards of living.

Less lawyers can never be a bad thing!

Less Civil rights lawyers mean we are making progress and less are needed.

This reminds me of the left freaking out over cuts to food stamps. If less people are using them doesn't it make sense to cut it?

Is this an issue of fairness between white and black discrimination?

If blacks are discriminated against they shouldn't say anything because white folk don't--that's not true by the way?

I thought civil rights was about discrimination against all americans that need to be protected from it, but it seems the very words put together makes some think of black folk blaming white folk. (another thing that's not so true)

Maybe all of this can't be blamed on Dubya, though. Maybe there is actually 40% less racism in this country. I mean, this thread doesn't reflect that...some are racist and say the most offensive things but they don't even realize it. Tis sad really. But, I'ma keep clicking these threads and reading them cause its a sickness. My brain must be punished for thinking things have actually changed.

btw...the united states of america is my homeland and your homeland and every citizens homeland. just another way to think of it instead of forced segregation or forced imprisonment--omg!! i hope you were just joking.

Good riddance.

There's no need for an official government body designed to deal with discrimination, and the existence of such a body simply creates a group of people whose income depends on finding it, or, if necessary, creating it. Discrimination is already illegal, and anyone who feels that they have been subjected to it can already press criminal charges or file a civil suit over it.

"Fighting" discrimination has become an industry in the United States, and provides a generous income for many who nominally do so. Those people have a vested interest in ensuring that it continues, or at least giving the appearance that it does. They are therefore the single greatest obstacle to creating a society in which discrimination truly doesn't exist.

The only mistake that Bush is making, in my opinion, is replacing the existing lawyers. They should simply be phased out, along with the entire department.

But of course, since we're talking not only of a politician, but of one of the most reprehensible and blatantly dangerous ones to hold any office in my lifetime, I suspect that there's an entirely different agenda that's behind all of this than simply eliminating a wasteful and counter-productive government agency. So while ideally I support this move, I presume that the administration's goals are, as always, entirely different from their superficial appearance.

Damn. I hate when that realization comes back and slaps me in the face...

Contrary to what passes for intelligence ..especially in the news media...the Republicans and George Bush are pretty shrewd politicians. They seem to know politically what they are doing.
I just don't think Bob LaoTse takes it far enough. The reason they are looking to get rid of so many civil rights lawyers is that they are one of the main tools the opposition partys used to help keep and maintain power and of course the votes that go with power acquisition.
What Bush and the Republican Party are doing is limiting the ability of thier opposition to use the government to solidify their voting base..pretty smart from a political standpoint.
Remember something ...the very liberal elements of this country including the news media are not putting forth this opinion to the public either. They do not want the public to know that the lawyers are a important part of their ability to get votes around election day.
Its about votes....people..votes. Just like Abortion and who sits on the supreme court bench ...its about votes too. Votes..ie ...power.!!!
As some have described over the years ...discrimination and such issues have become cottage industrys in America. Even our college campuses have made whole industrys out of this.

One more thing...while you are feeling guilty about this and understand that such discrimination can only happen in America and by white Americans...notice what is happening in Europe..specifically in France.
Just remember..many of you are Americans and white...you are automatically guilty by birth and default. This is a automatic setting on the news media and educational circuits here and in the rest of the world. It is impossible for this to happen outside of America...the die is automatically cast. Guilty!!!!!!! Also remember ..it is not possible under this type of intelligentsia for Muslims to practice discrimination ..they must automatically play through while others stand pat. LOL LOL LOL. Textbook intelligentsia. The upward reach of mankind. LOL LOL LOL!!!!


Thanks,
Orangetom

And you're right-- I hadn't taken it far enough. The civil rights lawyers certainly are a central part of the Democratic power structure, and eliminating them cuts into the potential power of the Democrats.

Just as it's no coincidence that Bush has followed the strategy of Reagan-- to lower taxes while increasing military spending. This forces the Congress to either vote for deficit spending or to agree to budget cuts, almost all of which will come from social services, which is the basic Democratic constituency.

