Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Last month the federal judge in the trial of Charlie Lynch, who was convicted of running a medical marijuana dispensary that was in full compliance with state and local law, asked the DOJ to weigh in before he sentenced Lynch. I said at the time that it sounded like the judge was looking for a little political cover to give Lynch a particularly light sentence. Unfortunately, the Obama DOJ has decided to let Lynch go down in flames.
The response brief they filed to the court's inquiries is an appalling document. Not only do they not think Lynch should get a light sentence, they proclaim that his conviction is entirely in line with the new administration's policy on medical marijuana:
Nevertheless, at the request of the USAO, in response to the Court's inquiries, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has reviewed the facts of this case and determined that the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of defendant are entirely consistent with the policies of DOJ and with public statements made by the Attorney General with respect to marijuana prosecutions. Accordingly, the USAO has been instructed to proceed with the sentencing recommendations previously filed in this case. A letter from DOJ in Washington D.C. confirming these points is attached hereto.
Unfortunately, this is wrong. This conviction is not at all in line with the statements made by the Attorney General and the President on federal prosecutions for medical marijuana. Balko has it exactly right:
It would be merely disappointing had the DOJ based its decision not to intervene on the fact that a verdict had already been rendered in Lynch's case. But the DOJ response goes much further, specifically stating that entire prosecution of Lynch is consistent with the government's new position on medical marijuana, as laid out by Holder. I's hard to say, then, exactly what distinguishes Obama's position on medical marijuana from Bush's. Lynch sought out and received assurance from state and local authorities that he was in complete compliance with state and local law. If that isn't enough to meet Holder's new policy, what is?This decision looks particularly ugly in light of Obama's continuing efforts to protect Bush's torture team from prosecution, from Cheney, Yoo, and Bybee on down to the CIA operatives who actually administered the torture techniques. The message from Obama seems to be that when it comes to powerful government employees and covert agents breaking the law, he's going to "look forward" and do everything he can to protect them from being held accountable, up to and including questionable assertions of executive power. Regular people who may violate ambiguous laws, on the other hand, can expect no such "looking forward," just more of the same: the full brunt force of government tumbling down on top of them.
We can't prosecute those who tortured, or even those who ordered others to torture, because they were acting on legal advice saying it was okay. But Charlie Lynch goes out of his way to make sure he's complying with state and local law and he can still be arrested and sent to prison for it - even when the administration publicly says that it's a waste of resources and they will no longer pursue such prosecutions.
So far, there isn't much difference between the Obama DOJ and the Bush DOJ. In some ways, they're actually worse (invoking sovereign immunity to protect the executive from judicial scrutiny, for instance, and actually threatening to send the FBI in to a judge's chambers to remove evidence already turned over in the case). This is not the change we were promised, it's more of the same.
Politics
Comments
I worked my ass off on the campaign here in Madison, and more and more I'm starting to think that Obama just plain sucks.
Posted by: Skip | April 22, 2009 9:40 AM
I keep telling people I know that I think Obama is a terrible president and I voted for him because I thought McCain would be worse. Not voting is looking more and more attractive every year. I just need someone to convince me that not voting will actually change anything. Some times I hate democracy (or democratic republicanism, whatever). Is it too late to try to work on some kind of meritocracy? Or is that flawed in a way that I have not thought of?
Posted by: Joshua White | April 22, 2009 9:48 AM
1) The AG and DOJ, when working as they should, are independent of the President. So laying something Holder has done on Obama in this case reeks of vendetta-ism.
2) Apparently you didn't hear the news. While this may not be as definitive as we would like, it's at least a step in the right direction.
Posted by: protest fish | April 22, 2009 10:21 AM
I just need someone to convince me that not voting will actually change anything.
Well, a whole lot of Americans chose not to vote back in 2000, and look at all the change we got then!
Posted by: Raging bee | April 22, 2009 10:32 AM
Whether the AG and the President are independent or not, Obama has given his views on marijuana laws. You can think that Obama's views don't influence the AG if you like, but I tend to think if Obama were to state he was in favor of reforming the laws and backing the states right to allow for medical marijuana, the AG would follow suit.
