Orin,

Why haven't I heard anything about Professor Katyal for SG? Or do you see him as possible Assistant AG?

The Marc Rich pardon annoys me to no end, but I would hate to see the Republicans launch into opposition-party grandstanding mode over this.

The Rich pardon was either a mistake or a reflection on Bill Clinton's character. I don't think it should stand in the way of a competent AG candidate. I don't think "no mistakes that his enemies could find" is a good criterion for choosing AGs.

Based on his resume, he seems like a solid pick. I hope he gets little more than a few questions about the Rich issue.

24AheadDotCom,

What might that something else be? Are you thinking that you were visited by space aliens who have come to invade the planet earth?

If the media would bother to actually look into the history of this, the outrage over the Rich pardon was not limited to Republicans. The Democrats were just as mystified and disturbed by it, so I wouldn't call it "Republican grandstanding." Holder was at the center of it. If he can explain it at his confirmation hearings, I'd be glad to hear it. It will be swell to revisit his dealings with the Clinton era "Chinagate," etc...

This pick won't do much to salve the nerves of the 2nd amendment enthusiasts. The run on guns will continue, I think, with this pick.

Elim,

I served for 2 years under Eric Holder, and I never felt that he was "politicized" or in any way at all corrupt. I think his nomination is a helpful step towards a more apolitical Justice Department.

Elim,

I don't know him personally: Deputy AG's don't hang out with GS-12s. And of course the Marc Rich pardon is fair game for discussion at the confirmation hearing. But you're just conjuring up a version of events, which seems rather strange given your apparent interest in getting to the truth.

a corrupt pardon

How exactly was the pardon corrupt?

elim:
hasn't the mantra been "must de-politicize Justice"? how, exactly, will having an AG who is a corrupt holdover from the Clinton era accomplish that?

It's very sad that the distinction between government and politics has been blurred (eliminated?) so far. Curse you Lee Atwater.

If DOJ hires or acts with an eye toward elections (where elections aren't the particular subject matter), then it's being "political". What in heaven does being a "corrupt holdover" have to do with politics?

Cute comments above. Space aliens, imagine that!

However, the post I linked to (under my name's link) linked to this from someone else.

The suspicion was that the BHO campaign was using the PR firm as a front to spread lies about Palin. See, that's the key part: the BHO campaign could have been engaging in dirty politics while keeping their hands clean. BTW: BHO's chief strategist owns an "astroturfing" firm, and he had worked with the PR firm several years before.

And, as I said above, the people behind the video were clearly monitoring sites like the one linked above, since they quickly pulled videos and the like. And, I wondered whether someone working for Holder's firm was involved in some way in that effort.

Constantin is right. Liberals will stip irrationally hating Bush the moment he leaves office just like Conservatives stopped hating Clinton in 2001.

Who did he support Heller or DC?

I believe he signed on to the pro-DC amicus.

a corrupt pardon

I have a plausible suspicion that the GOP is going to be in a VERY poor position to point fingers about "corrupt pardons" after Bush goes through two or three pens signing pardons on January 19, 2009.

Anderson,

W. will do it on Dec. 24, Christmas Eve, like his dad. I expect George Ryan and Ted Stevens, probably a full-blown Libby pardon, and he'll throw in a Democrat for good measure.

A Team of Urkels

TMack:

Holder signed the pro-DC amicus brief from "former DOJ officials."

Former DOJ Officials brief

Further conspiracy theories may be generated from the fact that counsel of record for the brief was from Holder's law firm (Covington).

I still need someone to explain how pardons can be corrupt. They are an absolute presidential power. We may disagree with some pardons (for me that goes for Nixon, Rich, and Libby), but they are not corrupt.

Change we can believe in.

(giggle)

And why shouldn't Sandy Berger be named back into his old position at the NSA. He seems like a nice enough guy, and boy is he smart!

It's just the good old boys all over again. There are excellent lawyers outside the DC beltway you know.

He obviously doesn't understand what the second amendment means, and when you think how simple it is, one can safely conclude there is a lot of law he doesn't understand.

...I am not a lawyer...

Four justices apparently dont understand the "simple" meaning of the second amendment.

"Four justices apparently dont understand the "simple" meaning of the second amendment." and Holder.
That is right, they don't. They are wrong, you see, even supreme court justices can be wrong.
If you can read, then read the second amendment and then the DC law and it is OBVIOUS that the DC law violated the second amendment.
It is you lawyers who try to make the law more complicated then it is for your own benefit, financial and otherwise.
One of these days it will also get your throats cut.

BTW: Albert Jay Knock wrote that a great majority of the people don't know how to read at all.
The supreme court four and Holder and anyone who believes that the second amendment doesn't recognize an individual don't know how to read.

