To be sure, partisans will level the “politicization” charge at members of the party opposite whether or not the current attorney general is perceived to be aboveboard. But one of the questions for those trying to make heads and tails out of the Mar-a-Lago mess ought to be whether Garland has done anything to undermine the public’s faith in his integrity — based on a reputation shaped from nine years of prior Justice Department service and 23 years on the D.C. federal appeals court. That he was appointed by a Democratic President should not conclusively answer that question, one way or the other; the same President who appointed Elliot Richardson also appointed (convicted felon) John Mitchell.
Put another way, the right way to understand the objectivity of the Justice Department is to understand the objectivity of its current leader. And as progressive criticisms of Garland have only underscored, his reputation in that respect has, at least thus far, been almost entirely unassailable.
Given the current Supreme Court’s understanding of executive power, the tension that can arise from the attorney general’s obligation to his two masters can only be fully eliminated by a constitutional amendment. But as in the case of Elliot Richardson, an attorney general who has the public’s trust can do a lot to mitigate that tension — both by faithfully living up to that reputation while he holds his office, and by stepping aside if and when the moment comes when he no longer believes that he can.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member