It is hard for me to understand how someone like Obama, who is well educated, could look at the evidence and not see that throwing drug users in jail is a terrible idea. That and his stand on gay rights is a big disappointment.
Posted by: Owen | April 22, 2009 10:47 AM
Owen, I'm with you on the drug ruling.
With regards to Obama's stance on gay rights, however, I think a president who takes a relatively ambiguous position but allows the country to move in whichever direction it likes (same-sex marriage now legal in Iowa and Vermont, with more seemingly to come) over a president who takes a very definitive stance in an attempt to drag the country kicking and screaming into a certain direction.
Posted by: protest fish | April 22, 2009 11:07 AM
Just an off-the-wall idea here, but, assuming there's a lot more people who are beginning to doubt the point of voting, I wonder if it would get any message or point across to the politicians on both sides if, next election, there was masses and masses of people who went to vote, walked up to the voting machines, then quite pointedly turned around and walked out again without voting.
Posted by: Smidgy | April 22, 2009 11:18 AM
@Smidgy
Then you'd have the pleasure of being governed by people you didn't vote for, instead of possibly being disappointed by people you did.
Pick your poison I guess.
Posted by: protest fish | April 22, 2009 11:22 AM
protest fish wrote:
So we shouldn't hold Bush responsible for anything done by the DOJ when he was president? This is silly. The AG, while theoretically "independent" in only a few specific ways, is appointed by the president and is a member of his cabinet. The president sets the agenda and has enormous influence over what goes on. And if the people he appoints refuse to do what he thinks should be done, he has the full authority to fire them and put someone in their place that will. There is no genuine independence there except in a few specific instances, like the OLC, which is supposed to be independent and whose rulings are binding by law - but even in those cases, the president can overturn those decisions as long as he does so with an explicit finding.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 22, 2009 11:27 AM
Thank you for the response, Ed. Much appreciated.
I would argue that one of the many, many, many reasons the Bush administration went so wrong is because the DOJ functioned as little more than a puppet organization. In which case Bush should be held responsible for co-opting the DOJ, much as the DOJ should be held responsible for allowing itself to be co-opted.
Posted by: protest fish | April 22, 2009 11:32 AM
This an example of being enraged when people you mostly agree with are wrong on a few points. It's hard not to be more angry than if your opponent had taken a wrong position, at least you'd expect it then.
Now, I'm not saying that Obama is right here, clearly not. However, all the other places he is right (and McCain is wrong) clearly make him still the better choice. Not perfect, but better.
Now we just have to work on the parts where he's wrong, rather than on everything. And we can have hope that he'll come to his senses, if given good advice.
Posted by: Penn | April 22, 2009 11:36 AM
Perhaps. However, if there's a lot of people who feel the same way as Joshua, and, instead of merely not voting, they make something of a public display of not voting, it might make both parties realise there's potentially a lot of votes to be picked up by listening to the people who don't currently vote at all, instead of merely trying to woo the swing voters without losing too many of their base voters.
Posted by: Smidgy | April 22, 2009 11:36 AM
However, if there's a lot of people who feel the same way as Joshua, and, instead of merely not voting, they make something of a public display of not voting, it might make both parties realise there's potentially a lot of votes to be picked up by listening to the people who don't currently vote at all, instead of merely trying to woo the swing voters without losing too many of their base voters.
That's not what happened in 2000, when voter turnout was at one of its lowest points in US history. The Adult Baby -- oops, I mean Republican -- Party won't try to woo disenchanted Obama supporters, they'll just count on them not to counterbalance their own loony-right base in 2012. And the Democrats won't try to woo them either, because they're too fickle and uncommmitted for the Democrats to risk any change to try to get.