Looks like Obama is trying to become the first Black Clinton. Every Obama selection seems to be a Clinton throwback. Hopenchange = same old song.

That Obama has picked an AG whose views on the Heller are 180 degrees from those Obama voiced after the opinion tells me one of two things:

(1) Obama was lying about supporting the decision or
(2) The Second Amendment is quite low on Obama's list of important legal issues to be dealt with by his Justice Dept.

Steagles:
Orin's experience might be personal, but Eric Holder's well known for his vehemently anti-gun actions over numerous points in his career, it doesnt bring a lot of positive feelings on a blog that has many libertarian/conservative readers.

I worked with Holder on a couple of matters at DOJ. He is fair and thoughtful. He will enforce the law. He prosecuted Marion Berry and, as I recall, Dan Rostenkowski as USA for DC. He also prosecuted Jenrette. Those are very, very good non-partisan credentials.

"Cornellian:

I guess in a theoretical or philosophical sense they can be immoral and what not, but how can something that is 100% legal be corrupt in any sort of legal sense (unless I am being too legalistic)."

Dude, a Congresscritter voting on a proposed law is 100% legal. If he does it as a quid pro quo for a payment of $10,000, its corrupt. Pretty simple, no?

"a team of Urkels"

The only thing Obama, Holder and, um, "Urkel" have in common is they are intelligent black males.

So, do all intelligent black males deserve derision, in your view? If not, perhaps you can explain this comment.

I'm with Mahan Atma: what is the "Team of Urkels" reference supposed to mean?

[Deleted by OK on civility grounds. Tmack, if you would like to comment here, keep it civil.]

OK,

"I'm with Mahan Atma: what is the "Team of Urkels" reference supposed to mean?"

Merely an offbeat sense of humor. As something of an Urkel myself, it was a twist on Team of Rivals offered with no little affection.

David Larsomn:

You said:

"Dude, a Congresscritter voting on a proposed law is 100% legal. If he does it as a quid pro quo for a payment of $10,000, its corrupt. Pretty simple, no?"

Yes, but how does that translate to the pardon power? It is illegal (or at least against House rules) to take money for votes - in a quid pro quo fashion. The pardon power is different. I guess my point is about illegality - and in that sense - a pardon can never be illegal - no matter what.

wm13:

My favorite part is this quote from Holder's testimony:

"Essentially what I was trying to say, what I tried to convey, was that I didn’t have a basis to make a determination; again, assuming that what Mr. Quinn said — I mean, you’re accurate, I did not reflexively say that I was opposed to this because he was a fugitive, having had that experience with I guess Mr. Preston King, who was a fugitive and who ultimately was granted a pardon that I supported."

He makes Sarah Palin sound like Demosthenes. No doubt Charles Fried or someone of that ilk will explain why Holder is a genius and Palin is an idiot.

Jeez Louise wm13, is that the best you can do when quoting from (my guess) a lengthy transcript of adversarial grilling? I mean, it actually makes sense: Holder's saying that "his" [Rich's?] fugitive status alone was insufficent for Holder to decide [whether Rich deserved a pardon?], and that this was due at least in part to an earlier case in which Holder ultimately judged another person (King) to be worthy of a pardon despite his fugitive status. It's a bit rambling, and you may well disagree w/ his approach, but as it makes total sense on 2nd reading the statement is pretty low on the incoherence scale IMHO.

And now my ulterior motive for responding: Can anyone please please point me to samples of extemporaneous speech by (first and foremost) Ronald Reagan during his presidency, and (secondarily) by any other American president? I am asking because Reagan struck me as a particularly incoherent speaker when his words weren't scripted - such a contrast w/ his reputation as the Great Communicator. I'm open to any of a number of explanations for this contrast, but I need more data and have been unable to find it. In particular, after maybe a dozen hours of web searches over the years, I haven't been able to locate a single transcript of extemporaneous speech by Reagan as president. Is this stuff hard to find or am I just paticularly inept?-)

{Deleted by OK. Elim, your repeated obnoxious and nasty comments, combined with bizarre mischaracterizations of what others are saying, are not appreciated. You are banned from commenting here.]

I don't know that Holder ever participated in the decision-making around that policy, but he certainly never opposed it.

How would you know what position Holder or any other government employee took internally?

Long ago and far away, I also worked under Eric Holder when he was DAG, and also had some intra-agency coordination and case approval dealings directly with him when he was U.S. Attorney. In this pinhead's opinion, he's far and away the best pick from the lists of likely A.G. candidates that I've seen circulating. Generally viewed as fair, intelligent, and interested in getting to the right result rather than the biggest headline. While I never sat across the table from him when he was at Covington, I heard thru the grapevine that he continued to be well-regarded as a straight shooter after he went to the defense side.

