Perez at Labor?: The man is unfit
Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez lied under oath about politicizing the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which he heads, making him manifestly unfit to be secretary of Labor — yet President Obama reportedly intends to nominate him.
His record raises other grave concerns. Mr. Perez:
• Was on the board of an illegal-alien advocacy group funded by far-left billionaire George Soros and the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez
• Led Justice's 2012 assault on elections' integrity via court challenges of state voter-ID laws
• Refused, in congressional testimony, to rule out U.S. use of Saudi-style death-for-insulting-Islam laws.
And now, a federal judge agrees that he lied when he told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that political leadership wasn't involved in Justice dropping its New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case.
Awarding fees and costs to Judicial Watch, the judge wrote that Justice documents the group sued to obtain “reveal that political appointees ... were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case ... which would appear to contradict ... Perez's testimony ... .”
Why, then, should anyone believe anything Perez would say in Senate confirmation hearings? Unfit even for his current job, Thomas Perez is unworthy even of being nominated for the Labor post. But if he is, Senate Republicans must do whatever it takes to ensure that he never joins the Cabinet.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.