loquitur

Well, I'm no expert on civil service hiring rules. If there was a violation of nonpolitical hiring requirements, then by all means it should be investigated and remedied. That doesn't mean it isn't true that not every hiring disparity is due to discrimination. And what I think host was getting at, that the DOJ is deliberately discriminating against blacks in making hiring decisions, is disproved by roachboy's statement that Goodling was looking to seed the place with Republicans. There just aren't that many black Republican lawyers looking for career government jobs. It stinks either way but it isnt race discrimination.

RB, the purpose of my "finally" statement was to try to shake everyone and remind them that it's possible to get too deeply invested in a viewpoint and forget to step back to examine premises. People are of course limited to their own views by the fact that they are who they are, which means that there is built-in distortion from the get-go; everyone has biases in the lens through which they view the world. That's why it's important to stop every now and again and ask "what am I missing?" Remember, there are lots of good people who think differently, and they're not all stupid, evil or delusional - so it's important to ask what it is that they see that I don't, or what is it that I see that they don't? Otherwise you're just setting up an echo chamber for yourself and not forcing yourself to think beyond preconceived patterns. [That's a general "you," not a "you" addressed specifically to Roachboy]. And really, check out that website. It's a good one, and it really makes me think on all sorts of subjects.

Oh, one other thing. I went back through some of this thread and I see people saying something or another is illegal or unconstitutional. I have tried to avoid that because I know enough law and constitutional law (after having gone through law school, a federal court clerkship and 20+ years of law practice) to be very keenly aware of what I do and don't know. I try to be generally familiar with the issues, but I also know there are arguments on both sides that get made by some very talented and experienced lawyers. Most of these issues are not cut and dry by any means, and we do ourselves a disservice by pretending they are. A couple of things to remember: not everything that is a bad idea is unconstitutional. Not everything we don't like is unconstitutional. There are lots of stupid, useless, even injurious things that are perfectly ok under the constitution - legislators are not prohibited by the constitution from doing bad, stupid things. The remedy for most bad or stupid things is to lobby the legislature or, failing that, vote the bums out of office. That's what happened in the 2006 elections, right? Wanting something to be illegal or unconstitutional doesn't mean that it in fact is illegal or unconstitutional.