A question for the BOGgers regarding the DOJ:

[SeattleGirl]

There has been some fussing lately about some of the things that the US Dept. of Justice has been defending (keeping names of people getting TARP funds private, etc.). Understandably, lots of folks are upset about it. I must confess that sometimes my reaction is, "WHAT?" However, I remember some time ago hearing someone say that one of the main duties of the DOJ was to act as the defense in any and all actions brought against the US government. I just looked up the DOJ and saw this (their mission statement):


"The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws."


The way I am reading this is that much like a defense attorney, the DOJ is obligated to defend the US government in legal issues regardless of any "WHAT?" reactions of we the people. (I guess they would also be like a prosecutor's office in other instances.) The purpose of a defense attorney/prosecuting attorney is to defend/prosecute. It doesn't mean lying or anything, but just doing what one is obligated to do according the rules/laws that govern and guide what they do (defend/prosecute). So, the DOJ defending the US government doesn't necessarily mean that they think the US government is "innocent", but rather they do it because that is part of the original mission of the DOJ. When I read things like "Obama's DOJ is doing this or that or the other thing," a thing which is not popular whether here on DU or in the population in general, I sometimes want to jump up and say, "Wait! They're doing the job they agreed to do when they joined the DOJ." (And yes, the Bushies totally corrupted it, but at least we have Holder as AG now, not the crooked people.)

Is that how folks here read it or am I totally missing the boat? I am not an attorney but there are a lot of rules/laws that govern what I do, and I am obligated to follow those rules/laws for as long as I choose to do what I'm doing, it doesn't matter if I like my clients or not. The rule of law trumps my personal feelings. So, anybody want to give me their thoughts or knowledge about this? As I said, I might be completely misreading the mission statement, and I certainly wouldn't want to go into a thread about the DOJ and be totally wrong in my assertion.

[sandnsea]

1. Well we expect them to defend civil rights legislation

and abortion doctors. Those are laws that half the country doesn't like and some people probably thought the DOJ should arrest gay men and remove children from every gay home in the country. I think some people just never put the shoe on the other foot around here.

On the other hand, they have decided not to go after medical marijuana which the Bushies decided was illegal. So there is the ability to interpret law differently.

I read one of the cases that had to do with the no fly list I think. Somebody wanted to know why they were on it or something along those lines. The argument against it is that if DOJ answers just one of these, then they will set a precedence and consequently people who actually are on the no fly list will know they are. I know that is easy for a cynic to guffaw, but I see the point. I've seen that defense a few times. They just can't start opening every single suspected case to the public because it will allow terrorists to see the process, see how they're treated as compared to the process, etc.

I am hopeful that they are just being cautious and as time goes on and they get a better handle on it all, they'll at least find ways to protect peoples rights whether it's through an open court process or something else.

[SeattleGirl]

2. I agree with you about being cautious right now. I wonder

if part of that (a lot of, maybe) might have to do with how f'd up the DOJ became under the Bushies. They abused their power so much that right now, I really don't wonder why a lot of folks would look at them with a jaundiced eye. On the other hand, though, one does have to lift one's head up from the pot of suspicion now and then, and try to realize what the DOJ is supposed to do, and that in fact, the DOJ under Obama is starting to do the right thing in many cases.

[NYC_SKP]

3. As you suggest, Bush so corrupted the DOJ that we are now very distrustful...

...and we probably should be cautious- until such time as Obama and the good ones in Congress have a chance to undo the wrongs, or clean house.

There are so many things to correct, and Obama can't do it all alone in one term.

So, we'll give him two, but he'll need a better set in congress, too.

:patriot:

[SeattleGirl]

4. Amen to the better set in Congress!

They seem to think that their primary job is to set up roadblock after roadblock against what he wants to do (and that includes some Dems too!) At least he has been able to get a fair amount of things done so far!

[sandnsea]

5. The White House is outlining it all week

Every day they will have a blog post and an online chat. Today was energy, tomorrow is security. A lot has been accomplished. If our media wasn't so screwed up, we'd know it.


Recovery Act investments in renewable generation and advanced energy manufacturing will put us on track to meet the goal of doubling our renewable energy generation, including solar, wind and geothermal, in just 3 years.

The Federal Government, partnering with industry, has committed to invest up to $16 billion in projects that will transform the transportation sector, including plug-in hybrids, all-electric vehicles and the infrastructure needed to power them, as well as new clean fuels.

