Two, three, many Bush v. Gores
USA John McKay was up for a Federal judgeship until he didn't play ball with the state Republican Partei apparatus.
Then he was fired. WaPo:
John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, "asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."
'Cause he sent them to bed without any red meat?
[McKay] added that he took umbrage at the idea that he had other responsibilities beyond focusing "on the evidence and not allow[ing] politics into the work that we do in criminal prosecutions." Those involved in the scandal over the firings who acted unprofessionally "or even illegally" must be held accountable for what they did, he said.
("Illegal" because--at least until Bush does away with it like he did away with habeas corpus--obstruction of justice is still against the law.)
McKay's disclosure of an explicit White House question about the damage his decision caused to his standing among party loyalists added new detail to his previous statement that Miers accused him of having "mishandled" the voter fraud inquiry.
The use of the word "mishandled" left open the possibility that White House officials -- who in September were weighing whether to recommend McKay for a federal judgeship [Now, forget about it] -- merely disputed McKay's professional judgment. But his statement yesterday lent new credence to suspicions that partisan political concerns weighed heavily in his firing.
The second most frightening thing about this scandal? That of the 93 USAs, only 8 turned out to be principled enough to get fired for doing what used to be the right thing.
And the most frightening thing:
Those who didn't get fired, who went along with the Partei apparatus, and prostituted the criminal justice system to get Republicans elected, got promoted to the Federal bench. Of course that's not unusual: Being wrong, or doing wrong, is a qualification for promotion in the malAdministration; heck, if you totally screw the pooch, you get a Medal of Freedom! But Federal Judges serve for life, so we're going to be stuck with a Gonzales-grade judiciary for quite some time.
So, when the next Bush v. Gore decision gets handed down by the Roberts court--say, on a question of executive privilege, or signing statements, or warrantless surveillance, or torture--can anyone think of a good reason why we should regard that decision as legitimate?
Because it looks to me like the Republicans have succeeded in making the Judicial branch a wholly-owned subsidiary of the RNC by infesting it with Partei apparatchiks.
That's the scandal behind the USA scandal.