Shocker—Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division opposes, well, civil rights. The Hill writes:
Eric Dreiband, a former counsel at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President George W. Bush, testified against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2008, and represented the University of North Carolina in its defense of a law banning transgender people from using the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity.
Civil rights groups have met his nomination with overwhelming opposition, arguing that someone with those positions should not lead the Civil Rights Division.
They also argue Dreiband’s past work defending corporations accused of employment discrimination, and his lack of experience on voting rights, police reform and hate crimes, should be disqualifying.
One transgender advocate called Dreiband "morally unfit" for the job, which naturally made him the perfect fit for the Trump administration and Jeff Sessions' Justice Department.
Of course, continuing with their complete abdication of moral responsibility, not a single Republican has voiced opposition to the nomination. In fact, the Judiciary Committee chair, Sen. Chuck Grassley, was baffled by the controversy.
“Have you read his resume and the qualifications he has?” he asked while speaking to The Hill on Tuesday. “Why are they saying he’s not fit for the job?
“If he’s a lawyer and represents his clients, what would you expect — him not to represent his clients?” he continued.
Well, Chuck, it's all about who Dreiband chose to represent. It's not like he was a public defender who was constitutionally charged with providing representation to anyone who couldn't afford their own attorney. He specifically gunned for organizations and companies that were trying to undermine and evade anti-discrimination protections. That's how he made his living.
In fact, check out this trash heap of an explanation for why he opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act even though he says he supports equal pay for women.
In 2008, Dreiband claimed the bill would not be in the best interest of the American people” and would require the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to “investigate events that happened years or decades before anyone files a charge, would force respondents to implement incredibly costly record-keeping or lose the ability to mount a defense, and would create unanticipated and potentially limitless monetary penalties for state and local governments, unions, employers and others covered by the federal antidiscrimination laws.”
So he supports fair pay for women, but not if it costs any time, energy or money to enforce it. I mean, he has a point—it could result in "monetary penalties." In other words, he theoretically supports fair pay but not in any enforceable way.
He also strongly condemned the KKK and neo-Nazis at his confirmation hearing. Isn't that just fierce?
“In what universe should a nominee for the civil rights division have to clarify he will take a strong [position against] the Klan?” asked Sharon McGowan, director of strategy for Lambda Legal.
“In many ways it’s indicative of the extent to which civil rights are under assault under this administration … It’s easy for him to say, ‘I oppose the Klan,’ but to suggest it was a bold testament of courageous leadership is indicative of how low this administration has taken us.”
Amen. McGowan used to work in the Civil Rights Division and she's exactly right. Trump has put us in a place where stating one's opposition to neo-Nazis and the Klan is a supposed mark of leadership. Our very own commander in chief is providing the lowest common denominator against which everything is compared.