How to use this Page

As President Obama ponders whom he will nominate as Eric Holder’s successor as attorney general, he should consider President Ford’s appointment in 1975 of Edward Levi to head the nation’s Department of Justice.

Four decades ago, the United States was reeling from Watergate. President Nixon’s first attorney general, John Mitchell, was on his way to federal prison while Ford’s pardon of Nixon remained controversial.

In this difficult environment, President Ford reached outside his official and personal circles to appoint as attorney general a preeminent legal scholar, Edward Levi.

Levi was a distinguished law professor, an accomplished dean of the University of Chicago Law School, and the widely-admired president of the University of Chicago. In a contentious political setting, Edward Levi was confirmed as attorney general by a voice vote in the United States Senate. Everyone understood that Ford had gone beyond politics as usual to choose an outstanding attorney general capable of restoring confidence in the Department of the Justice.

Ed Levi didn’t need the job. But the United States needed Ed Levi.

Levi’s tenure as attorney general did not disappoint. When Levi left the Justice Department at the end of the Ford Administration, the department’s reputation had been restored in large measure because of Levi’s integrity, professionalism, and independence.

President Obama should strive for an Ed Levi-type appointee for his second attorney general.

Many fine individuals are being mentioned to replace Holder. Most of these individuals are excellent lawyers and, under other circumstances, would be good leaders for the Department of Justice. But the United States today, like the United States in 1975, requires more than a good lawyer as attorney general. It requires someone with Ed Levi’s gravitas.

Some might retort that nothing comparable to Watergate has transpired in recent years. True. But we are a nation badly fractured on political lines. Legitimate concerns have been raised about the recent performance of the Department of Justice. In this difficult atmosphere, it is vital to reaffirm that the Department of Justice is an institution of law, not just another hyper-partisan political arena.

Like President Ford, President Obama should look beyond his official family and his circle of acquaintances to find an attorney general whose prime credentials are professional, not political. Holder’s replacement should be perceived as an independent attorney general who doesn’t need the job.

This heavyweight appointee could, like Ed Levi, come from academia or could come from the private sector. Another potential source for such an attorney general is the judiciary. Among those meeting the Ed Levi-test would be such personages as Justice Sandra O’Connor and Judges Richard Posner, Jon Newman and Jose Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

President Ford’s historical reputation improves with each passing year. His pardon of Richard Nixon, widely condemned at the time, is now seen as an act of statesmanship which helped to move the United States beyond Watergate. Ford’s appointment of Edward Levi as attorney general was similarly an act of high statesmanship which reaffirmed America’s commitment to the rule of law. President Obama should make a comparably outstanding appointment for his second attorney general.

The post Mr. President: Nominate Another Ed Levi as Attorney General appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Setting the scene of New Orleans during Reconstruction
• The US Supreme Court should reverse Wynne – narrowly
• Casey Kasem and end-of-life planning

 

The tangentangen is full of brown, crackling, dried seed pods. Breadfruit trees are laden with huge ripe fruits. The nights are still cool and comfortable for sleeping, but the days have become hot and close--the kind of heat that leeches the energy out of you and makes you want to take a nap.
__________________________________________

Immigration -- There may be a court challenge to the CNMI's recent enactment, P.L. 17-1. If you are an alien in the CNMI, and you want to join forces in challenging the law, you might see a lawyer now. Low income persons can apply for help at MLSC. Others with middle or more income could check private lawyers like Mark Hanson, Rob Torres, Steve Woodruff, Colin Thompson, Richard Pierce (or any attorney of your choice).

CNMI politics--Still as disruptive as ever. The AG's office seems to be an arm of the Governor's Office, rather than an office serving the interests of the people. I now favor an independently elected AG. I worried that this would only make the office more political; but it now seems to be so political that "more" is impossible. I worried that legal work is not well-understood by the community and the opinions publicly stated would often lead to unconstitutional and unfair results; but the office is being used for unconstitutional and unfair results in the hands of the Governor, without accountability, so the people may be a better choice! I realize that the people re-elected the Governor, so there is little likelihood of real improvement with an elected AG; but it is remotely possible that such election would provide a measure of independence that is currently not present, and that would be healthy.

