@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr @joeinwynnewood
Never forget that the Department of Justice is 100% under the control of the president.
Under the design of the US government 100% of the executive branch is the responsibility of the president, and an enormous reason for that is so that we can hold the president accountable for everything that happens under his branch, and we can even impeach him for anything that happens under his branch of government. This is a critical element of the design of the US government.
Every single thing that Merrick Garland does is the responsibility of Biden. Again, that's just built into the design of the US government because if any underling misbehaves, including Merrick Garland, the president stands to be impeached over it.
Every time the press secretary talks about the independence of the DOJ she is doing a disservice to the design of the US government, and it is really really annoying to hear it because it is misleading the public.
The president is absolutely responsible for the Department of Justice. The president absolutely stands to be impeached if the DOJ does wrong. We absolutely need to hold him accountable, whether you happen to think they are doing a good job or a bad job, it is 100% up to the president to make sure it is a good job.
@volkris @stopgopfox There's quite a big distance between being ultimately responsible for what DOJ does and directing DOJ to do very specific (politically driven) things.
The former is both factually correct and near universally accepted. The latter is, if not universally as it used to be, still widely accepted as necessary both for justice to be administered fairly (very much not sufficient) and for maintenance of democracy.
Nixon mucked badly with the fair administration ...
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
No, I would say that the person responsible for the department is responsible for the department always and at any time.
And that is key to the design of the US government.
It is all on the head of the president. Intentionally, that is how we are supposed to hold those agencies accountable.
@volkris @stopgopfox Most if not all current & former DOJ employees and DOJ adjacent attorneys disagree, committed to the post-Nixon norm that DOJ (& FBI) must be independent of POTUS; POTUS' proper responsibility is to ensure this is true.
"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."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/independence-and-accountability-department-justice
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr So you're saying employees of the DOJ think the DOJ should be more powerful? :)
But no, they're wrong. The Constitution provides only three branches of the US government, and having the DoJ answerable to a president who can be held accountable for it is part of the bedrock principle of checks and balances of the US Government.
It's natural that they want more power. We should naturally be distrustful of giving more power to the police and letting them act so outside the law.
@volkris @stopgopfox No, it has nothing to do with allocation of power. It's about blunting highly problematic interference of existing power on legal outcomes.
They rightly believe that DOJ should be bound by the law without influence of the political calculations of the White House or any state house or any mayor's office.
It's also not giving more power to police. If anything it should reduce the power of police by ensuring that the rules apply to them and bound their actions.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
By law the DOJ answers to the president, which is the way it is held accountable through checks and balances.
The very notion that the DOJ is independent of its own chain of command is necessarily and literally proposing that it act outside of law, which again, clearly puts it as answerable to the president.
The rules say the answer to the president. When you talk about them being independent you are flat out saying the rules don't apply to this law enforcement organization.
We are of course free to amend the Constitution to give the police their own branch of government, but that sounds pretty sketchy to me, but either way until that happens it is flat out putting them above the law to say they are not bound by the existing legal structure in the US.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Wow, I don't know what kinds of companies you're familiar with, but yeah companies do tend to stick their noses into plant operations to make sure the plants aren't going way off track and doing bad things.
And by analogy, I would say it's REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT to keep law enforcement from going off track and doing bad things.
I don't know why you seem so trusting in law enforcement agencies, but history tells us bad things happen when they're allowed to operate without such oversight.
@volkris @stopgopfox You keep pretending my words mean completely different things than what they actually say which is, to say the least, aggravating. It's also rude.
My words and the facts don't apply to "law enforcement agencies". They apply to DOJ prosecutorial decisions.
No Board Chairman sticks his nose into plant operations no matter what the performance. If things are off the rails they fire the executive(s) in charge and hire someone new.
We are done here.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
If you didn't know, the DOJ is a law enforcement agency.
@volkris @stopgopfox You are so not listening.
Independence in decision making on day to day operations is quite different than anything you are talking about.
Does the Chairman of the Board tell the plant manager how to run the plant? No. Does that remove their fiduciary responsibility? No. It would just be bad for the company to stick their nose into plant operations.
It is the same for DOJ and the country. It is bad for POTUS to stick his nose in proscecutorial decisions. Really bad.