One of the two major keynote speakers at this year’s NASABA conference in San Francisco is going to be Rachel K. Paulose, United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota [Thanks Maisnon]. Yes, that Rachel Paulose.
On the one hand, this makes sense – she’s a very prominent desi legal figure. As we said before, at age 33 she is:
the youngest serving U.S. Attorney, the first woman to hold that position in Minnesota and the first U.S. Attorney of South Asian descent. [Link]
So of course she’d make a great keynote speaker. The other speaker will be Kamala D. Harris, the District Attorney of San Francisco, so Paulose is the bigger fish of the two.
Then again, there has been a lot of controversy around her. Since our last post about her, which dealt with her credentials and swearing-in ceremony, a number of other problems have cropped up, including an unprecedented vote of no confidence from her subordinates who demoted themselves rather than work for her:
On April 5, 2007, three of her top administrators — First Assistant U.S. Attorney John Marti, second in command; civil division head Erika Monzangue and criminal division head James Lackner — voluntarily resigned those positions, reverting to simple assistant U.S. attorney status, reportedly in protest over Paulose’s management style. [Link]
<
p>This is very highly unusual since the key people in her office took a rank and pay cut both to avoid working directly under her. It’s strange enough that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee may even investigate.
<
p>And just recently, to top it all off, the Republican Senator from Minnesota, Sen. Norm Coleman, has done a 180 in terms of his support for her. Whereas earlier he took credit for her nomination, now his office is claiming that the Senator never nominated her at all.
<
p>Paulose is clearly a hot potato, which should make for a lively convention. If anybody is going, let us know if she gets asked anything interesting when she speaks, OK?
Ennis, what’s with the hot-or-not misogyny? And potato? You mean, brown on the outside white on the inside b/c she’s a repub?
Oh, I know you have plausible denial here. But I am on to your subliminal ways.
Oh, I’ll be there with bells on. (Possibly literally!)
And just recently, to top it all off, the Republican Senator from Minnesota, Sen. Norm Coleman, has done a 180 in terms of his support for her
180 is Norm Coleman’s favorite angle. As a guy who once famously said “I’m a Democrat”, it didn’t take long for him to become a Republican when he figured out how the political wind was blowing.
Its just pathetically sad that this once glorious site has become a mindless mouth peice for the “new radical left”… I pity the mutineers!
Ah, but where were you when I was getting my ass chewed yesterday because this site wasn’t “progressive” enough? 🙂
It’s such a shame, isn’t it? A post that has both positive and negative things about Paulose must be the work of a rank traitor. If somebody has anything critical to say about anything the administration has done, they must be a member of the “New Radical Left”!
Excuse me, I’m off to make an effigy of Ennis and burn it. Shame Shame!
Why? Just have the intern do it. Duh.
coconut is a more apt reference…brown on the outside white onthe inside
Will potato replace coconut as the term of people like me who are brown on the outside and white on the inside.
If Rachel Paulose is a coconut, then all I have to say is welcome to the club.
i’d describe some commentators here as a sirloin medium rare.
She’s a bible thumping repug…what do you expect?? Just because she’s ‘brown’ doesn’t mean she isn’t an intolerant tool like Ramesh Ponnuru, Dinesh D’Souza or even Jindal. One thing I’m noticing is that our jesus freaks from India tend to gravitate with ease to the Jesusland segment of the population. She should fit well where I am…in the blissful paradise that is Alabama.
I can’t seem to get away from this phrase “hot-or-not misogyny” seems to come up on every post. Well no just two posts but they were right after one another.
I’ve met a few conservative right-wing desis and they have almost all been Christians. I guess there more common ground with Ann Coulter etc if you are Christian desi.
P.S I think they did they the right thing by electing Paulose, because let’s face it she is hot.(That was for Siddhartha)
She graduated from the top law school in the country, Yale Law. I expect somebody in that position to be able to handle their responsibilities well. If they get promoted at a very young age, then I expect them to be extremely good. That’s why it is surprising to see her subordinates openly revolt like that, and that’s why I take it seriously when they claim that there was mismanagement. I don’t know that there was, but it would be consistent with their behavior.