When the ABP -- sorry, the GOP -- does something sensible, the loony right cry about "betrayal" and loudly threaten to stay home; but they never carry out that threat, and continue supporting the ABP. When the Democrats cave on something important to the progressives, they cry about "betrayal" and actually DO stay home, thus rewarding the Republicans for their own party's imperfections. That's why the far right win elections, and why the Democratic establishment are reluctant to try to appeal to progressives. As political actors, we're just not consistently involved enough to be a force. And no, Obama's election doesn't change that; we have to follow through and stay involved if we're going to get anything done. Otherwise Obama will be the lone progressive, and won't be able to accomplish anything.
So many years of manufactured hysteria about drugs won't change overnight; but it is starting to change. Thsi is not the time to be pretending Obama is worthless and giving up.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 22, 2009 11:57 AM
It has certainly been implied that there will be no new cases like Lynch's. If this turns out to be the case, then the Obama administration will have proven to be different in spite of it's unfortunate stance on this case. We'll have to wait and see. Politics is often about unconscionable compromises.
Posted by: noel | April 22, 2009 11:59 AM
noel-
And what unconscionable compromise was required to file this brief? I don't see any that were necessary at all. The DOJ could very easily have responded to the judge's request and said that because Lynch was complying with state and local law and the DOJ is no longer interested in pursuing charges against those who do, they don't think he should be punished for what he did.
I keep hearing this "we need to wait and see, he hasn't been in office long" line from Obama's defenders on all of these legal issues, but these are issues that do not require political compromise at all. They don't have to get Congress to change a law, so no time is required to fix the problem. Changing the DOJ's legal position in a case is simple to do. We know that because Obama did so in several other cases, like the EPA v California suit, where he ordered a change in the government's legal position on his first day in office. In cases where there was a need for a period of time to evaluate the evidence, specifically the Gitmo tribunals, he ordered prosecutors to ask for the cases to be suspended or continued to allow his appointees time to do so. But he's done neither of those things in the many cases involving government secrecy, wiretapping, torture, rendition and the state secrets privilege. He has deliberately chosen not to change the government's position in those cases.
In this drug case, they could quite easily have changed the government's position during the sentencing phase. The judge asked them to file a brief precisely for that purpose and they still didn't do it. This is an unconscionable non-compromise, it seems to me.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 22, 2009 12:09 PM
"So we shouldn't hold Bush responsible for anything done by the DOJ when he was president? "
How quickly we seem to forget. The difference is there is documented proof that the Gonzales DOJ actively sought authorization from the executive branch for decisions.
We have no evidence that Holder is doing the same.
Under the law and the way it is supposed to work the DOJ is not beholden to the executive branch and we are starting to see that state of normality return.
The DOJ is free to give Obama the finger. That seems to be happening.
There is also the very real chance this statement never even crossed Holders desk but was authored by some mid level career guy.
Jesus, the amount of whining about the current administration only three and a half months into the term is amazing. You all act like Obama is some left version of W and can exeercise unilateral power with the backing of his rubber stamp monkey congress and just make everything better instantly. Did you all fail at civics in highschool?
Posted by: Ian | April 22, 2009 12:25 PM
If you live in California and favor legalization of marijuana for adults, tell your state representatives to support California Assembly Bill 390. Visit yes390.org
Posted by: AB 390 | April 22, 2009 1:11 PM
Well Obama still speaks better than Bush.
Seriously, I think there are quid pro quo's behind the scenes, don't you? It's like a chess game: you have to sacrifice even important things to win the game. Obama is too intelligent to actually believe pot smoking is a threat to the country. And there are many pieces to his deplorable position on the torturers, including pressure from foreign governments, the CIA, congress, and others(?).
And, as Ian points out, he's not emperor of the world (yet).
Posted by: noel | April 22, 2009 1:13 PM
Ian - I believe you go way too far in your argument to not hold Obama accountable.
If Obama made either campaign promises or clearly communicated his position on this matter and those communications contradict the execution of policy at the Justice Dept., I would expect the White House to issue a timely communication that is coordinated with what Justice is doing explaining and/or rationalizing the divergence.
