The Washington Post is reporting today that Justice Alito hired a former Ashcroft aide to work as his clerk. Now, I don't know much (if anything) about the way this works, but the WaPo tells us that

Ciongoli's appointment, which will last about five months, is unusual: Though there has been a slight trend at the court toward hiring law clerks with a few years of work experience, the vast majority of clerks are recent law school graduates.

Among those who have come to the court after working elsewhere, none in recent memory had held a government position as senior as Ciongoli's at the Justice Department, where he was widely regarded as one of Ashcroft's closest confidants.

That, of course, made me curious. Something out of typical practice that preserves the inertia of legal thought probably has some reasoning behind it.

Having previously worked with Ashcroft in the DoJ, the potential exists that Ciongoli could, in his new position, see some of the same cases that he worked on as DoJ attorney. Is this proper? The WaPo goes on to note that

According to a 2002 federal publication, "Maintaining the Public Trust: Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks," clerks should not participate in cases that they worked on "in a previous legal job," or about which they have personal knowledge of disputed facts.

Maybe Ciongoli can get a tip or two from Justice Alito on the subject of recusal.

The Supreme Court should not be a political branch of government. It should certainly not be a tool of a political party. Today's Republicans, though, seem less interested in maintaining the separation of powers and checks and balances that ensure our liberty. Republicans, for example, appear to be willing to sacrifice Congressional power for a single authoritarian leader. Kim Jong Il must be impressed.