It is interesting that seeking to elect Prosecutor's who have different views from the author or this blog is characterized as a "war" on prosecutors. It is more commonly known as democracy. I wonder if this blog would characterize the recall of Chief Justice Rose Bird as a war on judges?

The War on Prosecutors is the title of the National Review article. This blog did not write the title, we posted about the article. Should we not mention the title of articles that we are referencing in a post?

Kent, apparently you and the author of the post disagree on what the focus of the article is. According to the second sentence of the post "The piece focuses on the movement to elect progressive district attorneys" so I think my confusion is understandable. The post appears to be approving of the article, and certainly does not distance itself from the sentiment that this exercise in democracy is a "war on prosecutors" so I don't think my conclusion of agreement with the sentiment was out of left field.

Prosecution done by political appointees without any real local control (or transparency) seems to describe the federal quite well. Does the C&C team view federal prosecutions are worthy of far less respect than state ones? Do you think should states at least be able to block federal prosecution in high-profile local cases because state prosecutions are more democratic? Just curious about the reach of expressed disaffinity for an appointment approach.

There is no "team view." C&C bloggers generally express their individual opinions.

The federal-state separation of powers, properly applied, directs the state power to the kinds of crimes that affect people most directly in their daily lives, while federal power is directed to more distant objects. Local control is therefore more important in the state realm.

In any case, any argument about electing federal prosecutors is purely academic. The unitary executive is built into the federal constitution, which is extremely difficult to amend, and there is no chance of amending it on this point.

Regarding the "worthy of less respect" and "block" questions, I understand that you are a law professor and in the academic environment it is common to engage in Socratic questioning, even sometimes with outlandish questions. (I was a law student once, long ago.)

This is not a class, I am not your student, and I do not have time for this. The comments section is for comments. If you have a comment, please state your position in declarative sentences.

Fair enough, Kent, so here are a few declarative sentences: Anyone truly concerned about "appointed" prosecutors and "local control" should be troubled that the number of federal criminal cases commenced grew 50+% after 1986.

The average yearly federal caseload was roughly 40,000 cases (or less) for 50 year after Prohibition, and then has averaged 60,000+ in the last 30 years. Increases in crime might help explain the caseload increases in the 1980s and 1990s, but as crime started to decline, federal cases commenced continued to grow -- reaching a peak of nearly 80,000 in 2010 and 2010.

I do not think it misguided to assert this caseload growth reflects appointed federal prosecutors taking direction from government agencies in DC to go after more traditionally state/local offenders (particularly drug and gun offenders). And I think this is a big problem, and one that justifies all sorts of proposed reforms to shrink the size of the federal criminal justice system and its prisons.