Tension has been growing between career lawyers and political appointees in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, according to some longtime career attorneys who have recently left the division. Now the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings for a new leader of the politically sensitive group.
Some career professionals who have left the Civil Rights Division say they left because they were shut out of the decision making process in a way that did not occur under previous administrations.
A spokesman for Justice says that there is no split between political appointees and career lawyers. He points to the division's recent accomplishments in disability rights and human trafficking prosecutions as proof of it's effectiveness.
For Americans to have confidence in their government, federal agencies need to be run by professionals with relevant experience, not merely by well-connected individuals who are beholden to the White House. This is especially true at the Department of Justice, which is the federal agency called upon to investigate the actions of government officials. It has long been recognized that the Justice Department, more than any other federal department, must maintain a sufficient degree of independence from the White House.
It has also long been recognized that expertise in law enforcement within the top management levels of the Justice Department is valuable in guiding the Department in fulfilling its missions. For justice to be served, prosecutorial experience among those who run the criminal components of the Department is useful, and maybe invaluable.
It is regrettable that the White House does not hold to this standard, and this Justice Department is a reflection of that. The Attorney General had no significant law enforcement experience when he was confirmed earlier this year. He had served as a corporate lawyer, a Texas state Supreme Court judge on civil — not criminal — matters, and as White House Counsel. The nominee to lead the Criminal Division, who was given a recess appointment in August, also had no history of working as a prosecutor. The Associate Attorney General was never a prosecutor. The Solicitor General was never a prosecutor. And Mr. Flanigan does not have prosecutorial experience either. And so it is that we have reached the point that the top five positions heading the Justice Department on criminal law enforcement matters have never, among the five of them, prosecuted a single case, as far as I know.
Like Mike Brown and his two top subordinates at FEMA, Mr. Flanigan has a long history in the service of Republican administrations. That is all well and good. But it does not qualify someone for crucial law enforcement responsibilities in the nation’s top law enforcement department. Indeed, with the recent arrest of the Bush Administration’s top federal procurement official, the continuing investigations into the activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the ongoing investigation by the Office of Inspector General into the reassignment of a U.S. Attorney who had tried to investigate Mr. Abramoff in 2002, the unfinished investigation into the outing of a CIA agent, and the unfinished investigation into the theft of documents from our own server here on the Committee by Republican staff, there is every reason to insist on greater independence from the White House, not less independence.
Mr. Flanigan cannot credibly claim that he is independent of this Administration. But prosecutorial experience and independence from the White House are exactly what are needed, and Mr. Flanigan offers neither. He is being named to replace a seasoned prosecutor who had the confidence of Republicans and Democrats alike.
