Rahm Emanuel can’t say ‘retards’, but ‘retards’ can’t be lawyers
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
When last anyone cared about what Hans von Spakovsky had to say, his effort to sit on the Federal Election Commission was being blocked by Senate Democrats who did not find him qualified to have the job. They did not consider von Spakovsky qualified because of his evident opposition to the enforcement of voting rights during his tenure in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Chagrined by his defeat at the hands of a Senate finally willing to exercise its oversight role on a runaway executive branch under the Bush administration, von Spakovsky now spends his days in a comfortable perch at the Heritage Foundation accusing the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division he once vigorously politicized of again being politicized because it’s now being run by Democrats.
Along comes Sarah Palin’s objection on Facebook Monday night about White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel calling progressives ‘fucking retarded.’ Palin associated herself with remarks of a friend who wrote that he is “an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination.”
This is where we get back to Hans, who the same day that the whole Palin and Trig vs. Rahm Emanuel thing is going down, takes to National Review’s The Corner to make light of the Justice Department for, what else, potentially considering people for hire as attorneys who might suffer from mental retardation:
Officials at the department now arguably want to institutionalize bad lawyering. Justice is advertising for prospective trial attorneys in its Civil Rights Division. The ad specifically says that the department encourages applicants who suffer from “mental retardation” and “mental illness.” It is one thing to accommodate those with illnesses that do not otherwise render them unfit to serve in a highly demanding and elite corps of DOJ attorneys; but to seek out those who are “mentally retarded” for special consideration is certainly novel.
Governor Palin, where is your outrage now? Why doesn’t it appall you that this man would say that children like your son Trig when they grow up shouldn’t ever be given consideration for work as an attorney in our government?
The bizarre thing about von Spakovsky’s post is that it shows how unsuited he was to ever serve as a top Justice Department official dealing with civil rights. The encouragement of applicants for employment with ‘targeted disabilities’ is a standard disclaimer to federal job applications so that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will not take government agencies to court and sue them for employment discrimination, in this case for mental disabilities.
What’s worse, Governor Palin: Rahm Emanuel being flip with language, or a prominent conservative legal thinker saying that people who are ‘mentally retarded’ like your son should be disqualified up front for government jobs? If Governor Palin and her ilk don’t speak out against those like von Spakovsky who would literally encourage discriminatory treatment in government hiring, I’d say that her outrage over Emanuel’s remarks is about as sincere as it was when she objected to President Obama’s ‘lipstick on a pig’ remark during the campaign.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
At least some of the kerfuffle (presuming there is one) is likely from the epithet Rahm Emanuel used; some people find it offensive.
Is there other info in the Spakovsky piece not quoted here? I can appreciate working to expose a double-standard; I’m not seeing one here and am seeing a significant disconnect between the quote you use and your take on its meaning.
from the NatRev piece you quote:
from your piece:
and
(emphasis added)
Good point re it being standard disclaimer; it’s certainly not politically-savvy, but I don’t see how ~”special consideration would be novel” equates to “shouldn’t ever be given consideration” or “should be disqualified up front.” Am I missing something?
My point is that a guy who worked in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ and chastises the CRD for being politicized is accusing the Justice Department of also affirmatively pursuing bad lawyering by hiring people who are ‘mentaly retarded’ or ‘mentally ill.’ He’s making a pretty sick political point out of the DOJ trying to abide by standing regulations related to the ADA. I left out the follow-up blog post (yes, there’s a follow-up) where he equates ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ (i.e. being liberal to the crowd that reads The Corner) to mental illness or retardation.
Of course, the EEOC has basically commanded the federal government to state that it encourages people with ‘targeted disabilities’ to apply for certain jobs. Von Spakovsky is stating that not being mentally ill or retarded is a ‘bona fide occupational qualification’ or BFOQ for government service as a trial attorney, and if something is a BFOQ, you’re allowed to discriminate on that basis (for instance, it is a BFOQ to be a Muslim if you’d like to apply to be hired as an Imam at a mosque).
Of course, the EEOC in its interpretation of the ADA has concluded that these things are not BFOQs. Ultimately, von Spakovsky is using the DOJ’s efforts to comply with standing employment law to make s cheap political point (that CRD is politicized, which is highly ironic as I noted months ago). It’s pretty sickening.
In response to another comment. See in context »