It's extremely naive to believe the current Justice Dept's response brief was written and released to the Court ignorant of Obama's positions. I would expect the author(s) of the brief to provide a 'heads-up' up the food chain in order to validate support and allow the proper communication of information if a divergence existed.
According to Ed's statement:
Assuming these facts are correct, Obama does deserve criticism on this topic unless Ed failed to note a response by Obama. At least for a failure to communicate and potentially as bad as hypocritically reversing policy with no notice.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 22, 2009 2:40 PM
I voted for Obama in the primaries. After his FISA 180 last summer, it was apparent that the man had no principles. With each passing day, that view is cemented. Many say that McCain would have been worse; I'm not so sure anymore. My vote for Bob Barr looks better everyday.
Posted by: Johnny Clamboat | April 22, 2009 2:50 PM
I voted for Obama in the primaries. After his FISA 180 last summer, it was apparent that the man had no principles.
Right -- of all the specific things Obama has done since getting elected, in a wide range of policy areas, THAT ONE ACTION proves he has no principles at all. None of his other actions need even be mentioned.
My vote for Bob Barr looks better everyday.
Based on what specific actions of Barr's, exactly?
The above post shows nothing but babyish cowardice and irresponsibility: vote for the guy you think looks best; but the minute he does something less than perfect, jump ship and join the chrorus of naysayers, and then pretend some guy with no serious track record at all would have been better, based on nothing but empty wishful thinking. Thsi is the kind of "thinking" that got Bush Jr. elected (sort of) in 2000; and I, for one, have no desire to repeat that mistake again.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 22, 2009 3:10 PM
Obama is reluctant to prosecute CIA operatives following an explicit legal opinion allowing, essentially, torture.
Wouldn't that be consistent with also being reluctant to throw the book at someone acting in full compliance with State and local law?
Just saying . . .
Posted by: PensiveGadfly | April 22, 2009 3:26 PM
Obama is not living up to my expectations yet. However, McCain would have been far worse, and had he been elected and went on to die while in office, it would have been disastrous. Obama was the only choice, unfortunately. I feel he thinks he has to be a bit more moderate until term two. Hopefully by then, support for marijuana reform will cross the 50% threshold, or at least, take the lead among the for/against/undecided polls. It's pretty close right now, currently running only 7% behind the contrary position.
Posted by: Robert Faber | April 22, 2009 3:38 PM
This notion that the DOJ is entirely independent of the president is absolute nonsense. The DOJ is an executive agency whose leadership is appointed by the president. It is no more independent of the president than any other executive agency, except in very specific circumstances (the OLC example mentioned before). If Obama had no control over the DOJ, how did he order them to reverse the government's position in EPA v California? If he had no control over the DOJ, how did he order them to make changes in FOIA policies? If he had no control over the DOJ, how could he have made any statements at all on how his administration would handle prosecution of medical marijuana cases?
While it's true that the DOJ should act independently of the president and all political considerations when making decisions where the president would have a conflict of interest -- like the Bush DOJ indicting Ted Stevens, for example, or any other sitting politician -- those decisions are generally handled at the level of the US Attorney's offices. That's the level at which political independence is necessary and, hopefully, observed. But when it comes to most matters of policy and focus, the DOJ acts just like any other executive agency and the president sets the agenda and determines the policy. That's why Bill Clinton, for example, could shift the focus of the DOJ away from prosecuting consensual adult pornography. If you really think the DOJ acts independently of the president and is taking this position in defiance of Obama's will, you really are kidding yourselves.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 22, 2009 3:48 PM
Sounds like whining to me. What, you thought electing a president would magically make the sun rise in another place? OMG Obama is in office less than 100 days and every little thing isn't working exactly as you think it should. Get over it.
If you wish to change marijuana laws work through the normal channels. Picket, protest, letter writing, political action and lobbying congressmen. Do the hard work of making this nation the one you want to live in. One battle does not win a war.
The DOJ is somewhat more than nominally independent.The case was under way and on tracks before this administration came in. Any of you who served in the military understand that the leaders shouldn't micromanage. That doing so has a price. The DOJ gets a set of general standing policies that are applied at the beginning of a case. Once under way the case runs as laid out.