And he's not a political hack -- he spent the first 12 years of legal practice as a career prosecutor in DOJ's Public Integrity Section. That's one of the highest-profile shops in DOJ's Criminal Division, and by reputation he was very good, in a tenure that spanned most of both the Carter and Reagan administrations.

I strongly suspect that his appointment will finish filling in the morale black hole among DOJ prosecutors that was dug by Gonzalez and his henchmen (and women, e.g., Goodling).

Did Holder get sloppy with the Mark Rich paperwork at the last minute as he was packing to leave? Yup... but at least he was honest enough to admit he screwed up. Did he get the Second Amendment analysis wrong in Heller? Sure... but he was far from the only one, and since the POTUS-elect apparently agrees with him, that isn't exactly a disqualifying policy position nowadays.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Clinton Administration lost that court case and shut down Gitmo for refugees as a result.

No, the 11th Circuit overturned that decision, and the S.Ct. denied cert. I was part of the losing side in that litigation. They shut down Gitmo because they won; because they didn't have to allow the Haitians to apply for asylum or other relief, they were free to return them to Haiti. (You may also be thinking of a separate, slightly earlier District Court decision that allowed entry by a small sub-group of HIV-positive Haitian refugees).

But my memory was wrong as well. Gorelick was DAG then, not Holder, so it's not fair of me to hang that policy on him. He has said recently that indefinite detention at Guanatanamo by the Bush administration was wrong, and good for him. Presumably he also believes that it was wrong when Clinton did it, but I'd just really like to hear him say it.

I guess it's just my old frustration resurfacing; it's been galling, for instance, to watch Reno criticizing Bush's indefinite detention at Gitmo without ever having to answer for the Haitians.

Clarification please? There are some references to Libby--I was not aware that Libby was pardoned, only that his sentence was commuted. Is my understanding correct?

Yes, Libby is yet to be pardoned. Other references were to Libby's role in securing Rich's pardon.

To echo JosephSlater, the complaint about this not representin change is ludicrous; if Obama picked someone who had no affiliation with the Clinton-era Justice department, he would either be a) a Republican or b) mocked as unqualified. I mean, I guess he could have found someone from the Carter era??

jps, I would have to disagree. I'm sure there are a number of federal judges and people in private practice (i.e., litigators with reasonably strong Democratic affiliations) whom Obama could appoint. In other words, Democratic equivalents of Michael Mukasey. I'm not saying that such a person would be better than Holder, of whom I know little, but I'm sure such people exist.

I gather Obama and Holder are personal friends. I think it is a mistake for a president to appoint a friend as attorney general, and that Obama would be better served by someone more independent. But time will tell.

"Isnt it at least somewhat beneficial to appoint someone who previously served at a senior level in DOJ?"

You don't quite understand: to his detractors, "change" means that Obama has to appoint Rush Limbaugh to high posts, instead of changing things up by appointing extremely competent and talented people first and foremost.

As I see it, change is change from the Mayberry Machiavellianism of the Bush administration. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people and examples from the past that we can change back to. Hell, the first Bush's administration was mostly staffed by talented, respectable conservatives. Going back to that principle of good government over partisan hackery would be a huge change in how things are run.

That's the great thing about an empty slogan like "Change", people read into whatever they want to believe in. During the primaries, Obama's "Change" was to away from the Clintons. Now, people like "Bad" see "Change" as a change back to Clinton's appointees. Tomorrow, "Change" will mean keeping the status quo in Iraq.

I think the repeated mocking of this pick as not representing "change" rather misses the point of what the electorate wanted to change from.

You are being disingenous. O campaigned on changing the old Washington way of thinking. Not merely on a change from the Bush Administration. That is the kind of change that happens whenever the party in the White House changes. He promised a totally different type of change, a new way of governing.

Bringing back Clinton appointees and retreads like Tom Daschle to HHS is just business as usual. So, mocking is appropriate.

These appointments don't bother me. He got elected and can bring in whoever he wants. Just don't pretend they are "change" in any way. Not only Clinton but any of the other failed Dem candidates in 2008 could have just as easily apointed Holder.

"Mukasey served in the Nixon/Ford Justice department. Most left-leaning Judges with any criminal experience served in the Clinton or Carter Justice departments."

jps, I don't think this is a major issue, but people at the level that Mukasey worked (assistant US attorney when he was just out of law school) aren't normally considered part of the administration. People take those jobs regardless of whether their party affiliation matches that of the president. (I don't presume that Prof. Kerr considered himself part of the Clinton administration.) My point is that there are doubtless qualified lawyers, including people who served at junior levels in the Justice Department, who have not been part of any previous administration. Having said that, I don't have any strong feelings about Holder, of whom I know very little.