There’s another story in today’s Globe about the nomination of Reed Hillman to be US Marshal for Massachusetts. Senators Kennedy and Kerry are still dead-set against it; apparently a small group of Dems in the state legislature has come out in favor. Kennedy, asked again why the former head of the State Police is so terribly underqualified to serve as US Marshal, said the following, according to the Globe:
Last week, Kennedy said he views the choice of Hillman as a political patronage appointment and that the position of marshal should go to a law enforcement professional of wide experience…. Asked to respond to the state lawmakers’ comments yesterday, Kennedy stood firm against Hillman’s appointment.
“Mr. Hillman does not meet the requirements in Section 505 of the Patriot Act,” his office said in a statement. “Senator Kennedy’s support of a nominee for this critically important position does not hinge on political affiliation.”
Just for the record, here’s section 505:
Section 561 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
“(i) Each marshal appointed under this section should have–
“(1) a minimum of 4 years of command-level law enforcement
management duties, including personnel, budget, and accountable
property issues, in a police department, sheriff’s office or
Federal law enforcement agency;
“(2) experience in coordinating with other law enforcement
agencies, particularly at the State and local level;
“(3) college-level academic experience; and
“(4) experience in or with county, State, and Federal court
systems or experience with protection of court personnel,
jurors, and witnesses.”.
First, note that the law says that marshals “should,” not “must,” have the listed qualifications. Second, Hillman obviously has qualifications (1) through (3); the only question is (4). So maybe the former head of the State Police doesn’t have direct experience in a courthouse. Can that really be so different from other law enforcement responsibilities? Is the fact that Hillman never got a job in a courthouse — choosing instead to devote most of his career to the State Police, which I’d respectfully suggest is perhaps in general more strenuous than working as a court officer — really enough to render this a “terrible” nomination, to use Senator Kerry’s words, despite Hillman’s 25 years in law enforcement and six years in the state legislature? Aren’t there bigger battles to fight?
Hillman’s nomination has to be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then confirmed by the full Senate. So if Kennedy digs in his heels, he obviously can kill this thing. I just can’t see why he’d bother.
…Bush will give Hillman a recess appointment. Hillman will be out of office by Jan 2009.
There has probably not been an as qualified appointment to the US Marshall’s office in Boston in a long time. Kennedy is playing politics, plain and simple.
Kennedy is playing politics, plain and simple.
<
p>
…so is Shrub.
A.) Is there currently a candidate that is significantly more qualified than Hillman?
<
p>
B.) I would love to see all Democrats divest totally from the Patriot Act. Eliminate the whole thing and avoid using it only when it is convinient to an argument.
<
p>
C.) There are bigger fish to fry. I don’t agree with Hilman’s politics, but Hillman is qualified and this isn’t an obvious Alberto Gonzales cronyism/patronage job.
Somebody was snarking about how important is the job if it’s been unfilled all this time. So tell me – if a Republican can’t have it because THAT would be patronage, and a Democrat can’t be found with the qualifications – how DO you fill the job? Has Kennedy suggested ANYBODY?
<
p>
BTW – why wouldn’t Hillman’s tenure on Public Safety as a State Rep. count as working on state-level issues?
Shouldn’t you say best qualified person? First we don’t even know who the 5 people Mitt sent to the White House 2 years ago. Also, is it common that the Senate offer up names as replacements? — The answer is no. Kerry did send a letter to Bush asking if they could work together to find a qualified candidate. Kerry is still waiting…
<
p>
A lifetime of professional law enforcement culminating in the top job in the State Police doesn’t qualify for the Senator. I reiterate – has he offered any alternative suggestion? Or is he content with partisan obstructionism?
But best qualified candidate, I don’t know. Maybe or maybe not. I do know the intent the law within the Patriot Act which Kennedy was a part in adding was to stop the practice of appointing unqualified patronage appointments, just ask Cellucci. He appointed his driver to be US Marshall. It was also to get candidates from the court system with command-level experience. I think that’s Kennedy’s bone of contention. But to address the issue of other candidates Kerry did reach out to Bush, he never took him up on it. That’s too bad, why not work with the Senators of the state? Why doesn’t that happen. There is some politics in anything they do (all sides), but at some point we need to get some people who are the best qualified, not the just qualified (and in the party in power) to get the job done.
