anyone else doing a happy dance?

[wesw]

eric holder.

I can t think of anything nice to say about him, so I ll leave it at that.

wes

[Big RR]

I'm not a big fan, which shouldn't come a surprise to anyone based on his stance about the curtailment of civil rights/expansion of executive power because of the "war" on terror. But I do give him credit for his stance in not defending the DOMA. I won't miss him, but fear the next AG could be even worse.

[Sue U]

There have been a lot worse AGs than Eric Holder: just off the top of my head, John Mitchell, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft and Ed Meese leap to mind.

Holder has been a mixed bag, but over all, meh. This sums up his tenure pretty well:

Leaving Fast. Possibly Furious.
Eric Holder Peaces Out
by DDM
Sep 25 11:46 am 2014



Eric Holder has had enough of your shit, Congress. Like most of America, he is probably tired of grandstanding and bullshit partisan nonsense, so he is taking his indictments and going home.

Today, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he will be resigning, as soon as Congress confirms his replacement. He has served in his position for six years. Considering that Obama will nominate his replacement, and Republicans would rather gurgle rat semen than approve anything Obama wants (except bombing brown people, and sometimes, shockingly, not even then), we can expect Holder to serve until January, 2017.

Holder has had a rocky run as the Attorney General. On the up side, he sent many Republicans spiraling into frothy-mouthed diatribes on a regular basis, so that’s cool. In fact, the House went so far as to file articles of impeachment against him, probably for Attorneying While Black or some nonsense.

What’s the Official Wonket Editorial Policy on Holder? He was cool except for how he was also a dick. For instance? Great on civil rights and voting rights. Remember when he invaded Texas and totally made them let people vote, like they were real citizens and all? Yeah, good times.

On the downside, he was a little too Nixon-y for our taste when it came to press freedoms and secrecy and stuff. Not cool, Holder. Not. Cool.

On the War On Drugs, Holder told Colorado and Washington to smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em after they legalized marijuana. Maybe he and Maureen Dowd can go get high together. Except sometimes the Feds were all harshing the mellow. Classic Holder!

And remember that time he said that legally married couples (EVEN THE GAYS) could have federal rights regarding bankruptcy and not testifying against each other? See, that is like what we were talking about before, with the being cool. Though it’s also a total federal overreach-around, if you ask us.

There were plenty of times he sent House Republicans into a tizzy. Like the time he basically told cosmic shitstain Darrell Issa to STFU, or the time he unfairly matched wits with drooling-sack-of-ferret-poop Louie Gohmert.

Holder, you weren’t always the bestest, but for the amount of angst you caused House Republicans, you will be missed. When you eventually leave. Which will be never, because Congress sucks.

[Politico / Operation American Spring photo credit: Beth Ethier]

Source, of course.

[rubato]

This is not a role to generate Facebook "Likes" so I don't think it matters if you don't like him personally nor does it reflect on his record.

I'd say his record was pretty mixed.

Good:
Extracted very large amounts in reparations for mortgage fraud (sometimes from the company who bought the company who committed the fraud, EG B of A bought the remnants of Countrywide).
Extracted a confession and billions in reparations from BP for catastrophic oil spill. (Contrast this with Exxon finally paying part of what they owed 20 years later 2009 vs 1989 for the Exxon Valdez disaster.)
Sentencing reform.
DOM act abandoned.
Went to Ferguson and began federal investigation.


Bad:
Failed to try Guantanimo defendants in US (Congress is mostly to blame for that one).
Failed to convict even ONE individual for the fraud which led to the financial collapse.
Late in going to Ferguson. No conclusions from investigation yet.
Failed to turn over record of Bush's "Gun walking" program and failed to stop program early enough in his own tenure. He should have pulled all the records going back to the beginning and then release them in consecutive order to the press first, and then congress.


A lot of his role is to be a flak-catcher for the president and he did that pretty well.

yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with Sue - he's not been spectacular, but he's far from the worst AG in recent history.

Much of the controversy about him, I agree with the piece Sue posted - it's due to his '[lawyering] while black'.

[wesw]

whew! that s a relief!

I wasted all that time worrying about our constitution....

turns out that I was just being racist!

[rubato]

Is there some particular part of the constitution which you thought was in especial peril? Or is this a more general thing?

yrs,
rubato

[Long Run]

Call me a cynic, but he resigns now for one of two reasons: 1) the Senate is still D-controlled so there is a better chance of getting a similar type of AG; and/or 2) having a fight over a new AG will distract voters from the reasons they are ready to vote heavily anti-D.

It would be nice if every once in awhile, a POTUS would appoint an AG with the same high regard, independence, integrity, etc. that usually goes into picking the head of the FBI. Sue is right, Holder is a politically motivated AG and that is nothing new. Such appointees by their very nature are not particularly well-respected since they are just politicians. And then you have the not-so politically motivated but in-over-their-head types like Janet Reno. It will take a little time to get the perspective to rank Holder among the many duds.

[Scooter]

Holder is a politically motivated AG and that is nothing new...And then you have the not-so politically motivated but in-over-their-head types like Janet Reno.

And then you have the politically motivated AND in-over-their-head types, like all of the Bush II appointees.

[Sue U]

Call me a cynic, but he resigns now for one of two reasons: 1) the Senate is still D-controlled so there is a better chance of getting a similar type of AG; and/or 2) having a fight over a new AG will distract voters from the reasons they are ready to vote heavily anti-D.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's both reasons, plus several more less-political ones, including leaving enough time for a new AG to actually make some policy decisions (who would want the job if it's just a caretaker role?) and allowing sufficient time before the next administration takes office to meet the restrictions on lobbying.

[Big RR]

All of those "reasons" make sense.