Kent noted some of the comments of the chief Federal Defender for the EDNY, where Loretta Lynch holds forth as United States Attorney.
I was an AUSA for a few years back in the day, and I want to provide a translation of the Federal Defender's remarks.
Defender: "I'm not saying she goes our way, but you can have a meeting with her and have your two cents about policy."
Translation: "She goes our way, but I'm not about to say so because I'm licking my chops at the prospect of her running the show at Main Justice."
Defender: "In a field where the prosecutorial positions can be extraordinarily adversarial, she tries to be somebody you can get along with."
Translation: "Her Office gives away the store."
Defender: "At a time when the Justice Department has taken the position that you've got to do something about over-incarceration, [prosecuting drug mule cases is] a step in the opposite direction. I'm pretty unhappy,"
Translation: "If I didn't complain about something, my colleagues would run me out of town."
Bill,
Unless you were being facetious, it appears that you are against this nomination. I haven't made up my mind yet. But I would like to read why, precisely, you are against her nomination.
Paul
Paul,
I'll give you the quick version and say more in later posts.
Her signing the motion to slice by half a perfectly legal and just sentence in the Francois Holloway case this summer was unacceptable. She was admittedly hectored into it by Judge John Gleeson's unethical and partisan campaign for Holloway, a violent and repeat carjacker running a chop shop, but she should have told Gleeson to forget it.
Instead, she caved in to lawlessness, facilitated unethical judicial conduct, thumbed her nose at a sentencing statute (924(c)) that even the Smarter Sentencing Act would not have changed, and implicitly but unambiguously winked at gun violence.
This is not acceptable behavior even in an AUSA, much less the United States Attorney, and still less in someone who would be AG.
You might want to search the word "Gleeson" on this site to read my analysis of the Holloway re-sentencing scandal.
I have read the comments by you and Kent re: Gleeson. And I agree that this is a strike against her. But is it three strikes? I will look forward to reading anything else you have to say about her qualifications to be AG.
My comments re Gleeson? What did I say?
It is disqualifying per se in my view. The Attorney General, as a high officer of a co-equal branch of government, cannot be intimidated by anyone in the judicial branch on a matter of policy. If he/she is, the "co-equal" part disappears, and with it the constitutional balance the Framers intended.
This is to say nothing of the actual substantive position she approved, to wit, supporting a drastically lower than required sentence for a repeat violent felon.
Then there's the matter of betraying finality. This case had been up to the SCOTUS years ago and was affirmed. If the government does not insist on finality, especially in those circumstances, it will wind up spending taxpayer money it doesn't have going over and over old cases, ignoring or slighting those in need of initial adjudication.
P.S. To my knowledge, Kent has not said anything about Gleeson.
If you think Lynch's work in the Holloway case is disqualifying and should result in her rejections by the Senate, is there another serious/viable Obama-appointment candidate you would urge in her stead?
Or are you just saying you'd rather have Holder remain in the job than have Lynch replace him?
My first choice for AG, a man who would win unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation, is Michael Mukasey. You might remember that Judge Mukasey was initially suggested to Pres. Bush by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He is widely known for his learning and integrity.
If Obama appointed him, it would completely change the poisonous atmosphere in this town and be a breathtaking demonstration of Obama's stated desire to work with those who don't always see things his way.
My second choice would be Chief Judge William B. Traxler, appointed to the Fourth Circuit by Pres. Clinton.
My third choice would be Jim Comey, formerly Deputy AG and now Pres. Obama's recent and wise choice as head of the FBI.
I will be eager to hear your criticism of each of these suggestions.
But Bill, we are not going to get your choice or anyone like your choice. That is the consequence of the choice of a majority of the voters in 2012, choosing Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. That choice was profoundly misguided, in my opinion, but that's democracy.
Is Lynch better than Holder has been? Is she better than Perez would have been? The likely answer is not only yes but vastly so. I hedge with "likely" because I don't know enough yet, and the one atypical case you mention is certainly a point of concern that should be explored in the confirmation process.
For now, I am cautiously optimistic and greatly relieved that the choice was not much, much worse.
Kent,
I actually think it would be a stroke of political genius for Obama to nominate Mukasey. It would knock the Republicans off their heels. It would also be substantively excellent, and substance still counts.
I also think Traxler and Comey are realistic candidates, even in Obama's world. Nominating Traxler would be a good deal like Jimmy Carter's nominating then-Fifth Circuit Judge Griffin Bell, a man of proven experience and integrity, and who had been put on the bench by a previous Democratic President. And Jim Comey has already found favor with Obama and the Democrats, as witness his nomination and near-unanimous confirmation to the extremely powerful position of FBI Director.
