DOCSLIB.ORG

Thompson, Larry D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thompson, Larry D Executive Branch Profile JOYCE E. KITCHENS “Managing Partner” of the “World’s Largest Law Firm” Larry D. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General WHEN THE GOING gets tough, get Larry Thompson. “If there’s With his trademark understatement, Thompson describes his new post as “very interesting and challenging.” Even anyone I want in Washington at a time of crisis, it is Larry in years past, the post of deputy attorney general has been Thompson,” declared criminal defense attorney Jerome J. considered one of the most critical, and demanding, in the executive branch. Essentially serving as managing partner of (Jerry) Froelich Jr. what is often called “the world’s largest law firm,” the deputy attorney general (known in DOJ parlance as DAG) serves as the department’s second-in-command — the chief operating One of Thompson’s former partners at Atlanta’s King & officer, with responsibility for the day-to-day operations of a Spalding,H. Lane Dennard Jr., echoed that sentiment: “When sprawling bureaucracy of more than 125,000 employees and the chips are down, you want Larry Thompson on your side. a budget of $21 billion. Every single component of the depart- Larry gave up a lot for what he is doing, but he is the kind of ment reports to the deputy attorney general, who has direct person we need in public service” — now more than ever. oversight of components with criminal jurisdiction — com- In a brief statement at his April 5 confirmation hearing ponents such as the criminal division and the FBI, as well as before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the deputy attorney the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau general-designate — a longtime FBA member and an alum- of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and nus of the FBA’s Government Relations Committee — out- Naturalization Service, Interpol, and the Executive Office lined his goals for the Department of Justice. He testified for U.S. Attorneys (including the offices of the 94 U.S. attor- that he planned to focus on the “traditional role of law en- neys all across the country). Other components — generally forcement,” and pursue cases involving multinational drug those with civil responsibilities (such as the civil division, civil traffickers and terrorists. No one could have imagined at rights, antitrust, tax, and environment and natural resources) the time how prophetic his words would be — even though — report to the DAG through the associate attorney general. DOJ’s ongoing investi- Before the world changed on Sept. 11, Thompson’s many gation into the Sept. 11 responsibilities included meeting regularly with other dep- attacks, unprecedented uties of other agencies on matters of national security and in its scope, is anything overseeing management review of all 94 offices of the U.S. but “traditional.” Larry attorneys, as well as developing the 2003 budget, perfor- Thompson is making mance measurements for the departments and their compo- history. nents, and conducting management reviews of the FBI. He is The President’s Feb. also charged with reporting to the attorney general on a port- 14 announcement of folio of legal policy issues, including racial profiling in federal Thompson’s nomina- law enforcement and issues related to capital punishment. tion as deputy attorney Now Thompson also finds himself in the thick of the general drew accolades most massive law enforcement investigation ever mounted, from such disparate with virtually all the key players — including the FBI, the groups as the National criminal division of the Justice Department, and the U.S. at- Fraternal Order of Po- torneys’ offices all across the country — reporting to him. lice and the National And he is at the center of ongoing debates over whether Association of Crimi- (and, if so, how) to restructure the FBI. On the table are nal Defense Lawyers. proposals for massive reorganization of the elite police force Though some cynics agency into a counterterrorism organization. opined that the appoint- Like Attorney General Ashcroft (who served the “Show ment was designed in Me State” as attorney general, governor, and U.S. senator), part to help blunt criticism that Attorney General Ashcroft the deputy attorney general is a native Missourian. Born in was insensitive to race issues, there was no room to dispute 1945, the son of a railroad laborer, Thompson attended seg- that Thompson’s credentials for the position were — in the regated schools in Hannibal, Mark Twain’s hometown on the words of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s chair — “unsur- banks of the mighty Mississippi. He noted in his confirma- passed.” tion testimony that, growing up, he “could not have imagined 40 years ago” that he would one day stand before the Senate willing to put in time and effort, and, as a result, those work- as the President’s nominee for such a lofty post. ing with him willingly do the same,” praised Joe Whitley. The deputy attorney general is a 1967 cum laude gradu- As U.S. attorney, Thompson worked hard to maintain ate of Culver–Stockton­­ College in Canton, Miss., which was good relationships not only with agency clients but also named last year as one of America’s best Christian colleges. with opposing defense counsel. Jerry Froelich remembered He received his master’s degree from Michigan State Univer- defending a drug case in Rome, Ga., with two or three Af- sity in 1969 and his law degree from the University of Mich- rican-American jurors on the panel. “Larry came in on the igan in 1974. He passed the Missouri bar that same year and third day of the case, and sat at the prosecution table. I filed launched his career in the Legal Department at Monsanto a motion to dismiss for the