It’s obvious that this is nothing more than a pissing contest between Bush and Kennedy. Of course Hillman is qualified to be US Marshal (item 4 from the post notwithstanding). But, of course, Hillman’s nomination is a political pay-off.
<
p>
It is likely that Kennedy is upset at the (likely) fact that the pResident did not confer with the two senators of the state before nominating him to a position in their home state, as has been the practice heretofore.
<
p>
This is nothing more than a power play between Kennedy and Bush. As I noted elsewhere here, Hillman will get a recess appointment, be out of office by Jan 2009, and the Democrats will do the very same thing (not confer with the senators from the states in which their political appointments are made) when they get power in 2009. And the Dems will say “Well Bush did it.” Similar to what Republicans even now continue to bleat about Clinton.
<
p>
What goes around, comes around.
Hillman is yet another boot on the ground for the current maladministration. He will be a go-getter and a yes-man.
<
p>
We need less of these and particularly less of them in Massachusetts.
<
p>
This is an important posting. The last imbecile to hold the position was a do-nothing no-show, and therefore capable of the least damage. Hillman is, I read, has an impeccable work ethic. That’s a strong negative AFAIC. He will be used, and strongly, when the going gets tough.
<
p>
Kennedy and Kerry are doing the right thing. Hillman should be shoved back to the obscurity where he belongs, not given the reigns of federal power.
Are you insinuating that Kennedy and Kerry and holding out for an incompetent candidate that they can control?
<
p>
(Criminy – REINS, not reigns!)
…his run with Kerry Healy in the last gubernatorial election. (What were his qualifications to run for that position, other than that he was breathing?)
<
p>
Given Hillman’s MA state police experience, and his close relationship with the Bush malAdministration, maybe he should consider being the police chief of the city of–um–Baghdad.
<
p>
I hear that they need a new police chief.
…if you want to keep commenting on Mass. politics.
<
p>
Here’s a post I wrote in March, 2006. The Emerson quote is particularly relevant now, and ironic.
<
p>
http://capecodporcup…
…Ms. Porc. Ich lese den Speigel, weil es besser ueber Nachrichten von den USA als das Boston Globus berichtet.
<
p>
I’m not exactly sure why I should know who the political appointee of the MA state police is or was, but, I’ll consider it in the future. Knowing his (or her) name won’t mean a whole lot, though. Knowing what his (or her) policies might have been might have been more–instructive.
Yes, on the basis that less damage can be done.
<
p>
Until such time as we have proper leadership in the White House, I wouldn’t trust anyone they send.
I posted on this subject last week [http://www.bluemassg…] when it was (and still is) an issue of relative low importance. I would like to see our US Senators use their time and energy for important battles. Kerry’s comment that Hillman is a “ridiculous” appointment still stikes me as being somewhere between ignorant and lacking the class and stature that he should emulate from his position.
<
p>
Still waiting for Kerry to take action to eliminate the Reaganesque “off-set’ law that has punished low/moderate income workers for decades.
Every appointment that the current maladministration offers ought to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Has history offered nothing?
<
p>
Each and every minion adds up to a very large and powerful machine.
<
p>
Congress should, in my opinion, reject every candidate brought forth. The current administration ought to be strangled out of existence both financially and through denying them personnel. (The vote to de-fund Cheney was close, suggesting another try might just go.)
<
p>
If legitimate reasons cannot be found to reject them, then tie each with legislation to end the war, get rid of Gonzalez, etc.
<
p>
Massachusetts rejected Hillman once. He’s being sent back for spite, nothing more.
…as I said, I can’t get overly-exercised over this controversy. Bush is doing this to give Hillman a paycheck for a year and a half. That’s about it.
<
p>
The interesting point is that you can expect to see a lot of recess appointments by the next Democratic pResident, to avoid Republican obstructionism.
<
p>
What goes around, comes around. And the Republicans aren’t going to like it.
Which is why many of us feel frustrated that little seems to get done by our government despite the amazing framework that we recently celebrated on the 4th.
<
p>
I am all in favor of the Senators taking on reform. I just don’t see the Hillman kerfuffle as the going for the bone.
I was never happier with my government than during the Gov’t shutdown in the 1990s. Not everybody hates that little gets done in government. Some of us downright enjoy it.
you continue to post on a progressive blog…odd.
My thoughts exactly. Why get in absurd fight about this over an extremely well qualified candidate for the job who just happened to be the GOP LG candidate last year?