Three Cheers for Peter Keisler

Politicized hiring for non-political positions at the DOJ has been in the news of late. Monica Goodling has come in for a good deal of official and unofficial criticism, which is appropriate. 

But good examples are as useful as examples to avoid, and this episode offers at least one good one.  An earlier report, on hiring in the AGs honors program and summer law intern program, recounts that Peter Keisler, who was then the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, objected to such politicization.  According to the report, Keisler called Michael Elston, the head of the relevant screening committee:

                        "Keisler said he told Elston something to the effect of:

                        `[Y]ou should know that there'€™s a lot of people who believe
                        that these deselections are either irrational or so irrational
                        that they are motivated by politics, and that's a problem,
                        you know. Whatever the truth of it is, when this many
                        people in a Department are this unhappy about something,
                        it's going to be an issue.'

                        Keisler gave as an example an appeal of a deselected candidate
                        who had good grades at Harvard Law School, had been a successful
                        summer intern at the Civil Division, and had worked as a paralegal for
                        Planned Parenthood. Elston denied the appeal. Keisler told Elston that
                        `some people had said that the only reason she might have been
                        deselected is that she had on her resume something like Planned
                        Parenthood or something that would be associated with the abortion
                        issue.'

                        According to Keisler, Elston said something like, `well that’s not
                        what’s going on. What we’re doing here is rejecting people because of
                        academic performance being not up to standards.' Following his
                        conversation with Keisler, however, Elston allowed this candidate to be
                        interviewed."

Well done. Some might wish for stronger condemnation, but in the bureaucratic context the message recounted here seems to me clear enough.

I don't know Mr. Keisler, who has returned to private practice now.  Before doing so, he was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Political considerations no doubt foreclose any confirmation proceedings before November, but in my view his conduct in this case shows him perfectly suited for the bench.

DM

Comments

[S.cotus]

Why didn't he just come out and say, “We know you are hiring people on the basis of politics.” I don’t see why he needed to beat around the bush. Or maybe he could have been specific about academic performance. After all, a case can be made that “good” grades are Harvard are worth less than good grades at a lower-ranked school because of grade curves.

[Mike Sweeney]

Peter (who is my partner) is a stand-up guy. He's got the intelligence, judgment and temperment to be an excellent judge, and his regulatory law background makes him a natural for the DC Circuit. I'm not surprised that he confronted Mike Elston (who, coincidentally, I also know) about this. I suspect that Peter and I disagree about a lot of political matters (I'm a lifelong Democrat), but I still think we'd all be well-served having him on the bench. I keep hoping that someone will figure out that there are good reasons not to block his nomination. If politics makes his confirmation impossible, though, then I will take considerable consolation in the fact that I get to continue to have him as a partner.

[S.cotus]

I would like to see some people provided examples of his brilliance with specificity. All we have is vague assertions that he is smart. But, without specifics I will have to defer to the politics.