berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,586
- 27,386
- 2,820
Taking the first place slot from the likes of John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Mitchell Palmer, and Bill Barr is no easy task. But Pam has sprinted out of the gate. She has presided over the DoJ's weaponization, turned a blind eye to the regime's refusal to comply with court orders, put an end to the anti-corruption task force, given contradictory statements about the Epstein file, tacitly approved violations of constitutional rights possessed by illegally deported immigrants, and now this.
Especially since Watergate, it has been vital that the DoJ maintain its independence from the executive branch of government. trump has violated that independence.
For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”
This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.
Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.
www.lawfaremedia.org
Pam has become the enabler of a would be autocrat, which is just what she was chosen for. By both acquiescence and proactive measures she has shown herself to be as incompetent as she is co-opted. She's making Bill Barr's hideous "exonerated" lie look like child's play. And her term has only just begun.
Pam Bondi orders grand jury probe of Obama administration review of 2016 election
Especially since Watergate, it has been vital that the DoJ maintain its independence from the executive branch of government. trump has violated that independence.
For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”
This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.
Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.
Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice
Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence
www.lawfaremedia.org
Pam has become the enabler of a would be autocrat, which is just what she was chosen for. By both acquiescence and proactive measures she has shown herself to be as incompetent as she is co-opted. She's making Bill Barr's hideous "exonerated" lie look like child's play. And her term has only just begun.