The $4 billion in Recovery Act smart grid investments will reduce cost, increase reliability and give consumers more choice and control over their energy use and reduce electricity usage by more than 4% by 2030, an annual utility bill savings of $20.4 billion for U.S. businesses and consumers.

Efficiency Standard for Automobiles: President Obama announced the first ever joint fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks in May. The new standards are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program and a reduction of approximately 900 million metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions.

Appliance Efficiency Standards: The Administration has forged more stringent energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential appliances, including microwaves, kitchen ranges, dishwashers, light bulbs and other common appliances resulting in a significant reduction in energy use.

Offshore Energy Development: A new regulatory framework was established to facilitate the development of alternative energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that development of wind energy alone on the OCS may provide an additional 1,900 gigawatts of clean energy to the U.S.

Emissions Inventory Rule : For the first time, the U.S. will catalogue greenhouse gas emissions from large emission sources - an important initial step toward measurable and transparent reductions.

Federal Government Sustainability: President Obama signed an Executive Order on Federal Sustainability, committing the Federal government to lead by example and help build a clean energy economy through Federal government operations.

International Leadership: After years of standing on the sidelines and ignoring the real threat of climate change, the United States has changed course this year and chosen to lead. Under President Obama’s leadership, the international community has taken significant measures toward a global solution to this global threat, including reinvigorating the Major Economies Forum (MEF); eliminating fossil fuel subsidies; fostering bilateral energy and climate partnerships with China, India, Mexico, Canada and others; phasing down HFCs (Hydrofluorcarbons); and reaching an historic accord at the Copenhagen climate summit that maintains progress toward a legally binding international agreement that will ensure a prosperous and secure future for our children and grandchildren.

http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=942

[CTLawGuy]

6. people often do not get the distinction

between Obama and the US government. The DOJ is NOT Obama's personal law firm, it is the government's law firm. Obama is not the government, he is an employee of the government. The DOJ's positions in court are not a reflection of Obama's political positions.

The DOJ is going to take the position that all US laws are valid and constitutional regardless of whether Obama personally favors such laws. If it did not do this, then laws could be undermined based on who is sitting in office. Imagine Bush's DOJ agreeing with a litigant that the voting rights act was unconstitutional. To take positions based on the president's personal feelings would be disloyalty to the DOJ's corporate client, the US government.

[treestar]

7. Right. Say defendant thinks his fourth amendment rights were violated

Defendant's lawyer argues that the search warrant was not based on probable cause, for example. The government, both state and federal, has lawyers that defend the police in that instance, argue that the warrant was based on probable cause. This doesn't mean the government and its lawyers are against the Fourth Amendment, which is sort of what the DUers argue and base their emotional reactions on.

Trouble is that legal issues get murky quickly. There can be arguments, and often they are dull and tedious. It's easier to look at it as black and white. The public generally does this. The media aids and abets it, trying to make more drama out of a case.

So whenever someone is making any claim based on a legal case, in the media, the best thing to do is find the case or the latest opinion on it. Often that puts all fears to rest.

The one about the Obama administration hating on gays because of denying some insurance to a gay partner in defiance of the Ninth Circuit - that case has barely started and some low level government person is doing exactly what anyone would do in that job - and yet this case is used to slam Obama on gay rights. It involves an actual employee of the Ninth Circuit, so that makes it complex, unusual in that it won't affect many people - only so many people work for the Ninth Circuit. It would be about legal issues like whether the Ninth Circuit can provide coverage other employees of the government don't get and have more to do with that than gay rights.

The one about John Yoo was more about whether you could sue opposing attorneys for their advice. If that ever became the law, every divorce would involve two lawsuits - no one is more hated than your ex spouse's lawyer. I hate what Yoo did, too, but it's a terrible precedent to sue lawyers because they gave someone else advice. It would clog up the courts. Yet Obama was slammed as evil because the government doesn't want to go along with that.

[SeattleGirl]

9. Excellent points, treestar

And I agree; I wish more people would try to understand this whole issue, and the role of the DOJ. It's NOT Obama's DOJ in the end; if it was, he would be no different than Bush, would he? I think he has a big job (along with other big jobs) in getting that agency straightened out.

Thanks for your input.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. That's pretty much how I read it.

And they can't transparently half-ass the effort either, unfortunately.