Executive Privilege Again Six years ago the Rifleman claimed that the F.B.I. had promised him immunity from prosecution for his killings � allegedly including a couple of his girlfriends � but Federal Judge Mark Wolf, in a landmark decision, ruled that nobody in law enforcement had the power to sanction murder. The New England F.B.I.'s long-running abuse of power is "the greatest failing in federal law enforcement history," according to James Wilson, chief counsel to the House Government Reform Committee. Evidence of this sustained miscarriage of justice was the 30-year imprisonment of Joe Salvati, whom F.B.I. officials are said to have known to be innocent of the crime for which he was convicted � but they remained silent to protect Mafia sources. John Ashcroft's Department of Justice does not want Congress to air out this long, shameful story. At the time J. Edgar Hoover belatedly began his war on the Mafia, civil liberty was set aside to meet the perceived emergency � abuses that lasted through three decades. The current F.B.I. chief, Robert Mueller, was U.S. attorney in Boston during the mid-80's and presumably did not have an inkling about the unlawful law enforcement going on around him. Accordingly, the Bush Justice Department induced the president to sign an order asserting executive privilege over its "deliberative documents" that would inform the public of answers to questions like: Why did Justice decline to indict an F.B.I. supervisor who admitted taking money from Flemmi's gang? Why did Justice help defend a hit man in California who killed a man while in the witness protection program? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/03/opinion/03SAFI.html

AN INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL JOHN DEAN Today the entire federal judiciary has become politicized. Both parties want to place judges on the courts that reflect their political views. This is a serious problem, for Americans are fast losing faith in the impartiality of the Judicial Branch � and not without good reason. The primary function of our federal courts is to resolve disputes between citizens and the political branches of government. But partisans on both sides of the political divide want to use the courts � from the Supreme Court on down � as another political branch, a means to impose a political solution while resolving the dispute. If anyone doubts this is the case, I suggest they look at Bush v. Gore. A few more cases like that and the Courts will lose all credibility. The reason the Senate should look at a nominee's philosophy is that it is time to reject nominees who are political ideologues, men or women who hold such fixed views that their votes on the high Court are predictable, whether they lean left or right. It is time to get all courts out of politics. Let the political branches make the political decisions. Given the rules of the Senate, if a few members of the Senate insisted that all judicial nominees be non-political or else vowed to block the nomination with a filibuster, thus requiring a super-majority to place any political nominee on the Court, it would end the practice of selecting Justices for their ideology rather than their legal acumen and wisdom. But this not likely to happen. There are not a lot of profiles in political courage in the Senate today. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20011101.html

The Rehnquist Choice

FindLaw's Writ - Lazarus:2 Dean's indictment of the Chief Justice focuses on his confirmation testimony about a memo that Rehnquist had written while a law clerk to Justice Jackson during the Court's consideration of Brown v. Board of Education. In the memo, entitled "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases," Rehnquist wrote, in part: "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson [establishing the doctrine of "separate but equal"] was right and should be affirmed." For obvious reasons, this memo's opposition to the result reached in Brown presented Rehnquist with a confirmation problem. But he came up with a fairly ingenious solution. Rehnquist claimed that the memo did not embody his own views. Instead, Rehnquist claimed to have prepared the memo at Jackson's request "as a rough draft of a statement of his [Jackson's] views." As Dean parses with great care, this explanation does not hold water. The Rehnquist memo's reference to having "been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues" makes no sense in the context of a statement of Jackson's views to be delivered to his colleagues. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense in the context of an expression of Rehnquist's views � as Rehnquist, by his own admission, saw himself as a lonely conservative clerk isolated in a sea of liberals. In light of Dean's analysis of Rehnquist's veracity, one is led in "The Rehnquist Choice" to a devastating conclusion. In the end, Rehnquist embodies Nixon's legacy in at least two respects. Strict constructionist as he himself defined it, Rehnquist alone among Nixon's four appointees stayed true to Nixon's politically conservative hopes for the Court. And, like the man who appointed him, Rehnquist's conduct has tragically advanced the steady erosion of the integrity of our institutions of government. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20011102_lazarus.html

Taking on Republicans, but Not Their Leader When he arrived in Texas for a respite at his ranch last week, Mr. Bush proclaimed 2002 as "a war year." (Translation: Democrats better not attack me because I'm staying above politics for as long as I can.) http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/weekinreview/30BERK.html