April 27, 2009
Change Agent Hasn't Much Changed Law
Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen Examines The First 100 Days Of Obama's Presidency
-
Play CBS Video Video Holder's Plan For The DOJ In Full: Attorney General Eric Holder sat down with Katie Couric to discuss the direction he wants to take the DOJ; including his thoughts on gun control and former Sen. Ted Steven's exculpation.
-
Video CBS Exclusive: Eric Holder Attorney General Eric Holder is trying to clean up the tarnished image of the Justice Department. Katie Couric asks the chief law enforcement officer in the U.S. about the challenges he faces.
-
Video Eric Holder On Stevens Case "CBS News Exclusive:" Katie Couric asks U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about criticisms from the judge in the investigation of former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.
-
In this March 27, 2009, file photo President Barack Obama shakes hands with Attorney General Eric Holder during Holder's installation ceremony as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States in Washington. (AP)
-
Special Report First 100 Days Follow the Obama administration as it gets to work after the inauguration.
-
Interactive Gitmo Tribunals Detainees on trial, photos and a history of the naval base.
Judging a government, any government, after only its first 100 days is like judging a baseball game after the top of the first inning or a dinner after the bread has come. It's a silly exercise, an artificial, made-for-cable deadline designed to help the American Idol crowd get a sense of the "score" at the end of 1/15th of the presidency. Problem is, the "score" in presidential politics and power takes a whole lot longer than three months to be counted.
Nevertheless, under the aforementioned mild protest, I hereby report that the first 100 days of the Obama Administration, at least with respect to the law, have on the whole been kinder to conservatives than to liberals, to Republicans than to Democrats.
More often than not, the White House and the Justice Department have supported, and not dismantled, the most contentious legal policies and priorities of the Bush Administration. For a man who came into office under the mantra of "change," it's been a short period of remarkable status quo on most of the major legal issues of our day.
For example, apart from windy language about a "return to the rule of law," it has been hard (so far, 1/15 of the way in, remember) to discern any practical shift between the two administrations on many controversial legal topics surrounding the war against terrorism.
True, the Obama Administration pledged to close Guantanamo Bay by empty the symbolic prison there of terror suspects. But so did President Bush. Sure, the feds say they are using diplomatic efforts to "repatriate" some of the detainees. But so were Bush officials. Yes, the Justice Department plans to prosecute some of the worst terror defendants. But the Bush folks did, too. Meanwhile, the whole world is waiting.
The whole world is watching the president's approach to his predecessor's torture policies but so far, here too, the record is, at best, incomplete. The administration has done a credible job of making more transparent the dubious logic and alarming scenarios offered by Bush-era lawyers and policy makers. But making the guys you've replaced look as dumb as you said they were is no great triumph and takes no meaningful courage. Courage over the Bush torture policies means bringing to the witness stand -- never mind a defense chair - the architects of those policies, who have yet to be held to account. So far the Administration has merely hemmed and hawed.
Nor has the Obama Administration moved quickly or far away from its predecessor over the controversial "state's secrets" doctrine, designed to end litigation against the government at the request of the executive branch. The "secrets" privilege has been around for over half a century but was used sparingly until the Bush Administration, which it was invoked at least 23 times after 9/11. The new occupants of the White House say they'll go back to the old-school way of invoking the doctrine-but so far haven't backed away from supporting old Bush policies in existing "states secrets" cases.
And, even on those occasions when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have sought to distinguish current government policy from past practice they have done so cautiously, with half-measures, so as to save unto themselves for another day the option of reverting back to Bush-era doctrines.
The best example of this phenomenon occurred when President Obama in early March declared that the executive branch would tactically retreat from his predecessor's routine use of "signing statements" to vitiate the legal impact of enacted legislation. We'll still see those statements, the new leaders say, only less often and only with the endorsement of the Attorney General.
Guns? Holder initially called for a rebirth of a federal assault weapons ban but then didn't follow through when given the opportunity to do so by Katie Couric, who asked him about gun control in the wake of a school massacre in New York state and on the eve of the solemn anniversaries marking the Columbine and Virginia Tech tragedies.
And it wasn't the Obama Administration's agency which allowed "Plan B" pills to be sold over the counter to 17-year-old women; it was a federal judge who pushed the FDA into that measure.
This is not to say that the first 100 days have been a total bust for folks looking for material change, any sort of change, from the way things were done during the eight years of the Bush Administration. The Justice Department wisely chose not to defend its conviction of former Alaska senator Ted Stevens, whose trial last year (during the Bush era) was riddled with prosecutorial misconduct.