This is a nation of roughly 300,000,000 people Obama can't play God and hope to be in charge of 'every sparrow that falls from a branch'. Not if he want to effectively run things. Yes, Obama could reach down into the DOJ structure and rescue Lynch but it would disrupt the DOJ, clearly demonstrating he doesn't trust them and it would both cost political capital and provide the GOP with a Willie Horton talking point. The all of these weakening him before the coming battles over energy and economic reforms, much bigger issues than what happens to one man
Assuming this is on their radar at all, this administration is pretty good at multitasking, look for someone in the Whitehouse to make an unofficial call to the judge about sentencing even as the existing DOJ stance remains as selected when the case was first brought to trial. Where and how he serves his sentence is also a good inflection point. Count on this administration to work to keep their fingerprints off any leniency.
Worse comes to worse, and assuming this issue is being watched, at the end of the term you may see a pardon.
Posted by: Art | April 22, 2009 4:10 PM
Art-
Do you not recognize the contradiction in your argument? In one sentence you claim that he's running a nation of 300 million people and can't be expected to fix everyone's problems and in the next sentence you claim that they are so good at multitasking that they're really running a bluff to achieve the same thing without leaving their fingerprints on it. Both of those things can't be true.
Regardless, you are missing the point. This IS on the DOJ's radar because they filed the brief after being asked to do so. It would take no more time and effort to take the correct position in that brief as the incorrect one they ended up taking. And doing so would have been logically consistent with their stated position.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 22, 2009 5:00 PM
Art -
This isn't a case of hold-over from the previous administration. The judge specifically asked for clarification from the new DOJ, because AG Holder and Obama himself made public statements that directly contradict the position of the previous administration. There is no ambiguity here, either there are rogue elements in the DOJ, or Holder and Obama are fucking liars.
From what I've seen thus far, I am starting to think the latter, rather than the former.
Worse comes to worse, and assuming this issue is being watched, at the end of the term you may see a pardon.
How wonderful for Lynch, who wasn't breaking state or local laws and sought to ensure that he was in compliance. Keeping in mind that he probably would have been far more under the radar, had he not drawn attention to himself by making sure he was in compliance. So fuck him and the next three years of his life - he didn't deserve them anyhow.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 22, 2009 5:21 PM
So, it's fine to convict Lynch today, for some possible pardon down the road? Why do people need to defend Obama by saying his actions are the politically expedient thing to do?
Why can't Obama just come right out and do the right thing?
Posted by: Owen | April 22, 2009 5:43 PM
From the document:
"2. Nevertheless, at the request of the USAO, in response
to the Court's inquiries, the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General has reviewed the facts of this case and determined that the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of defendant are entirely consistent with the policies of DOJ and with public statements made by the Attorney General with respect to marijuana prosecutions. Accordingly, the USAO has been instructed to proceed with the sentencing recommendations previously filed in this case. A letter from DOJ in Washington D.C. confirming these points is attached hereto."
If it weren't for the fact that the document only expresses statements made by Holder in public and not one mention of Obama, I would almost think that Obama is staying out of this and is NOT interfering in the topic on whom the DOJ decides to prosecute. Moreover, this is very perfunctory. If the DOJ does not NOT prosecute, why would it not sentence a person found guilty after a successful prosecution? The two go hand in hand. It stands to reason therefore that the DOJ is going to prosecute a matter of law before the federal laws on the subject. And because the federal law is in conflict with the state law, I suspect this will be appealed. This may actually return favorably for some concerned HERE whom are reading subtext where none is written, and only where it would be written by DOJ officials (which do not include one Pres. B. Obama).
Just sayin'
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | April 22, 2009 5:45 PM
Obama has disappointed me more than once. But he's a much better president than McCain would have been, and there's simply no way to describe how much better he is than Palin would have been, had that disaster occurred. And that was the choice we were faced with. Obama/Biden, or McCain/Palin. You want to vote for someone else? They can't win, but hey, feel free. You might even hurt the chances of your second choice.