prosecution’s effort to influence Corp., where he worked alongside future Supreme Court Jus- the jury. Some prosecutors take that kind of thing personally, tice Clarence Thomas. (Years later, Thompson would repre- but Larry took it in good humor, and we became friends.” He sent Thomas in his contentious 1991 Supreme Court confir- mation hearings, helping Thomas defend himself against the sexual harassment allegations of law professor Anita Hill.) King & Spalding first got a good look at the future dep- uty attorney general when the firm was retained to represent Monsanto in a case. The firm knew a good thing when it saw it and “poached” Thompson for private practice. He moved to Atlanta and joined the firm in 1977, working in its liti- gation and antitrust departments. Judge Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recalled the time he was approached by Dr. Calvert Smith, president of Morris Brown College in Atlanta. The college was experiencing financial difficulties and was embroiled in a number of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant. Dr. Smith asked Judge Cooper to refer him to a “talented, aggres- sive attorney” and Judge Cooper recommended Thompson. Dr. Smith later told Judge Cooper that hiring Thompson was the best move he ever made as college president. Many of the lawsuits “disappeared,” and the remainder were won or settled. “Larry Thompson and King & Spalding answered the call, and did a superb job,” Judge Cooper remembered. Portrait by Lu Steed In 1982, President Reagan named Thompson as U.S. at- added, “When he was U.S. attorney, we didn’t always agree, torney for the Northern District of Georgia. In that capacity, but he always listened.” Thompson directed the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Thompson returned to King & Spalding at the end of his Enforcement Task Force and served on the attorney gener- term, in 1986, and resumed his practice, focusing primarily al’s Economic Crime Council. And his tenure helped usher on white-collar criminal defense and corporate investiga- the U.S. attorney’s office into a new era of professionalism. tions. Asked to recount some of the highlights of that work, “He was a great U.S. attorney. One of his strongest talents he demurs. “The cases I’m most proud of, I can’t discuss.” is his ability to get people to talk and work with each other. But when pressed, he notes that, in at least three cases, he has Under his leadership, we had one of the most cohesive drug been able to convince the government that investigation was enforcement task forces,” said Joe D. Whitley, former U. S. not warranted, and that continued investigation would cause attorney for the Middle and Northern Districts, now a part- irreparable harm. In one case, he persuaded the government ner at Alston & Bird. “One of the greatest gifts Larry left for to withdraw a grand jury subpoena. the people who came after him as U.S. attorney … was the Hon. Norman S. Fletcher, chief justice of the Supreme assistant U.S. attorneys he hired. He has an eye for talent, Court of Georgia, recounted Thompson’s defense of a friend ability, and people who can get the job done.” of his. “It is a pleasure to … see how [Thompson] works. He Amy Levin Weil, one of the assistant U.S. attorneys always plays by the rules. He is so professional in the way whom Thompson hired, enthuses, “He was a great boss — he handles things. He stands by his clients, believes in them, very supportive of the assistants and their work. He had good and will always go the extra mile.” The chief justice added, people sense, and was a really good leader. He was interested “Anything you would write praising Larry Thompson, you in working on cases himself and staying in touch with cases.” can attribute to me.” Indeed, Thompson occasionally tried cases himself, just to After chairing Georgia Lawyers for George Bush (the fa- show he could get “down in the trenches.” ther of the current President), Thompson declined the elder And Thompson’s work ethic has long been the stuff of President Bush’s invitation to serve as assistant secretary of legends.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2008 Annual Report
    5 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE FEATURED ARTICLES AND THE 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Benjamin Franklin’s Shoe PAGE 4 A Road Rich with Milestones PAGE 10 Today and Tomorrow: 2008 Annual Report PAGE 16 2008 Financials PAGE 22 FEATUREMAILBOX ONE 2 NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER 5 Years of Excellence LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Dear Friends: Exceptional. That is the only word that can fully describe the remarkable strides the National Constitution Center has made in the past five years. Since opening its doors on July 4, 2003, it has developed into one of the most esteemed institutions for the ongoing study, discussion and celebration of the United States’ most cherished document. We’re pleased to present a celebration of the Center’s first five years and the 2008 Annual Report. In the following pages you will read about the Center’s earliest days and the milestones it has experienced. You will learn about the moving exhibitions it has developed and presented over the years. You will look back at the many robust public conversations led by national figures that have occurred on site, and you will be introduced to a new and innovative international initiative destined to carry the Center boldly into the future. It has been a true pleasure to work for this venerable institution, informing and inspiring We the People. We both look forward to witnessing the Center’s future achievements and we are honored that the next chapter of this story will be written by the Center’s new Chairman, President Bill Clinton. Sincerely, President George H. W. Bush Joseph M.