The White House also wisely agreed to end a stalemate over "executive privilege" by brokering a complicated deal that helps hand unto the House Judiciary Committee the hides of former Bush officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers for testimony about their role in the still unresolved U.S. Attorney scandal.
The Justice Department has begun to repair its own house, ripped to its foundation by the partisan incompetence of the Alberto Gonzales era. It has asked the Congress for more police to combat growing crime. It has taken a serious interest in the Mexican drug war. The president's first federal court nomination was a moderate and well-respected jurist who generated no major Senate showdown (that's occurred anyway, instead, over an executive-branch official, Dawn Johnson).
And after securing the confession of swindler Bernard Madoff, the Justice Department didn't just run in, willy-nilly, and start indicting the titans of Wall Street. There will be plenty of time for that.
Maybe some of these developments will take clearer shape in the next 100 days, or the first 1,000 days. Or maybe they just won't happen at all. The only thing I am willing to promise is that in true political fashion the toughest decisions have been left for later-- on torture, the Gitmo prisoners, guns, judges, and criminal cases against soiled bankers and market movers, the best (or worst) is yet to come.
There is no real score after the top of the first, in other words, but there is a lot of work ahead for the major players.
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From CourtWatch
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 50 CommentsIt is upsetting to hear Obama, after calling for more transparency and the return of American pre 9/11Constitutional rights to hear him declare he will continue many of Bush and Cheney's policies towards the police state, continuing eavesdropping and invasion of privacy on regular citizens with no affiliation with any potential terrorists, and hiding his long term agenda.
so far, different face, same krap.
The fact of the matter is, that no torture occurred, outside of the busy little minds of these left-wingers.
During the Clinton years, the WH travel staff was fired and a large number of attornies were fired from Justice and not a word was said. Now when 8 attornies were fired during the Bush Administration, it because a major issue. What gives?
I don't envy Obama. I think that he is trying to govern from the center and the left-wing snobs in the media are fighting him every step of the way. The man is showing courage by standing up to the left - and saying "NO".
His biggest problem, by far is Joe Biden - a walking, talking punchline.
Posted by promaclaura at 12:48 PM : Apr 27, 2009
Anthrax.
Posted by KazooD at 3:01 PM : Apr 27, 2009
That was a "homegrown" issue.
Posted by promaclaura at 5:16 PM : Apr 27, 2009 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,So was 911.
I hope not. I was making a 'generalized statement'. If you found my P.O.V to be offensive or inflammatory I can't help that. You know.... its just possible that I found your "Jumping on the Obama Bashing Bandwagon" so soon after his inauguration just a bit premature?
I guess thats ok though, since it is obvious that you know a great deal more than I do.
===============================================================
I don't take anything that is in disagreement with my views as an attack, unless word choice
and sentence structure by the other writer indicates that it IS an attack! Then, I do! For instance, the use of the word, 'backstab'!
Second, your statement that I jumped on the 'Obama Bashing Bandwagon' couldn't be
further from the truth! This indicates that YOU and not I, are taking things very personally!
Believe me, friend! The day I start bashing Mr. Obama, will definitely be clear to you!
Until then, don't suggest I'm guilty of something I haven't begun to do---yet!
Have a good tomorrow.
Posted by promaclaura at 12:48 PM : Apr 27, 2009
Anthrax.
Posted by KazooD at 3:01 PM : Apr 27, 2009
That was a "homegrown" issue.
Posted by promaclaura at 5:16 PM : Apr 27, 2009 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,You can't see the terrorist attack going on right now?,,,,,,they aren't even using guns......Congress and corporate America are in conspiracy to ruin the economy of the country and to split the classes, destroying the middle class,,,,,Remember last October when G.W. Bush cried out ...we have a home foreclosure problem we must fix quick..........that was almost 6 months ago and NONE of the 700 billion congress approved for the task even got close to the problem,,,,,,,YES we are under terrorist attack,,,white collar ,suit and tie terrorists, they have infiltrated to the highest levels of our government,,,,,and they are ALL traitors who deserve to be charged with HIGH TREASON.
Posted by promaclaura at 12:48 PM : Apr 27, 2009
Anthrax.
Posted by KazooD at 3:01 PM : Apr 27, 2009
That was a "homegrown" issue.
Posted by ToolMangler1 at 2:09 PM : Apr 27, 2009
=======================================
Your rhetoric is getting inflammatory and offensive!
Do 'you' take everything that is not in agreement with your point of view as a personal attack?