Now, maybe we should all take a good hard look at the political process that leaves us with these limited choices, and see what we can do to fix it.
Posted by: Tualha | April 22, 2009 7:09 PM
I'll try asking this again. How monolithic is the DOJ? Could Cheney's moles that Gonzales left behind be operating independently of the current administration policies? Is the brief that was filed something which would have required the AG to sign off on, or could a local low-level right-leaning attorney have submitted it on his own?
I remember a big flap when Gonzales fired all the Assistant Attorneys General for political reasons. Presumably they were replaced at the time by "safe" Bush loyalists. I haven't heard that Holder has yet had the time yet to replace those Bush appointees. Or has he? If not, how much control does Holder (let alone Obama) really have over day-to-day operations?
I'm just hanging on to the hope that the DOJ's actions haven't yet lived up to Obama's pre-election rhetoric simply because of bureaucratic inertia and the relatively (though growing) short time since Jan 20.
Posted by: Scott | April 22, 2009 7:49 PM
Why do people need to defend Obama by saying his actions are the politically expedient thing to do?
Because they are, given the sheer extent of all the disgraceful stinking messes Bush Jr. left behind. Even the best President can only do so many good things at once, so whatever Obama does in any given moment, something else -- something non-trivial -- will end up being left undone.
Why can't Obama just come right out and do the right thing?
WHICH right thing? There's so many that have to be done. And it's not exactly like his party is solidly or reliably behind him on any of it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 22, 2009 9:37 PM
WHICH right thing?
Any goddamned right thing. For fucks sakes, I don't expect miracles but christ, he hasn't done a fucking thing right yet.
It's politically expedient to throw the gays under the bus. It's politically expedient to forget everything about being open - except when it comes to torture memos, those he could release - though it appears that nothing much will be done about it. It's politically expedient to downgrade the drug czar to a non-cabinet position, while he puts someone in the position who's more sane than anyone who has ever held the position (though I still think he'd be much better as head of DEA). It's politically expedient to fucking lie to our fucking faces about medical marijuana and throw Lynch in fucking prison.
Fuck you and your partisan hackery. When the fuck is it going to be politically expedient to do the right fucking thing?
Posted by: DuWayne | April 22, 2009 10:44 PM
Ed Brayton said:
>Do you not recognize the contradiction in your argument? >In one sentence you claim that he's running a nation of >300 million people and can't be expected to fix everyone's >problems and in the next sentence you claim that they are >so good at multitasking that they're really running a >bluff to achieve the same thing without leaving their >fingerprints on it. Both of those things can't be true.
>This IS on the DOJ's radar because they filed the brief >after being asked to do so. It would take no more time and >effort to take the correct position in that brief as the >incorrect one they ended up taking
First, I don't know if this administration is paying attention to this particular case. There are a whole lot of more important situations that need immediate attention that will, if things don't go well, effect the entire nation. This made worse because many positions, even within the DOJ, are not filled yet. That said the Obama staff seem to be multitaskers and are far more net savvy and aware of what is going on than the previous administration. I don't draw any conclusions that they, as opposed to the DOJ, are aware of this, it likely would need to come up in a staff meeting, or are willing to pay the price for intervention. There is always a price.
If they do wish to intervene I think they will do so in a manner that costs them as little politically as possible. This is not a bluff. It is more about working within a political system in a way that yields the most effect for the most people at the minimum cost.
It really doesn't matter that the judge asked for an opinion. There is no 'new DOJ' and as a practical matter no administration wants to have a review of court cases that were started but not completed by the previous administration. Doing so would be profoundly demoralizing to the continuity and efforts of the people within the DOJ. Court cases are not improvisational performances. Court cases are assembled and move forward as an assembly. They can take many years to put together. The general course is that the cases from previous administrations are allowed to play out. Once they do sentencing, and appeal (an option I overlooked in my first comment) are logical inflection points where a new administration can exert influence at a reasonable cost without risking political exploitation or demoralizing an entire department with micromanagement.
