113 and Oh.

Following the Justice Department’s long-delayed compliance with a Freedom of Information Act request, PJMedia recently published content from the resumes of each career attorney hired to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Attorney General Eric Holder. The articles were written by two former Civil Rights Division attorneys — J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky — and PJMedia Editor Richard Pollock.

The Justice Department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation. Yet the resumes revealed the following ideological breakdown among the new hires:

Leftist lawyers: 113

Moderate, non-ideological, or conservative lawyers: 0.

That represents the basest headline for the series, the matter-of-fact evidence that should lead any reasonable observer to believe the DOJ has employed an illegal political litmus test during the interview process. But the “Every Single One” series has provided additional benefits: the results present the inherent flaw in leftism’s perversion of the term “civil rights,” while providing a real world example of the flawed belief actualized. Additionally, the “Every Single One” series presents ramifications that reach far beyond the individuals most directly affected by DOJ activity.

We hope not to understate it: this perversion of “civil rights“ is the beating heart of leftism itself.

Only one definition of “civil rights” could ever logically exist: that of equal protection under the law, the law defined as the codified protection of an individual’s life, liberty, and property. Yet Eric Holder, Loretta King, Thomas Perez, the 113 hires — they claim that civil rights, and the Division established to enforce them, reside in racial, gender, disability, and even sexuality preferences presiding above the law, in the hands of an elite few trusted by an elite public class to establish some breed of “fair lawlessness.”

The flaw is obvious: when the law is not equally applied, a citizen’s actions are no longer their own.

Their fates are no longer tied to their personal adherence to life, liberty, and property, but to an unelected bureaucrat’s whim, an individual who believes both that he is qualified to make such judgments of other men and that our country’s laws allow him to do so. They claim that civil rights are not the individual’s, but somehow theirs, a definition incompatible with itself!

This is, as we know, the post-Marxist brand of tyranny — a “well-meaning” lawlessness. But prior to this series, we did not know that since 2008 the Civil Rights Division has been populated entirely according to this ideology, behavior which represents the perfect antithesis of civil rights.

The Way-Backstory: Strom’s (D-SC) Segregation-athon

The DOJ Civil Rights Division is a product of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first — and largely unsuccessful — of several legislative attempts to secure voting rights for blacks. The bill passed by a large margin, though passage was ardently opposed by Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond, who marked the occasion with the longest single-person filibuster in the Senate’s history: 24 hours, 18 minutes. (Please note: Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) was, at the time, a Democrat.)

The Act’s passage created the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. This office is currently held by Obama appointee Thomas Perez, and he oversees a Division that now encompasses 11 sections: the Appellate Section, Criminal Section, Disability Rights Section, Educational Opportunities Section, Employment Litigation Section, Federal Coordination and Compliance, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, Policy and Strategy Section, Special Litigation Section, and the Voting Section.

 “Insufficient Evidence to Prosecute … ”

“Every Single One” presented key information from the resumes of each of the 113 career attorneys hired to serve within 10 of these 11 sections since the appointment of Eric Holder. The key information presented provided substantial evidence of the political leanings of each hire. In each case, enough evidence was available for a reasonable observer to determine that the hire was neither a conservative, moderate, nor apolitical.

The hiring practices within the Division should be of primary interest to the American citizen for several reasons; this series concerned itself with three. First, and inherently most urgent: employing a political litmus test during the applicant screening process is illegal under the Civil Service Reform Act. (This Act dates back to Chester Arthur, and was intended to ensure nothing other than that government hiring be merit-based.)

A political litmus for hiring is also contrary to the DOJ’s Reasonable Accommodation Statement:

The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of color, race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, disability (physical or mental), age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, genetic information, status as a parent, membership or non-membership in an employee organization, on the basis of personal favoritism, or any non-merit factor.

Our second concern: a political litmus test — in this case, a “no exceptions” political litmus test — for employment within the Civil Rights Division raises the possibility of a significant number of Americans simply not being protected by the civil rights statutes the Division was created to enforce. Indeed, this is the singular purpose of creating a politically blind hiring process, and in practice — the discrimination statute now violated under Eric Holder — the political litmus test has unimpeachably resulted in the occurrence of this concern. See the New Black Panther case dismissal, or the 2010 military voting rights scandal.

The third concern: the difference in federal treatment of the Bush DOJ and the Obama DOJ constitutes an uneven enforcement of the ban on a political litmus test.

On July 30, 2008, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice Glenn Fine testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. His statement was titled: “Politicized Hiring at the Department of Justice.” From his introduction:

Our investigation found that [DOJ White House Liaison Monica] Goodling, Kyle Sampson (the former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General), and other staff in the Office of the Attorney General improperly considered political or ideological affiliations in screening candidates for certain career positions at the Department, in violation of federal law and Department policy.

And from his conclusion:

[T]he Department must ensure that the serious problems and misconduct we found in our reports about politicized hiring for career positions in the Department do not recur in the future.