I hope not. I was making a 'generalized statement'. If you found my P.O.V to be offensive or inflammatory I can't help that. You know.... its just possible that I found your "Jumping on the Obama Bashing Bandwagon" so soon after his inauguration just a bit premature?
I guess thats ok though, since it is obvious that you know a great deal more than I do.
Posted by weedapeapl at 4:30 PM : Apr 27, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No way... Bush has that one sewn up.
Posted by wogerwabbit at 4:32 PM : Apr 27, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Obama hasn't changed as much stuff as he should, as he said he would.
But, even so---he's still NOT anywhere near being the worst president we've had,
not yet! And not unless, he declares martial law and turns the country over to the
bankers! At which point, he'll become the WORST president in history, leaving
Bush in the dust!
Until that day comes, Bush will retain the title as Worst President of the United States,
easily!
Posted by wogerwabbit at 4:32 PM : Apr 27, 2009
Do you ever provide facts and logic to support your posts?
Or does your shill contract call only for taunting, jeering, sneering, and name calling?
I guess they don't pay you to make any sense.
Posted by weedapeapl at 4:30 PM : Apr 27, 2009
No way... Bush has that one sewn up.
Sorry, but generally a new president sets the tone for his administration on DAY 1.
By Day 100, it's pretty clear where things are going.
And we're going nowhere but down.
Obama is the worst president in 100 years.
He is nothing but another lapdog for the ultra wealthy.
He has sold us out and doomed us to slavery.
======================================
That's funny! For a guy who says he dislikes Limbaugh so much! You sure seem to spend a lot of time focused on him, huh?!
Rave on, fool! So, people will know you for what you are! Unfit for discourse in civil society!
Posted by mcthreeteeth at 3:23 PM : Apr 27, 2009
======================================
First, it's obvious that you have made some assumptions about me that couldn't be further from the truth. I don't care for Limbaugh, I may dislike him MORE THAN even you do!
I'm not Republican, I never have been!
Second, I doubt you can distinguish the difference between what comes out of my ...dirty, filthy mouth...as honest criticism based on performance and criticism whose purpose is solely to demean!
Third, I got news for you! A record of everything EVERYONE says is being kept by the govt spy agencies---you'll have to stand in line!
Finally, if you ARE an Obama supporter---YOU'RE his worst nightmare! He doesn't need
supporters that act like Bush 'brown shirts'! You're setting his cause backward, not helping!
in his failure to keep his word!
Posted by stn_sage at 1:58 PM : Apr
Not only is that not true, but O holds a 69% approval rating from ALL Americans....democrats and republicans. So shut the hell up about Obama.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 2:01 PM : Apr 27, 2009
=====================================
First, I know many of his supporters who are disappointed, including myself!
Second, polling is interesting---but, I wouldn't 'bet the farm' on them! At one
time Bush had around an 86 to 92% approval rating---following 911! Did he
deserve it? No! Did he finish up with such a high rating? No!
Third, you also don't go around telling reasonable people to '...shut the hell up...'!
You save that for the "trolls", bipartisan troublemakers, and complete idiots!
By doing so, you undercut your own credibility when discussing these issues!
Posted by ToolMangler1 at 2:09 PM : Apr 27, 2009
=======================================
Your rhetoric is getting inflammatory and offensive! I'd point out to you, that:
First, every adult American citizen has the RIGHT to assess this president, whether it's 100 or 1,000 days, or 4 years!
Second, most people are going to assess that performance differently than you! Accept it!
Third, making an assessment ,is not to "backstab" anyone! It's honest, open, in the light of
day discussion, friend! Your characterization of it as backstabbing is inaccurate and offensive! Grow up!
Posted by promaclaura at 12:48 PM : Apr 27, 2009
Anthrax.
Posted by ToolMangler1 at 2:09 PM : Apr 27, 2009
Well, the Big O has created more debt and plans even more than any president in history. Even more debt than Bush. Now thats Change in anyones view if they look at it.
The Big O has begun the most partisan administration in history. Even more than Bush.
The Big O plans to raise utility costs by placing a tax on carbon your utilitie company generates. The tax wont be used to do anything, just pay the bills Big O plans to incurr. Maybe even some of those debts he has already incurred.
The Big O has appointed the most corrupt cabinet in history. Nearly every appointee has been involved with tax evasion or pay for play schemes.
The Big O is laughed at by the other world leaders. They watch "the kid" and wait for him to speak, then they do what they want anyway. THEY know what we dont yet know. He is all talk, lots of talk.
But, then Stuart probably thinks Im a racist cause I criticise failure.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 50 Comments