As for Lynch as an individual the prosecution is sad but he is having his day in court. Once convicted the sentencing would be something to watch and he can appeal.
As much as I feel for Lynch you really ought to look into how most drug offenders are treated. Most don't get this level of attention. Most are represented by an underpaid and overworked PD who gives them the sweet bit of reality that pleading guilty and accepting a lesser charge, even if they are innocent, is the quickest way of getting out of the state or county jail. People spend months in jail awaiting trial. Many of the jails make Gitmo look like a cake walk.
Reform of the drug laws, PD system and jails are vital in my book but they, like so many other worthy causes, have to be added to the bottom of a very long list. And as much as people may want the PTB to reach down and rescue this one man doing so will not do anything to fix the larger problems. Fact being that handing the GOP talking points may mean nothing gets done.
Posted by: Art | April 23, 2009 1:48 AM
Art wrote:
Then you need to pay more attention. Not only did they file a brief in the case, as requested, but if you'd followed the link you would have noticed that it includes an affidavit signed by a deputy attorney general appointed by Obama to confirm that this is the official position of the Obama administration and not from some holdover from the Bush administration.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 23, 2009 1:59 AM
Ed,
giant bureaucracies don't turn on a dime, or at no political cost.
I think you're expecting way too much of a new administration to think that every policy could have been rewritten and applied to extant cases in the space of time that there has been. In practical terms, given how much effort the previous administration applied to burying inertia in the bureaucracy, you can't expect as much as you seem to be expecting in so short a time. It just doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 23, 2009 2:12 AM
Art -
Either Obama and Holder have been lying through their teeth, or Holder is fucking incompetent and needs to be replaced. Because it's not just this - its pretty much everything that Obama has committed to that has not only not been fixed, but we are being told probably won't be fixed.
I am not buying that this is just fucking holdover from the last administration. Obama made a commitment about medical marijuana and Holder made statements to that effect. It's not just about a judge requesting clarification - it's about a judge asking for clarification in the context of supposed new policies that have been announced in public statements by the new AG and the new president.
And don't you dare fucking tell me to look at the way other offenders are treated. I've been one of those other fucking offenders. But I was one of those offenders who was not only breaking federal law, I was also breaking state law at the time. The fact that we are really fucking pissed about this case doesn't detract from everyone else. I doubt you'll find a whole lot of folks who feel more strongly about legalization than I do. And not just of cannabis either. But that's fucking irrelevant to this discussion.
Obama and Holder haven't made a commitment to end the war on drugs or legalize marijuana. They did commit to stopping federal enforcement of cannabis laws, in states with medical marijuana.
The fact that this case wasn't affected by Holder's statements either means he was lying or it means that he doesn't have control over his department. Or maybe he just didn't care enough to actually send a fucking memo.
Let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe that when Bush's DOJ made decisions, they took more than a few days to be implemented? Do you believe that they brooked any fucking dissension in the ranks?
Posted by: DuWayne | April 23, 2009 2:13 AM
Within the first 100 days of office? Not a chance. Getting everybody who wasn't a "loyal Bushie" out on their ass and replaced with a zombie didn't happen overnight. Once that was done, however, sure, Bush could ask what he wanted and it would be done real fast.
Don't expect the mess they left behind to be undone overnight either. The DOJ is rigged with so many political fucking booby traps at this point it's going to take quite some while before the AG has any meaningful control over what's going on in there.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 23, 2009 2:21 AM
Not voting, even if none of the options appeal to you as the "perfect choice", it tantamount to abdicating your ability to effect change. If you are happy having no ability to (in your eyes) improve the governance of your nation then by all means don't vote. Just don't pretend not voting somehow furthers your cause.
It's an action and consequence thing - you want a specific sort of change yet refuse to perform the single most powerful action to effect that change, consequences are your change is not implemented. Or at best, it is but in spite of your (lack of) effort, not thanks to.