    [Show full text]
  • Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief
    No. 07-1015 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ JOHN D. ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, and ROBERT MUELLER, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Petitioners, v. JAVAID IQBAL, et al., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit __________ BRIEF OF WILLIAM P. BARR, GRIFFIN BELL, BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, EDWIN MEESE III, WILLIAM S. SESSIONS, RICHARD THORNBURGH, AND WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Daniel J. Popeo 1314 Cleveland St. Richard A. Samp Alexandria, VA 22302 (Counsel of Record) (703) 931-1704 Washington Legal Foundation 2009 Mass. Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-0302 Date: September 5, 2008 QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual- capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. 2. Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high- ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... iv INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...............1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................5 ARGUMENT...............................11 I. THE DECISION BELOW IMPROPERLY PERMITS COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO DISCOVERY BASED ON MERE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS OF WRONGDOING.......................11 II.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 155, Pt
    March 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 155, Pt. 6 7157 raise about $300 billion a year. They Sunday, digging deep and putting were confirmed without a single dis- are not refunding that. So this is an- money in, a far greater percentage of senting vote by Democrats. Notwith- other giant problem the President has their pocket—and they are not getting standing that, Senate Republicans with his budget. any tax break for that. They are not have decided to ignore the national se- A couple other concluding points. We getting a tax break. They take a stand- curity challenges this country is facing have a situation here where we should ard deduction and they give to charity since the attacks of 9/11, and they have sit down together and think about our because it helps the people in this returned to their partisan, narrow, ide- children, our grandchildren. Instead of country who are in need. These are ological, and divisive tactics of the giving us what we want today, let us people who barely have enough money 1990s. think about the debt we are passing on to pay for food for their own families, In fact, it was the nomination of Eric to them. What is that debt like? It is as yet they give to charity. Holder to be the Deputy Attorney Gen- though we have taken their credit card Let us stop setting up a straw man eral in 1997 that was the last time a and we are running up their credit card that somehow the very wealthy among President’s choice for Deputy Attorney and they have to pay the finance us won’t give anything to charity if we General was held up in the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System
    FEWER HANDS, MORE MERCY: A PLEA FOR A BETTER FEDERAL CLEMENCY SYSTEM Mark Osler*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 465 I. A SWAMP OF UNNECESSARY PROCESS .................................................. 470 A. From Simplicity to Complexity ....................................................... 470 B. The Clemency System Today .......................................................... 477 1. The Basic Process ......................................................................... 477 a. The Pardon Attorney’s Staff ..................................................... 478 b. The Pardon Attorney ................................................................ 479 c. The Staff of the Deputy Attorney General ................................. 481 d. The Deputy Attorney General ................................................... 481 e. The White House Counsel Staff ................................................ 483 f. The White House Counsel ......................................................... 484 g. The President ............................................................................ 484 2. Clemency Project 2014 ................................................................ 485 C. The Effect of a Bias in Favor of Negative Decisions ...................... 489 II. BETTER EXAMPLES: STATE AND FEDERAL .......................................... 491 A. State Systems ................................................................................... 491 1. A Diversity
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties
    “What is astonishing is that the attorney-client privilege, one of the foundational rights on which rests Anglo-American legal culture . should now be under siege. The two federal agencies that have been most SPECIAL REPORT: vigorous in seeking waiver of the attorney-client privilege have been the Department of Federal Erosion Justice and — unfortunately, I of Business must say — the Securities and Exchange Commission.” Civil Liberties Paul S. Atkins SEC Commissioner January 18, 2008 WLF Washington Legal Foundation “The message should be clear Advocate for freedom and justice© 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW that prosecutions will go as high Washington, DC 20036 up the corporate hierarchy as www.wlf.org the evidence permits and we will hold senior managers of corporations accountable, as well as the corporation itself.” Granta Y. Nakayama EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance June 12, 2006 SPECIAL REPORT: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties This Report, along with WLF’s Timeline: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties, is a part of our ongoing CRIMINALIZATION OF FREE ENTERPRISE—BUSINESS CIVIL LIBERTIES PROGRAM. For more information on this program or to receive additional copies of this Report or the Timeline, please contact WLF at (202) 588-0302 or visit us online at www.wlf.org. Copyright © 2008 Washington Legal Foundation Table of Contents Introduction: The Honorable Dick Thornburgh .........................ii Chapter One: Mens Rea, Public Welfare Offenses, and the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine ............................ 1-1 Chapter Two: Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Enforcement Policies ............................................. 2-1 Chapter Three: Department of Justice Criminal Prosecution Policies ....... 3-1 Chapter Four: Parallel Civil and Criminal Prosecutions ................