She graduated from the top law school in the country, Yale Law
Just like that other legal giant Pat Robertson 😉
Hey, over 100 graduates of Robertson’s law school are working for the administration. How’s that for trickle-down, eh?
Hey, over 100 graduates of Robertson’s law school are working for the administration. How’s that for trickle-down, eh?
I cant believe that! Where did you get this info from?
::I guess there more common ground with Ann Coulter etc if you are Christian desi.::
Could I ask why you state a christian desi would have more in common w/ someone like Ann Coulter particularly rather than conservatives generally? Or, are you simply using Ann Coulter to represent all conservatives? (cuz, u know, yikes). Just wondering at what you meant.
I haven’t seen any real facts as to why her subordinates are “revolting”. Unhappy staff can be the sign of an abrasive boss. Or the sign of spoiled children revolting at the thought that they are finally getting adult supervision. Not enough facts are out yet, and U.S. attorney positions are notorious political plums. Hell, Kennedy junior was retained on the payroll as an Assistant District Attorney for years before he ever passed a bar exam. (It took him six tries.)
AMfD, this came up during the Monica Goodling “I take the fifth” nonsense. She’s from Robertson’s school, and there were articles that talked about how Pat Robertson’s law school graduates are all over the place in this administration.
The thing that galls me about the most recent scandal is how brazen the whole thing is. Not only the firings, but also what the people who weren’t, did to retain their jobs. There’s the DA in Chicago who hauled somebody to court on such flimsy grounds that the court felt compelled to reprimand the DA and set the woman free (I am sure I am mangling some details here, but am too lazy to check), there’s the fact that Pat Fitzgerald was on the first draft of the “You’re fired” list, and so on. And then, of course, this Paulose nutbag who fervently believes that the Bible is the law in this country.
AMfD, this came up during the Monica Goodling “I take the fifth” nonsense. She’s from Robertson’s school, and there were articles that talked about how Pat Robertson’s law school graduates are all over the place in this administration.
I have followed that as well. It would be impossible to have over 100 lawyers from one law school working in the current Bush administration. Its of course possible to have over 100 people from one university and I think that was the case here.
Well, she was a speaker at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Doesn’t that mean something?
Here are some details. If you think it’s a sign of spoiled children, ask yourself this: how often does it happen? If such revolts are rare, then either all of the other U.S. Attorneys are doing a bad job, or she is. The point is, it’s unusual and noteworthy. People don’t usually take lower pay and a lower rank out of pique.
For what it’s worth, here’s some of what the article says. I have no idea if it is accurate or not:
Also, as I recall she isn’t defending this as a good or intentional outcome, but instead has admitted managerial mis-steps.
AMfD, you are right. All the articles had the 150 number from Regent University, and then focused on the law school grads, so they became synonymous in my head.
This is very highly unusual since the key people in her office took a rank and pay cut both to avoid working directly under her. It’s strange enough that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee may even investigate.
They should investigate. You are right as to the fact that its highly unusual and very serious. I dont know what to make of her bible quoting in office practice. The former freaking Attorney General of the United States Ashcroft would hold bible prayer sessions in his office where other attorneys, staff were invited. Of course no pressure on non-attending attorneys or anything. This is something I now expect from the Bush administration. Devotion to Jesus takes precedence in some cases (like Monica Goodling) to competence or qualifications.
You are correct – I chased it down too. The claim is that 150 Regent University graduates are employed by the Administration.
Actually he passed on the 3rd try and there are several high profile political figures like Joe Biden who’ve failed the Bar Exam several times as well. JFK Jr already had his JD when he was hired by Morgenthau and passed it within a pre requisite time frame.
One of the things I don’t understand about all this is how people demote themselves. I mean, I know it can happen in the military when war ranks revert to peacetime ranks, so a major-general can revert to major, etc., automatically. But how do you technically do that in a government job, or any job? Can you just like, call HR, and say, “What’s the next pay grade below me, I’ll take that beginning next week” ?