The CNMI budget--We're going to see the new CNMI Constitutional provision in play this year, and it won't be pretty. Governor Fitial will have a proposed budget by April 1. But the pressure on the Legislature to pass a budget by October 1 may force concessions no one likes.

Some ideas for what our CNMI Legislature could be focusing on now:
1. We have too many government employees--and the cuts should be at the top first, where expense is greatest. Constitutional protections apply to those in office, but if our CNMI Congress would pass legislation now that lowers these salaries, we will at least see savings in the future. Do it!
2. They could change to a part-time Legislature. And eliminate the municipal councils. We don't need so much government.
3. They could LEGISLATE a list of essential public services, so that the Governor cannot decide who gets money and who doesn't based on his own preferences, all under the guise of what is essential, if and when the budget doesn't pass.

We want a rational process, not unmitigated and unrestricted politics.

Community--The SSHS Manta Ray Band concerts on 3/26 and 3/27 were a success. Great performances, reasonably good attendance, successful fundraising. Just one small complaint: fundraising should be transparent. When you've set a specific goal ($140,000) for your trip to Carnegie Hall, you should be telling and showing exactly how close you are to the goal, on a regular basis. You shouldn't dodge specific questions like 'how much more do you need to reach your goal?'with vague assertions like 'we're close.'

Today's Tribune has the headline announcing Matt Gregory's resignation from the post of Attorney General. There have been occasional cries of discontent over Matt's handling of the post. There have been occasional rumors that Matt was being canned by the Governor. But mostly, there's just been Matt being very quiet in the job.

And I was surprised by the news of his resignation. The Governor has another 18 months in office. There doesn't seem to be any pressing reason to change Attorney General.

I read the news story looking for clues about the story behind the headlines. Matt's basic reason is a desire to return to private practice. Not every lawyer likes public service; and private practice is generally more lucrative. So this reason seems to cover the decision to resign completely.

But wait--in addition to this, Matt's statement announcing his resignation apparently mentions three specific topics:

1. the AG Office's commitment to fighting corruption (and their close working relationship with the feds in the case against Lieutenant Governor Tim Villagomez).

2. the AG's success in winning a lawsuit against the IRS and bringing in a "major monetary award" of $33 million.

3. the likely increase in tourism soon with an increase in flights, and the relatively small negative effect of federalization.

I find it interesting that Matt chooses these three particular items to highlight in his resignation statement. To me, it hints at stress and disagreements with the Governor.

The first --anti corruption--could almost be a white-wash. This government isn't any better at stopping corruption than any other has been; and in fact it seems wedded to the same corrupt practices of perks and nepotism that we've seen before. But Matt's quote on the bravery of his staff, who fight corruption "at severe career risk" suggests something else. It suggests a reality that the AG's office really is committed to enforcing the law and faces some pressure against doing their jobs.

The second tells us exactly what we've been asking--how much money is the Governor hiding from the CNMI Legislature in his budget projections? It seems that the Governor is funding the federalization lawsuit with public funds, and that he's not put those funds in any budget projection, but has them squirreled away, having received them as awards from litigation. Appropriations, however, are a congressional job, not an executive privilege. This money needs to be reported to the Legislature and subject to Congressional appropriation. Matt's mention of these funds is ammunition for the Legislature to use in getting control over all CNMI public funds.

The third is the most telling of all.

"While federalization has the capacity to damage the economy of the Commonwealth, we have increasing tourism numbers and you'll soon find out there is going to be a significant increase in flights. I believe we may see 19 additional flights in the next few months. So it's a couple steps forwad and one step back. Federalization is a negative but there are positives developing in parallel."