Edwards and Easley Prosecutor Bitching about Obama’s Court Appointees
Main Justice reports that US Attorney George Holding–who is currently investigating Governor Mike Easley and John Edwards–decided to speak out at the Federalist Society meeting to bitch about Obama’s appointees to the Fourth Circuit.
Holding made his remarks during a question-and-answer period following a speech from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) last Thursday at the society’s National Lawyer Convention. He identified himself as a “prosecutor from North Carolina,” a C-Span video of event shows.
“I’m concerned about the changing makeup of the 4th Circuit,” said Holding, who has served as U.S. Attorney since September 2006.
President Barack Obama tapped James A. Wynn Jr. and Albert Diaz, both of North Carolina, and Barbara Milano Keenan of Virginia for judgeships in the 4th Circuit.
Uh, Obama? I understand the wisdom of letting Bush’s US Attorneys wind down investigations into Democrats to avoid any suggestion that you fired them to end those inquiries. (Speaking of which, today is Mary Beth Buchanan’s last day.)
But this guy has to go–now.
So long as he is US Attorney working under a President Obama, he needs to respect the Constitutional function of the President and Senate. And that means the President–not the Federalist Society US Attorney–gets to nominate judges, and the Senate gets to confirm them. And if you don’t like it as a dead-ender US Attorney affiliated with a horribly politicized DOJ, you really ought not take the opportunity of a partisan convention to bitch about your boss’ choices for those positions. Heck, as US Attorney, you probably ought not be speaking publicly about judicial appointees in your circuit at all.
Perhaps an inquiry with the appropriate bar association might be in order. This does seem entirely over the line.
Of course, if Obama initiates it, this dude becomes the newest Right-Wing Martyr, just like when Truman took out MacArthur. So it’ll likely have to come from some other source.
Is ““I’m concerned about the changing makeup of the 4th Circuit” all he said, or was there more?
Dunno–I’d have to watch the vid. That’s probably all he said, which means he has probably coded his comments well enough to get away with it, huh?
Well, if that is all it is, it was ill advised I suppose, but of no real consequence. The guy is going to get replaced eventually anyway and there was not any secret as to what side of the partisan fence he was on, so yeah.
Remember, though, that one of the underlying tensions here is making the 4th racially more diverse. Republicans have been complaining that people of color should not be judges in the South (okay, I’m paraphrasing a big).
Yes, I suppose it could be read that way; but the media won’t do so. Time for Obama to get rid of the Federalistic boy though. Hey, maybe Graig got canned for not having gotten a new USA nominee for North Carolina!
Actually, you’re not paraphrasing. You’re accurate, but it’s just that they’re too polite (and self-aware) to say it outright in a public setting.
Jesse Helms had no such qualms, though even he did avoid outrightly saying “no blacks on the Fourth Circuit”. He just made that result happen with blue sheets, holds, and filibuster threats.
Nina Totenberg/ All Things Considered on this topic this morning
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120482368
I had always figured the reason the federalist folks were kept around was to assist Obama in avoiding the prosecution of BushCo.
It must be pretty difficult to find good lawyers who think that BushCo should walk. And it would take exactly one US atty to seriously go after BushCo to cause the entire house of cards to comes down.
Boxturtle (Starting to think that Obama should be charged as an accessory to BushCo)
A couple of notes. Allyson Duncan of Raleigh serves on the Fourth Circuit. She is a minority. Her name also came up during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. She was appointed in 2003 by G. W. Bush, after Jesse Helms retired from the Senate.
The news out today about the Justice Department supporting the conviction of Don Siegelman is disturbing.
Any idea who is behind it? Are some Bush administration holdovers still calling the shots, as this article over at Raw Story implys?
Not sure what is so disturbing or surprising here. In fact, it would be surprising and shocking if it were otherwise. The DOJ prosecuted Siegelman and they tend to support, back up and argue in favor of maintaining their convictions. To expect otherwise is nonsense; that is what they do. And, quite frankly, while I think it is a prosecution that should not have been brought as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, it appears to be minimally legally and factually sound.
If it is legally and factually sound, why did 91 state attorneys general seek a review of his conviction?
You would have to ask them. Probably because they thought the case should not have been brought. The question is whether the law is too broad and collects up otherwise acceptable political behavior. However, this is the same framework behind the Blagojevich prosecution and numerous others in the news; and I do not see you or the AG’s arguing for that to end or those convictions to be set aside. If the law is to stand, then I think Siegelman’s convictions will as well. I wish it were otherwise, but that is how I see it.
ot but so worth it
“Send these people back where they came from”
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/teabaggers-punkd-anti-racists-who-ge
Isn’t the bigger issue this: Repeal The Judiciary Act of 1789, and start
over. The politics is killing this country…
This administration is so afraid of the right’s labels that it overcompensating and becoming that which it was elected to replace.
A speaker following Jeff Sessions? Talk about having to walk behind the circus elephant with a broom. Yes, if the sitting, holdover US Attorney wants to engage in open partisan politics, fine. Resign first, though, or be fired for insubordination and obstructing the president’s agenda. Isn’t that what Obama tells House progressives?
Obama has handled replacing highly politicized, unethical and incompetent Bush-appointed US Attorneys the same way he’s handled the search-vet-nominate-approve process for all his nominations (and non-nominations). His style is highly risk-averse and he treats his scorched earth-styled opponents with kid gloves. His chosen process is either hopelessly flawed or intentionally designed to change as little of BushWorld as possible. The phrase, “elections have consequences”, seems to be the only thing Mr. Obama wants to change.
The Fourth Circuit needs to be more ideologically as well as racially diverse. It’s the most conservative Circuit in the country, the most fawning when it comes to executive and corporate authority in conflict with individual rights. That’s a problem, since it has many such cases owing to its proximity to Washington and the number of federal installations in its territory.
I think the Siegelman prosecution can legitimately be attacked on several grounds, the conduct of the presiding judge, for one. The prosecution is a bete noir for Scott Horton, who has written several articles about it. But Obama will not attack it. He might appear partisan and he’s a post-partisan. Correcting injustice (a prompt pardon?) or more rational use of prosecutorial resources and discretion do not seem high on his to do list.
EW and all:
slightly off topic, but related: what do you make of Obama/Holder’s support of Don Seigelman’s prosecution?
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/224073-obama-administration-opposes-siegelmans-appeal
oops -see this is already under disc!
The Fourth Circuit was punished from Nixon forward for having made some significant civil rights decisions. Jesse Helms made a special project of cleansing the court of “judicial activists”.
If Obama is appointing three judges to the court, that would move in a direction of making the court more interested in justice than in the fate of Federalist Society legal beagles.