Holder's potential replacements are all Obama's pals. Could any get confirmed?
|
Version 0 of 1. As soon as word of US attorney general Eric Holder’s resignation emerged on Thursday, the frustrating legacy of the nation’s top law enforcement official came into focus as quickly as his potential replacements began to reflect it. Holder will leave office with a record representative of the very strengths and weaknesses of the president whom he has served so closely – maybe too closely. On some issues, such as voting rights and civil rights enforcement, he’s been superb. On others, most notably his justice departments’s unwillingness to prosecute Bush administration torturers and financial sector lawbreakers, he’s been infuriating. To conservatives, well, they’re just glad to see him go. Holder has been good on issues on which Obama is good. He’s not-so-good when Obama is squishy. And it’s no coincidence that this president tends to prefer advisers he knows well, so no matter who he picks to serve out the term as AG, Holder’s successor is not likely to roam far from the reservation. Will the next in line change things at the Department of Justice? Or just line up behind Obama? Let’s briefly consider who’s next: Deval Patrick: strong on civil rights, but will Republicans confirm? The popular governor of Massachusetts, finishing his second term and not seeking a third, has long been identified as a potential successor to Holder. An African American who grew up in Chicago and went to Harvard Law, Patrick has many things in common with Obama, and the two are longtime political allies. His background also suggests that his record would end up very similar to Holder’s: Patrick has a solid background on civil rights, having worked as a lawyer with the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund and served in the very strong Civil Rights Division assembled by Bill Clinton at the DOJ. His post-Clinton administration work on corporate boards, conversely, suggests someone who’s unlikely to start aggressively prosecuting financial fraud or ramp up antitrust enforcement. There are a couple of practical factors, however, that may work against Patrick getting the nod. Patrick said in 2012 that he wouldn’t resign, and said on Thursday afternoon that “it’s not one for me right now”, although politicians violate such pledges routinely. More importantly, Obama has generally preferred cabinet appointments who either have experience in Congress or who have already been confirmed by Congress for a lower position, and Patrick meets neither criteria. It’s possible, though, that the recent elimination of the filibuster for executive branch appointments will make Patrick seem more attractive to Obama, and he’d be a decent if unexciting choice. Donald Verrilli: boring, but will he be rewarded for Obamacare? Some administration sources have suggested that the Solicitor General is already a top candidate to replace Holder. Verrilli, a corporate lawyer without Patrick’s civil rights experience before becoming the nation’s top lawyer, is far from an exciting choice (that mustache notwithstanding). He’d also seem particularly unlikely to demonstrate any independence whatsoever from his boss. But having already gone through the Senate confirmation wringer and as a well-known Obama confidante, he’d be a safe choice who would require a minimum of political capital to get confirmed, something that (for better or worse) has always been important to Obama. It is important to remember, though, Verrilli’s oral argument in defense of Obamacare at the Supreme Court. It was widely derided at the time, but looks brilliant in retrospect – the tax argument he emphasized ended up being the one that persuaded John Roberts to cast the swing vote upholding the law, despite the chief justice’s obvious disdain for it. If Verrilli’s reward for possibly saving the administration’s signature legislative achievement is being nominated as attorney general, we’ll have to hope he’s been underestimated again. Janet Napolitano: would make the GOP look bad, but still a longshot The former head of the Department of Homeland Security and current president of the University of California system would be another classic Obama choice, as they’ve worked together and she’s already been confirmed by the Senate. Napolitano would, however, generate more Republican opposition in the Senate than the anodyne Verrilli, or perhaps anyone this side of Hillary Clinton. A DHS memo about right-wing extremism would set off the wingnut skree machine, and there would also be extensive Republican complaints about “border security” – not to mention howls of “Big Sis”. To me, the Napolitano opposition is more a feature than a bug. The Republicans could no longer stop Napolitano, and having the extremist-laden Republican conference in the Senate bloviate about immigration in advance of the midterm elections is pretty much all upside for the Democratic Party. Obama, however, is not likely to see the politics the same way, and my guess is that she won’t get the nod. Of course, you can always fantasize about a progressive dream appointment, such as Pamela Karlan, the brilliant legal scholar recently placed in charge of voting rights enforcement of the DOJ, or Preet Bharara, the US attorney general for New York and Wall Street’s Enemy No1. But to dream about progress beyond the Holder era misses the fundamental point: the Cossacks work for the Czar. Even if scientists found a way of creating a new attorney general from a synthesis of Thurgood Marshall and Elizabeth Warren, this legal superhero would still likely have a record in office very similar to that of … Eric Holder. |