Posted by: Captain Obvious | April 23, 2009 9:52 AM
Calm the fuck down, DuWayne, and have a little patience. Do you really think Obama alone can do everything right all the time, without having to wait for either the Federal bureaucracy, the Congress, or the Democratic Party to catch up? I think FDR was one of the greatest Presidents we ever had, but everyone knows even he made HUGE mistakes along the way, and didn't end the Great Depression or crush the Nazis in his first hundred days.
If you think facing reality and trying to be realistic is "partisan hackery," then you really have nothing to contribute. Go support the Republicans -- they're the ones who will benefit most from your sniping anyway.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 23, 2009 10:04 AM
Brian Hertz wrote:
These excuses just get sillier and sillier. This has nothing to do with the whole federal bureaucracy, it has to do with the DOJ. Changing the government's position in a legal case is nothing like changing a government policy. Changing a policy position usually requires legislation and even where it doesn't, it requires a rewriting of implementation rules for existing legislation. That often means it requires the development of new forms, new procedures and sometimes even a restructuring of the agency that oversees it. And it can often mean significant changes must be implemented at the state and federal level too. Yes, those kinds of changes take a great deal of time to accomplish.
The situations we're talking about here simply are not the same. Changing the government's position in a court case is simply a matter of making a motion and filing a brief. You know how easy it is to do? Obama did it in one major court case (EPA v California) and ordered continuances in dozens of others (the Gitmo tribunals) to allow the administration time to evaluate the evidence on his very first day in office. No massive bureaucratic shift was necessary in any of those cases; the government's position was wrong, he had run on a platform of changing those positions and they were changed immediately upon taking office.
The same is true of the various state secrets, wiretapping and torture cases. In at least one case, the government's response was deliberately held until after the new administration took office (it was filed in October) so that the government's position would be Obama's position. There was no need to change it, they had the first crack at taking a legal position. They took the wrong one - the same one the Bush administration would have taken. In at least two other cases, the DOJ was offered a continuance in order to have enough time to thoroughly evaluate the case so they could change their position if they wanted to; they said no, this is their official position and there's no need to change it (the judges in that case were shocked, by the way; they expected a withdrawal of the state secrets privilege, as Obama had promised during the campaign).
And in at least two of these cases, they've managed to turn that huge bureaucracy around and stake out a new position that was even worse than the one Bush took. In one case, they've threatened to have the FBI break into a judge's chambers and remove evidence that has already been turned over. In another, they invented a sovereign immunity rationale for why the government cannot ever be sued in court for violating the FISA law - an astonishingly idiotic argument that goes far beyond even what Bush claimed about warrantless wiretaps. So are you seriously going to tell us that they had time to file the wrong responses but not enough time to file the right ones, the ones consistent with their promises and with the constitution?
None of these excuses are anything but partisan wishful thinking. You want so badly to believe that Obama just wouldn't go along with this. But he has. These decisions have been vetted by his appointees and in case after case they've done the exact opposite of what they said they'd do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 23, 2009 10:29 AM
Oh for fucks sakes Bee, you really are nothing but a petty little partisan hack. If we actually needed more proof, it's your inane call for me to support the fucking republicans, who I have sniped a hella lot harder at and continue to.
My problem isn't that he hasn't accomplished anything, it's that he hasn't even tried and his actions have repeatedly run in complete contradiction to what he has claimed he would do. When he stops fucking lying and actually does anything he has claimed he would, I will be happy to recognize it, until then, I am going to continue calling it as it comes.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 23, 2009 11:04 AM
Which bureaucracy did you think I meant? Do you actually think there's no bureaucracy in the DOJ? Really?
Do you really not remember the whole issue of the prior administration's application of partisan tests to new DOJ hires?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 23, 2009 1:20 PM
I can't believe our federal government is so ungodly. Where is the compassion that this country is supposed to represent?
God bless America. Our federal government surely hasn't.
Posted by: J Franc | April 23, 2009 4:05 PM
Hey, thank God I helped institute mandatory mins! All of you dope-sucking thugs oughts be given five years just for siding with this law-breaker!
Posted by: Joe Biden | April 23, 2009 11:27 PM