This thread on Doug Jones as AG raises problems of the modern Crony AG model, as opposed to what I’ve called the Professional or Politico model - at precisely the time we need more professional independence at DOJ.
Jones would be a Crony mistake, either real or perceived.
2/ My article here from 2019 on the Professional/Politico/Crony models for AG in US history.
If I hadn't seen this thread, I'd have set Jones more as "professional" (long-term background w/in DOJ). But Biden picks Jones, how can he not be seen as a Crony? ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss5…
3/ Democrats picked more Crony AGs in the first half of the 20th century. But since Nixon, Republicans generally picked Crony AGs.
No Democrat has appointed a Crony AG since JFK had his brother RFK.
I sincerely hope Biden does not make a Cronyist mistake.
4/ Here is my chart of Professional/Politico/Crony AGs (the article goes all the way back to the first AG, but this page goes back to 1949.
Note how Democrats stopped appointing Crony AGs, just as Republicans started.
This must stop now.
5/ I have no dog in this fight, except for my long-term concern about and historical study of DOJ's independence. "Appearance of bias" is a real legal standard for justice.
And this is worrisome:
"Jones was Alabama co-chair of Biden’s 1988 campaign and helped on his 2008 bid."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After investing a lot of time researching & questioning the law of pardons, I think the left is too worked up about the validity of Trump pardons:
1. Of the concrete issues facing the US in 2021, it's not even close to the top 100. 2. State crim law covers the worst conduct.
3. Pardon panic is producing too many unforced errors by journalists and legal commentators.
For example, accepting a pardon is NOT an admission of guilt according to American law & practice, no matter what you've read on this website:
4. The eagerness to interpret accepting a pardon as evidence of guilt runs roughshod over the presumption of innocence, doubts about prosecutorial power, the value of mercy, and years of work using DNA exonerations for pardons:
A great irony of the Trump era:
Trump’s most significant legacy - entrenching a @FedSoc judiciary- depends on the institution he attacked most relentlessly:
The rule of law and the courts.
The Trump judges have power only if the people believe the rule of law matters.
1/
2/ Republicans coddling Trump and his attacks on all legal institutions after the election are jeopardizing their one big win for which they sold their souls:
The enduring power of the courts and the law.
Trump will burn down his @FedSoc courts, and the GOP is enabling him.
Dumb.
3/ The left now views what Trump and McConnell have done to the courts as illegitimate (some but not all of that conclusion is right).
The Court seems to be moving in a direction that will alienate moderates.
And now Trump is openly delegitimizing the courts for his base...
Pardon thread:
I've seen many people, including legal experts, claim that accepting a pardon means admitting guilt.
This simply is not the American practice.
Here is a thread on Burdick dicta and pardons for innocent people (DNA exonerations, etc.) 1/
2/ See @ProfBrianKalt's op-ed explaining the oft-cited case Burdick (1915) as dicta:
"Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta..." washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-m…
3/ "The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt." - @ProfBrianKalt
My hot historical take is that the truly dangerous electoral "road map" is not Trump's from 2020.
It's Madison's from 1787.
The Electoral College is a more inevitable danger to democracy. It has invited partisan disenfranchising litigation long before 2020, and it will again.
By "hot," I mean "old."
And ironic for Madison:
The electoral college will always turn a national election into a battle over a few swing states, localizing a heated factional democracy.
But Madison in Federalist No. 10 argued for a national republic to diffuse such heat.
3/ The irony of Federalist No. 10:
Yes, the republic would be huge, but none of its officers would be elected *nationally.*
The Electoral College was a localist twist.
The only truly national institution would be the Supreme Court, the unelected "least dangerous branch."
I’ve seen enough.
We have a new realigned two-party system:
The Democratic Party and QAnon.
In all historical seriousness, we have had massive party disruptions by conspiracy theories in America, some legit, some insane:
The Anti-Masons
The Know-Nothings American Party
The Republicans (anti-slave power conspiracy - legit!)
KKK surge 1920s...
I was listening to a CBC podcast on the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s: mass delusions about Day Care ritual sexual child abuse, in reaction to working mothers, the sexual revolution, suburbanization, and cultural change.
We are experiencing an even more severe reaction today.