4 ms·

I'm theory, prosecutions are a civil service function, not a political function. Changes in administration might change the leadership and what areas are priori

I'm theory, prosecutions are a civil service function, not a political function. Changes in administration might change the leadership and what areas are prioritized, but once you have a case, it really shouldn't matter who is in office. In theory.

nickff 2y ago
What theory is this from, some sort of administrative state theory? This has never been the case in any executive branch that I'm aware of.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Exactly this. The first few days in office, a new POTUS will typically use executive orders specifically to reverse policies the previous administration put in place.
  - cbsmith 2y ago
    Yes, the administration can change policies, but dropping cases is another matter. Certainly policy changes can have an effect on cases, but it's not like cases get dropped at some dramatic rate when a new administration comes in.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    EO cannot be used to drop pending litigation. It would require a different mechanism
    - dylan604 2y ago
      > different mechanism POTUS: Mr Attorney General, it is this administrations agenda to no longer pursue these specific cases: anything with me as the defendant. AG: Understood Mr POTUS, we'll back burner everything that cannot just be stopped or dropped. <end scene>
- Retric 2y ago
  The vast majority of cases aren’t dropped when you move from one administration to another. However, there’s a great deal of correlation between cases people care about and politics so you’re more likely to hear about the kinds of cases that get dropped.
  - nickff 2y ago
    I agree that most political factions actually agree on most policies, but that doesn’t mean the decision as to whether to proceed is ‘civil service’ rather than ‘political’.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Political sure, but I don’t think you can call something politics without there being some debate. Should we build a road is a classic political choice because people disagree even if it’s generally a net positive. Should we prosecute a murderer may qualify if there’s some twist (ex stand your ground) but not in the general case.
      - cbsmith 2y ago
        > Should we build a road is a classic political choice because people disagree even if it’s generally a net positive. Should we prosecute a murderer may qualify if there’s some twist (ex stand your ground) but not in the general case. What laws get passed/repealed are decided on by people elected to office. Policies and priorities for departments are decided upon by political appointees. Decisions on cases though? Those are generally delegated to the civil service. Now, from a practical standpoint, there's obviously ways you can muck with policies and priorities that can impact a particular case, just like there are ways that you can change the laws to muck with a particular case (you may recall when Florida went after Disney, they had to bend over backwards to draw up the law such that they could claim they weren't explicitly going after one company), but that's exactly the kind of stuff that draws criticism (and there are rules against it). There is absolutely a principle of independence & impartiality of the DOJ that's been the norm, even if recently that norm has been eroded.
    - 2y ago
- ldoughty 2y ago
  "I want you to make sure this case goes nowhere, can you do that?" "No!" Fires leadership "I want you to make sure this case goes nowhere, can you do that?" "You got it!" Hires There certainly is some of this every administrative change over.
  - cbsmith 2y ago
    The political leadership generally can't fire civil servants for that reason. When Trump was in office, he complained about it a lot, and key part of Project 2025's policy plans are to get the rules on that changed: https://www.project2025.org/ https://www.project2025.org/.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    How well did that work out for Nixon?
- cbsmith 2y ago
  The independence of the DOJ has always been perceived as important. A lot of ink was spilt about this during the Trump administration, as they attempted to undermine these norms (e.g.: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/restoring-integrity-independence-u-s-justice-department/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/restoring-integrity...), with some degree of success. You may recall Trump's various battles to get the DOJ to do things that the DOJ didn't want to do (and unfortunately, in some cases, he did get his way, but a lot of the time, he did not). One of the key objectives of Project 2025 is to claim control of the operations of the DOJ from the "unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class and radical Left ideologues who have embedded themselves throughout its offices and components": https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-17.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA...

nickff 2y ago

What theory is this from, some sort of administrative state theory? This has never been the case in any executive branch that I'm aware of.

dylan604 2y ago
Exactly this. The first few days in office, a new POTUS will typically use executive orders specifically to reverse policies the previous administration put in place.
- cbsmith 2y ago
  Yes, the administration can change policies, but dropping cases is another matter. Certainly policy changes can have an effect on cases, but it's not like cases get dropped at some dramatic rate when a new administration comes in.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  EO cannot be used to drop pending litigation. It would require a different mechanism
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > different mechanism POTUS: Mr Attorney General, it is this administrations agenda to no longer pursue these specific cases: anything with me as the defendant. AG: Understood Mr POTUS, we'll back burner everything that cannot just be stopped or dropped. <end scene>
Retric 2y ago
The vast majority of cases aren’t dropped when you move from one administration to another. However, there’s a great deal of correlation between cases people care about and politics so you’re more likely to hear about the kinds of cases that get dropped.
- nickff 2y ago
  I agree that most political factions actually agree on most policies, but that doesn’t mean the decision as to whether to proceed is ‘civil service’ rather than ‘political’.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Political sure, but I don’t think you can call something politics without there being some debate. Should we build a road is a classic political choice because people disagree even if it’s generally a net positive. Should we prosecute a murderer may qualify if there’s some twist (ex stand your ground) but not in the general case.
    - cbsmith 2y ago
      > Should we build a road is a classic political choice because people disagree even if it’s generally a net positive. Should we prosecute a murderer may qualify if there’s some twist (ex stand your ground) but not in the general case. What laws get passed/repealed are decided on by people elected to office. Policies and priorities for departments are decided upon by political appointees. Decisions on cases though? Those are generally delegated to the civil service. Now, from a practical standpoint, there's obviously ways you can muck with policies and priorities that can impact a particular case, just like there are ways that you can change the laws to muck with a particular case (you may recall when Florida went after Disney, they had to bend over backwards to draw up the law such that they could claim they weren't explicitly going after one company), but that's exactly the kind of stuff that draws criticism (and there are rules against it). There is absolutely a principle of independence & impartiality of the DOJ that's been the norm, even if recently that norm has been eroded.
  - 2y ago
ldoughty 2y ago
"I want you to make sure this case goes nowhere, can you do that?" "No!" Fires leadership "I want you to make sure this case goes nowhere, can you do that?" "You got it!" Hires There certainly is some of this every administrative change over.
- cbsmith 2y ago
  The political leadership generally can't fire civil servants for that reason. When Trump was in office, he complained about it a lot, and key part of Project 2025's policy plans are to get the rules on that changed: https://www.project2025.org/ https://www.project2025.org/.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  How well did that work out for Nixon?
cbsmith 2y ago
The independence of the DOJ has always been perceived as important. A lot of ink was spilt about this during the Trump administration, as they attempted to undermine these norms (e.g.: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/restoring-integrity-independence-u-s-justice-department/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/restoring-integrity...), with some degree of success. You may recall Trump's various battles to get the DOJ to do things that the DOJ didn't want to do (and unfortunately, in some cases, he did get his way, but a lot of the time, he did not). One of the key objectives of Project 2025 is to claim control of the operations of the DOJ from the "unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class and radical Left ideologues who have embedded themselves throughout its offices and components": https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-17.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA...