Justice Department: Independent branch or Poltical Hit Squad?

[radfringe]

One issue of note has emerged from the US Attorney Firing.

It's something which has taken a back seat in the discussion - and that is the role of the Justice Department.

According to the constitution - the Justice Department is suppose to be an independent branch of government, and this implies a level of Political Neutrality.

It's function is to ensure the Executive and Legislative branches do not overstep their assigned powers. The Justice Department is suppose to both CHECK and BALANCE.

The President nominates people to various Justice Department positions, but Congress must approve those nominations. Nomination and Approval implies there is some agreement between Executive and Legislative branches.

Yet, we have seen rubber-stamping by a republican congress, and countless back-door recess appointment for people who wouldn't be approved by Congress. The memos and other documents have revealed the Bush Administration bases it's nominations NOT ON Qualifications, but rather on the level of loyalty (i.e. the loyal bushies).

If Loyalty is the major qualification for being nominated - how does this effect the political neutrality of the Justice Department?

I know the GOPers will throw the argument of "Clinton/Democrats did it too" into the mix. But, I ask "Does it then make it right?"

The Statue of Justice depicts a woman hold a scale, a symbol of Balance. Balancing the charges against the evidence. She also wears a blind fold - a symbol of objectivity, of neutrality.

If we allow appointments to the Justice Department to be based on "loyalty only" - we no longer have Justice, we have a political hit squad and should redesign the Statue of Justice to hold a big stick and remove the blindfold.

[wakeme2008]

1. DOJ has always been political just not to the level Bush has taken it

It has been used by all Presidents somewhat to press their party's beliefs. The best "Clinton" etc is the Civil Rights Division. Normally under Dems the Civil Right Division is more active than under Repugs.

Only Bush has taken it to the level of using it to win elections buy targeting Dems.

[radfringe]

2. Does it make it right?

I realize that all presidents have 'stacked the deck' or 'skewed' the judiciary to favor a particular political platform - but does it make it right?

how independent is a judiciary when it's used to enforce political aims?

While I agree this may have been a "low-level" concern, and is now being raised to higher level because of the wanton and blatant grab for power by the bushies.

It's something that needs to be debated and analyzed. If the "loyal bushies" are allowed to continue to use the Justice Department as a political hit squad, it could then be argued in the future that a precedent has been set and it's perfectly O.K. to use the law to go after political opponents.

Such a course would make the Justice Departments J.I.N.O.'s (Justice in name only) - this would "trickle down" to state and local levels. Where would Justice be then if the legal system is used to "punish" those who dissent? What would make our form of government any different than a tyrannical dictatorship where opposition is verboten?

[wakeme2008]

4. What is Right :(

IMHO, pushing the nations Civil Rights laws is OK, but some people would not.

One major part of the DOJ you did not talk about is the FBI. The worse abuse of the DOJ has taken place in the FBI under J Edgar Hoover.

IMHO the use of the DOJ by Bush is only the tip of the iceberg. What about the NSA? If Bush and his Loyal Bushies have been targeting Dems at the DOJ, what would stop them from targeting Dems at the NSA.

[hootinholler]

9. I would qualify that FBI remark until we know.

What has happened in this administration certainly carries on the extralegal traditions of JEdgar, recent exposures of NSLs abuse indicate that.

-Hoot

[annabanana]

5. Big Big difference

It is understood that the Judiciary will usually represent the basic philosophy of the Administration. . but it's primary purpose has to do with the administration of Justice and adherence to the law. When the Justice Department is coerced and encouraged to break the law in service to particular political ends that any similarity ends.

Once a U.S. Attorney is appointed, he or she must be left alone to enforce the law.

[wakeme2008]

6. Well maybe but

All Presidents have the US Attorneys target the sections of law they want to target. So one may put White Collar Crime as a priority and another the War on Drugs. Where Rove did wrong was to press cases to change the outcome of an election.

[annabanana]

7. That is PART of what Rove did wrong..

That part probably isn't illegal, as long as there are real crimes to prosecute.. (a big maybe when we talk about "voter" fraud).

Pushing to remove Carol Lam when she was getting too close to massive influence peddling and derailing her cases IS highly illegal.

[tom_paine]

8. Yes, a metaphorical 55-45% tilt in favor of the part in power is to be expected

It is human nature, and no matter how hard we try, we aren't making that go away any time soon.

HOWEVER, 55-45% is a far cry from the 80-20% totalitarian abomination emblemetaic of Bushies and Nazis.

[radfringe]

3. hate ot post and run

but I have to get ready for work - I'll catch up on this later today

[hootinholler]

10. Sorry, but the constitution does not enumerate a Dept. Of Justice.

According to the constitution - the Justice Department is suppose to be an independent branch of government, and this implies a level of Political Neutrality.

The Constitution says nothing of the sort:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The DOJ was established by Congress under "such regulations," specifically Title 28. That the lower courts and law enforcement (but not all law enforcement, some are under Treasury) are under the DOJ is a matter of convenience rather than constitutional mandate. Theoretically, congress could reorganize it, remove it from the purview of the executive, or even dismantle it altogether to carry the hypothetical to its extreme.

-Hoot

[Crabby Appleton]

12. You have it partially correct, there is no Justice Deptartment

or branch (there are 3 branches of the US government, judicial, legislative, executive) the president (executive branch) is designated as responsible for law enforcement in Article II, Section 3.

"he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, ..."

the Justice Department is not part of the judicial branch.

[hootinholler]

13. The lower courts are administered by the DOJ.

The Supremes are the only part of the Judiciary branch enumerated in the constitution, leaving the organization of the lower courts to congress. Yes, Art. II S.3 puts enforcement under the executive. Title 18 places the lower courts and some of the enforcement under the DOJ specifically. Other titles place the remaining enforcement agencies in different departments, but still under the executive. (Treasury agents, Park Police) The exception is the Capitol police which are under the Congressional Sargent At Arms, which I think is constitutionally enumerated.

Congress has the ability to specify it otherwise so long as the supremes are the appellate authority, and enforcement remains with the executive.

I think we may be in violent agreement :D

-Hoot

[L. Coyote]

11. Kick and Cross-Post: Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.

The issue is also addressed on this summary page, esp. with regards to hiring of Monica Goodling, et.al., grads from a religious law school.

Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x523978