Attorney General Eric Holder has been a divisive figure in office. His departure promises to be no less divisive.
Holder, an original member of the president’s Cabinet, was a lightning rod for liberals who questioned his record on national security and his indifference toward prosecuting Wall Street executives after the financial meltdown. Conservatives saw him as an obstructionist, most notably for his actions in Fast and Furious, the Justice Department’s failed gun-running sting that led GOP lawmakers to hold him in contempt of Congress. And while Holder prominently backed more progressive drug laws, same-sex marriage and voting rights protections and spoke eloquently on issues of race and sentencing, he also crossed the line in using the power of his office to impede journalists and to discourage leaks critical of the administration.
It is in this charged environment that Holder steps aside, leaving an unclear path for his successor. Democrats have two options on how to time the confirmation proceedings. They could push for the lame-duck session after the midterms, while Democrats are sure to be in control of the Senate. Or they could wait until next year; the GOP might control the Senate, and Democrats would just dare them to create a showdown over an attorney general nominee.
Texas Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn have both said they don’t want outgoing Democratic senators to accelerate a vote on Holder’s replacement before year-end. “There is so much ill will already that this will poison the well even further,” Cornyn told The Dallas Morning News’ editorial board Monday.
Both scenarios are highly political and reflect the bitter partisanship of Washington.
But before any confirmation process, there must be a nominee. And many of the top prospects have put out “do not consider me” signs: Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have said they aren’t interested; California Attorney General Kamala Harris is rumored to have done the same. (Then again, there is plenty of time for the political winds to shift.)
Once the White House settles on a nominee, it normally could count on receiving background checks from the FBI and Senate Judiciary Committee and a Senate confirmation vote within two months. But these are not normal times. The upcoming elections and the snail’s pace of other confirmation hearings signal that this process is going to get ugly. That is what happens when the politicians on both sides use the office of the nation’s top law enforcement officer as a political chit.
Then again, Holder has done his successor no favors. He or she has been left to dangle like a political piñata, making it almost impossible to have the independence from politics that the office demands.
Who’s being considered?
Donald B. Verrilli Jr., U.S. solicitor general: Succeeded Elena Kagan when she moved to the Supreme Court. Background in First Amendment, telecom and copyright law.
Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House counsel: Part of the federal prosecutor team that won convictions of Enron execs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Fierce defender of executive branch powers.
Tony West, former associate attorney general: Credited with the decision not to defend aspects of the Defense of Marriage Act. Won major settlements on mortgage-backed securities in the financial crisis.
Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. attorney, Eastern District of New York: Led the investigation into Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., resulting in tax evasion and other charges. Was U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration.
Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York: Prosecuted Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, indicted Switzerland’s oldest financial bank and pursued insider trading cases.
Jenny Durkan, U.S. attorney, Western District of Washington: First openly gay U.S. attorney. Was considered in the 2013 search for homeland security secretary.
SOURCES: The Washington Post; The Hill; USA Today; CNN