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys
    Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys Sara Sun Beale* The reputation and credibility of the Department of Justice were badly tarnished during the Bush administration. This article focuses on concerns regarding the role of partisan politics.1 Critics charge that during the Bush administration improper partisan political considerations pervasively influenced a wide range of decisions including the selection of immigration judges, summer interns and line attorneys; the assignment of career attorneys to particular details; the evaluation of the performance of United States Attorneys; and the decision whether and when to file charges in cases with political ramifications. The Inspector General’s lengthy and highly critical reports have substantiated some of these charges.2 The first two Inspector General (IG) Reports found that the Department improperly used political criteria in hiring and assigning some immigration judges, interns, and career prosecutors.3 The third report * Charles L.B. Lowndes Professor, Duke Law School, Durham, N.C. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding research assistance provided by Michael Devlin, Meghan Ferguson, Amy Taylor, and Molly Brownfield, and the helpful comments of Norman Abrams, Albert Alschuler, Rachel Barkow, Anthony Barkow, Candace Carroll, Colm Connolly, Ronald Goldstock, Bruce Green, Lisa Kern Griffin, James Jacobs, Susan Klein, Daniel Richman, and Adam Safwat. Of course any errors are my own. 1 Other serious concerns about the Department have been raised, particularly in connection with its role in the war on terror. For example, the Department has been the subject of intense criticism for legal analysis that led to the authorization of brutal interrogation techniques for detainees.
    [Show full text]
  • 9929555.PDF (7.296Mb)
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE WARRING FACTIONS: SENATORS, NOMINEES, AND INTEREST GROUPS IN THE SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By LAUREN MICHELLE COHEN Norman, Oklahoma 1999 ÜMI Number: 9929555 UMI Microform 9929555 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program
    10 July 2009 Preface (U) Title III of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008 required the Inspectors General (IGs) of the elements of the Intelligence Community that participated in the President's Surveillance Program (PSP) to conduct a comprehensive review of the program. The IGs of the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence participated in the review required under the Act. The Act required the IGs to submit a comprehensive report on the review to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Committee on the Judiciary. (U) In response to Title III requirements, we have prepared this unclassified report on the PSP, which summarizes the collective results of our reviews. Because many aspects of the PSP remain classified, and in order to provide the Congressional committees the complete results of our reviews, we also prepared, and have bound separately, a classified report on the PSP. The individual reports detailing the results of each IG's review are annexes to the classified report . L Co,J)_~. £b./I2W Glenn A. Fine Gordon S. Heddell o Inspector General Acting Inspector General Department of Justice Department of Defense r 9rlnl Wtt&J1;:J f20j0JLc( Patricia A. LeWiS Ge ~ Acting Inspector General Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency National Security Agency ROkh:.~ ~ Inspector General Office of the Director of National Intelligence UNCLASSIFIED REPORT ON THE PRESIDENT'S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM I.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2009 Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward Daniel C. Richman Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Daniel C. Richman, Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 58 DUKE L. J. 2087 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2464 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL CONTROL OF FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD DANIEL RICHMANt ABSTRACT This Essay explores the mechanisms of control over federal criminal enforcement that the administration and Congress used or failed to use during George W. Bush's presidency. It gives particular attention to Congress, not because legislators played a dominant role, but because they generally chose to play such a subordinate role. My fear is that the media focus on management inadequacies or abuses within the Justice Department during the Bush administrationmight lead policymakers and observers to overlook the
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Norms and Article Ii
    PRESIDENTIAL NORMS AND ARTICLE II Daphna Renan INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2189 I. STRUCTURAL NORMS AS A LENS ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER ............................... 2195 A. Defining Structural Norms ............................................................................................ 2197 B. Moral Reasons to Comply with Social Expectations ................................................. 2198 C. Group-Relative and Normatively Provisional ............................................................. 2203 D. Identification and Pathways of Constraint ................................................................. 2204 II. THE NORM-BASED PRESIDENCY .................................................................................. 2206 A. Insulation Norms: Investigatory Independence .......................................................... 2207 B. Self-Dealing Norms: Conflict-of-Interest Rules ........................................................... 2215 C. Discretion-Structuring Norms: Deliberative Presidency ........................................... 2221 D. Authority-Allocating Norms .......................................................................................... 2230 1. Going Public ............................................................................................................... 2231 2. Chief Legislator .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]