I try to avoid politics on this space because, well, no good can really come of it. And since I don't fit neatly into neither party, I just end up alienating everybody. Let's just assume we disagree. Actually, my political beliefs are pretty closely in line with the 19th Century Whigs. I'm a huge believer in Whiggery. Yes, that's just so I can say Whiggery*. Say it. It's fun.
Anyway, Bush nominated a new Attorney General today so it's at least some law topical news. I bring this up because he's nominated a former judge, Michael Mukasey, who seems immensely qualified and reasonable. So of course, each political party wants to oppose the nomination but can't without looking like opportunistic jackals.
As a rule, I'm a firm believer in the American political process even with all of its warts. OK, I think the Electoral College is relic and should be abolished, but it's hardly keeping me up at night. But this got me thinking: should the Attorney General be an appointed political position? I understand, even agree, with the idea of staunchly political appointments to a president's cabinet. They are his (maybe on day her) advisers, and the president should have the right to pick his advisers. But the AG strikes me as somehow a little bit different. The role of the AG isn't just to advise the president, it is to uphold the law. And sometimes that means disagreeing with the president. Just ask John Ashcroft. It seems this goal could be better accomplished if the Attorney General was independent of the presidency.
I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud.
*Ed Note - Actually, not entirely true. It's also because I think Henry Clay is one of the greatest Americans in our history. He is so awesome that he served as a US Senator before he met the Constitutional requirements to do so (he was under age 35). We could use some Henry Clays today, or as he was known, The Great Compromiser.
No comments:
Post a Comment