Drifting a bit further off topic-- just as Republicans have sold their souls to big business, Democrats have sold their souls to the various government employees unions, which is just another reason why I dislike Democrats just that little bit more.

to my limited knowlege the Republican Administration has worked to weaken the Democrat power base..not necessarily to help the public concerns but to strengthen the party position...the Republican Party position.
In this manner to me both partys are at odds for control of their entitlement...their fiefdom...purchased with the votes of the American people. Both partys can be very liberal...in otherwords not as advertised. Politics is one of the very few buisnesses where you can market a product and not deliver and the public thinks this is normal. They keep pulling levers and never think any further. Any other buisness would have to deliver the product or go out of buisness. This is what the "Contract with America" was about ...some Americans were figuring this out about politics. This is not necessarily what you heard in the media but nevertheless some Americans are figuring it out and vocalizing this very concept ..about both partys.
I was debating in another room with some fellow in the UK who thinks our military spending is to large. I reminded him that social services spending in this country is much larger than military spending. Hard to believe but it is so. This fellow thinks we should slash our military spending like the UK and have free government medical care. This would be a great way for one of the partys to get votes. It would also drive any doctors with real skills out to other fields which will pay more. I wonder what these people are thinking ..when they say we should follow the European models.
I will remind you that both partys are in favor or big buisness...its just that one party is not as obvious about it but behind the scenes they support big buisness....where their voters dont notice. Unions are big buisness...for moneys and votes ..two birds with one stone.

So ..Bob..which liberal party are you voting for????? I think I'll write in my candidate..

Thanks,
Orangetom

I'll almost certainly be voting Libertarian, as always. I even balk a bit at that, since the notion of a Libertarian party seems sort of self-contradictory, but it beats the other choices. And as the largest third party in the country, the Libertarians actually frighten the DemoRepubcratlicans, and that's gotta be a good thing.

I've pointed out elsewhere that the political tradition of not delivering on promises goes all the way back to class president elections, wherein the candidates promise "longer recesses, less homework and better food in the cafeteria," secure in the knowledge that they can't, and therefore don't have to, actually deliver. Like you, I don't really understand how it is that so many people hear such promises and don't see them for the blatant lies that they so obviously are, but somehow they don't.

The thing that people need to understand about politicians is that their job is really quite simple-- it's to accumulate power and to then sell it to the highest bidder. That's it. Obviously, they can't actually come out and say that that's their entire job, so they learn early on to lie convincingly, and that skill, more than any other, determines the level of their potential success. The game isn't rigged because people are voting for the wrong candidates-- it's rigged by its very nature.

THAT is the reason that governments should be kept as small and powerless as possible. Every bit of power that we grant them, no matter what the nominal purpose of that power, becomes nothing more than a commodity that they then sell to the highest bidder, and that bidder is NEVER we the people.

Damn.

Im thinking more and more along the Libertarian lines too. I am disappointed with the Republicans and definitely the Democrats. I think more Americans are begining to realize this. Boards like ATS have changed alot of peoples thinking about the nature of things they took for granted. Many people are begining to think outside of the boxes this world has put them in without thier being aware of it. The only question for me is when will it become a exodus.
I am curious about this new guy they are planning to appoint to the head of the Federal Reserve Board. This is going to be very telling about the Government and its stance on deficit spending and inflation/depreciation. I will be watching this one closely as it is definitely a control mechanism which will determine the course of all other control mechanisms.
Pretty much agree with your assessment of the nature of politicians Bob. Yes ..it is a rigged market...Bravo..Well said..Well said olde man.
In my mind ..the way to keep government honest..if that is even possible ..is to keep them "broke...poor" ..that way they are not interfearing with the private sector any more than necessary. Deficit spending means they can finance thier way more and more into our daily lives. Hence the importance of the Federal Reserve System. This is the toll which allows the Government moneys unlimited ..to interfear with our economy and personal lives. This is also one of the chief tools which rigs the markets.

Thanks,
Orangetom