It's true the voters spoke in 2012. They spoke again last Tuesday, in large measure to correct their misjudgment. As a result, in the next Congress (which is where the nomination will be voted on, not the lame duck session), the Republicans can vote down a radical like Perez, and also zero out DOJ's budget if they care to.
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate for a high officer like AG. The Republicans are not dealing from a weak hand, constitutionally or (as we just saw) politically.
I don't think the Republicans should allow themselves to be blackjacked into a poor choice for AG simply by the threat that Obama could make an even worse one.
As Obama himself said, "Elections have consequences." Tuesday's has consequences too, and one of them is that one-party rule in appointments is over with. The Republicans have the right and the power to compel Obama to make a reasonable and mutually acceptable compromise.
Sorry, Kent. I mistakenly believed that one of Bill's previous comments re: Gleeson was written by you. From your subsequent comment, it appears that you are in the same camp as me: Agnostic (at this point) re: Lynch as AG. I'll wait for the confirmation hearings to make up my mind.
paul,
I don't think I said that Ms. Lynch should not even get a hearing. On an earlier thread you might not have seen, I took this position (emphasis added):
The PRESENT RECORD of Ms. Lynch's behavior in the Holloway case is sufficient to reject her, correct. Indeed, Ms. Lynch herself initially (and correctly) told Gleeson that his proper avenue was to seek clemency from the President, not hector her Office. That was her own implicit but quite clear recognition that the stunt he was asking her to pull off was improper.
If you can't stick to your guns under pressure from a single district judge, how are you going to do under the far, far greater political pressures the AG faces every day?
Nonetheless, in order to be fair about it, there might be something in the case that's different from what it appears. I would thus happily give Ms. Lynch the opportunity to explain at a confirmation hearing what the legal basis was for vacating Holloway's convictions, why she caved to Gleeson, whether she continues to believe such caving was the right thing to do, exactly what communications she and Gleeson had with each other, what the value of finality is in the legal system, whether re-opening a case after the Supreme Court has affirmed on the merits is proper, whether she views Gleeson's behavior as ethical and her own as courageous, whether she would repeal 924(c), if not, whether she would vigorously enforce it as AG after bailing out on it in the Holloway case, and what pressures and/or inducements she made to the AUSA to present the motion in court.
Bill,
I never understood you to believe that she shouldn't even get a hearing. From what I have read, you are simply stating (quite eloquently) that the way she handled the Gleeson matter should disqualify her.
Without being a conspiracy theorist, what do you think of the following possibility: Obama nominated her (an African-American woman) hoping (or at least anticipating) that the Republicans would beat up on her and, in so doing, will energize the Dems base in 2016?
She might not be the most qualified person for the job, but I think the GOP better come up with some real substantive reasons to reject her -- reasons that will resonate with the American public (or at least with women) -- lest they be branded in a manner that will play into the Dems hands in 2016.
paul,
First, I think the Repubs should vote yea or nay on the merits, as they may be illuminated at the hearing. Right now, they should vote nay for the reasons outlined.
Second, my guess is that Obama picked her because her overall thinking resonates with him, as Holder's did and does. That thinking very likely includes racial issues.
I don't believe any of the questions I've suggested could realistically be portrayed as "beating up" on Ms. Lynch. They are substantive questions that should be asked of anyone of any race or sex who undertook the same extremely questionable behavior. To NOT ask them would be a big mistake, and to not ask them out of fear of political consequences would make it worse. Just as Ms. Lynch was required to step up to discharge the duties of her office, the Repubs are required to step up to discharge the duties of theirs.
I doubt that anything that happens now on this nomination will affect 2016 in any event. The "war on women" was a colossal failure in this last election, and deservedly so, since it's baloney. And married women didn't fall for it anyway; they voted Republican.
In addition, the particulars of the Holloway case play well against a Democratic attack. Ms. Lynch undercut a FIREARMS STATUTE, and gun control is much more a Democratic priority than a Republican one.
The key, I think, is to bruise this nominee. Get her to admit something the Administration has done isn't good.
I think it is hard to say what the overall impact of the 2012 and 2014 means - one simplistic way to look at it is most presidents get re-elected (I think only Carter and Bush I lost re-election in 20 century) and often the incumbent party performs poorly in year 6 of any administration (1974, 1986, 2006 and 2012).
I think all of this stuff is just the pregame show for 2016 and accordinfly Obama will appoint whoever he thinks will help the Democrats best in 2016 and all of Bills suggestions sound good but probably aren't going to happen