White House Stacked Civil Rights Panel

[Hissyspit]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004651.php

White House Stacked Civil Rights Panel
By Paul Kiel - November 6, 2007, 1:45PM

You're familiar with what the Bush Administration did to the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. After all, who could forget such muck luminaries as Bradley "Good Americans" Schlozman, voter suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky, and John "Minorities Die First" Tanner?

In today's Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports on how the administration has stacked the Civil Rights Commission, a fifty year-old agency that is supposed to serve as a watchdog for civil rights infractions:

Democrats say the move to create a conservative majority on the eight-member panel violated the spirit of a law requiring that no more than half the commission be of one party. Critics say Bush in effect installed a fifth and sixth Republican on the panel in December 2004, after two commissioners, both Republicans when appointed, reregistered as independents.

Clever. The effect of the move has been predictable. Just as the Civil Rights Division has been effectively sidelined, the commission significantly diminished its activity on behalf of minorities:

MORE

[Igel]

1. Yeah, I was ready for outrage.

Seems cut and dried. But I didn't read it at tmpmuckracker, but at the Globe.

"The commission - half appointed by the president and half by congressional leaders - has been under a 6-to-2 control by both liberals and conservatives before. Especially since the 1980s, presidents and lawmakers have tried to tilt the panel by appointing independents who shared their party's views on civil rights.

"But until Bush's 2004 appointments, no president used reregistrations by sitting commissioners to satisfy the law that forbids presidents from appointing a fifth commissioner of the same party. Bush's move , represented an unprecedented "escalation" in hardball politics, said Peter Shane, Ohio State University law professor."

I have to assume that the repubs were outraged when liberals were in charge and liberals were outraged when conservatives were in charge. Yet both do it, and probably neither screams when they're on top. Arguing principle only when it would benefit you undercuts moral authority. (Gee, where have we heard that before?)

The difference now is altering an appointee's status mid-appointment. A new wrinkle, a new way to achieve non-bipartisanness. But that alone doesn't get my dander up.

Of course, the last outrage on the committee was when the chair didn't step down. She and * disagreed over the length of her appointment. IIRC, the dispute was whether she was appointed to finish a term or for a term. Sketchy on that, though. And since she was dem, on that issue the dems were silent and the repubs were full throated.