Regents is Pat Robertson’s University Also Bill Maher had rant about it last week
Well, it does mean she is a prominent conservative. And I’m sure the values she champions are generally shared by conservatives (in varying degrees). But referencing Coulter, I would assume, isn’t just about referrencing someone w/ conservative values but seems more about referencing a conservative with a very particular (i.e. offensive) m.o. (which is not representative of conservatives, generally). I could be wrong about the commenter’s intent – but that is why I asked for clarification.
I’m less offended by her style (if she wants to be an asshole, let her), and more by the content of her message. When somebody says that you ought to kill many people in another country, that’s content not style. When that person then gets invited to speak at CPAC, you can infer that they don’t reject her as a figure.
Never mind Times Square models … surely someone in this bunch of overeducated macacas attended Billary’s alma mater, or is in some other way connected with Ms. Paulose, and can set us straight on how much of shrew she is or is not …?
I still don’t understand the particular reference to christian Indians being able to find common ground with Coulter in particular(which was what the comment i was responding to stated) – what is it about Coulter in particular that christian browns would identify with? if the commenter meant conservatives, generally, I could understand, but if it is Coulter in particular, I would be interested in hearing more.
One thing I’m noticing is that our jesus freaks from India tend to gravitate with ease to the Jesusland segment of the population
Jesusland? Good grief…at least look at the map before you make generalizations like that.
if someone forms a club and the only dues collected were statements affirming the applicants belief that Jesus Christ is their sole lord and savior and that the rest of the world, if not so enlightened, languishes in the dark, satanic grip of various false religions (or false varieties of Christianity) then it follows that, regardless of your ethnicity or national origin, anyone espousing these beliefs can join.
RESPONSE TO AJK Ok ,I was very vague when I said “Ann Coulter etc. “
I should have said that the ideas that Ann Coulter espouses seem to resonate more with Christian desis than they do with desis of other faiths. (From my own limited experience) Some may like the confrontation style too but I not commenting on that. I think I used the example of Ann Coulter because I don’t like it when ” my own people” espouse values that are different from mine. A slight feeling of betrayal.So I used Ann Coulter as way to sort of throw dirt at them. Not very mature. My apologies.
Go maisnon, for putting it out there. And go Ennis.
I think my main beef with her stems from my main beef with most desis I dislike at a gut level: they seem totally unable to laugh at themselves, and thus are very unlikely to engage in any serious attempt at self-critical examination.
Hence Ms. Paulose’s befuddlement at her initiation being described as “a coronation.” And I conjecture that this feeds into her “style,” and that’s already led to her top aides voluntarily TAKING A DEMOTION (seriously, who does that without good reason? Even in the incredibly charged world of federal politics, no one’s jeopardizing their career growth just to make a point), and that’s already getting her in trouble.
I think she’s part of the administration’s / Gonzales’ amazing but stealthy plan to combat pornography, which is getting kind of absurd.
Maisnon, you HAVE TO GRILL HER IN PERSON!
Also, I think you should show up to the NASABA event with a choir and a Marine Color Guard, and just say that’s how you roll.
He also used to sing as an opening to some of his department wide commemorations, etc. Not to be cruel, but it wasn’t particularly good singing, either.
As an aside, passing the Bar has very little to do with one’s ability in law school, or one’s ability as a lawyer. They are three very, very different games. (The usual example used here is the former Dean of Stanford, a reknowned appellate attorney, who failed the California Bar the year I took it.)
I’d like something more my style – maybe a DJ on some kind of moveable platform? I think I can talk DJDPPPP into it!
Who are the jesus freaks” from India?
“The former freaking Attorney General of the United States Ashcroft would hold bible prayer sessions in his office where other attorneys, staff were invited. Of course no pressure on non-attending attorneys or anything.”
and he now teaches law at regents – a nice fit with the reassurances from their damage control spokesman that less than half of those initially admitted would not meet the more rigorous standards in place at regents today.
have yet to hear an explanation as to how this is reassuring…