The Problem With Jeff Sessions

Senate confirmation hearings will begin today over the nomination of Jeff Sessions, of all people, as Attorney General of the United States. This makes some people who are concerned about criminal law reform and civil rights angry. It’s understandable, as Jeff Sessions represents none of the qualities in an AG that we would hope for. But what did we expect? Did anyone seriously think Trump was going to nominate Ramsey Clark?

Will Sessions be as awful an AG as anticipated? Maybe. Maybe not. There are issues that should, under other circumstances, make his confirmation hearings contentious, such as his omissions on his disclosures, not to mention the same reasons why the Senate refused to confirm him as a federal judge. They will be raised. Sessions will be confirmed anyway.

And Sessions will join a group of others who served in the office of Attorney General. Like Dick Thornburgh, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez. Remember them? They sucked, each and every one of them, if your concern was criminal law reform and civil rights. But it’s not just that we survived them, but that there was neither shock nor surprise that conservative presidents appointed conservative attorneys general. It’s what they do. It’s what they were expected to do.

If you want someone to be angry about, furious about, you’re looking at the wrong guy. Don’t blame Trump for nominating Sessions. Don’t blame Sessions for being Sessions. If you want someone to blame, blame Eric Holder. Blame Loretta Lynch. Blame Barack Obama.

By some weird quirk of human nature, some loyalty to team, some delusion, we magically forget that we’re closing out eight years of a progressive Democratic administration. The first two years, you may recall, gave the president a Congress of his own party. But the next six were still under attorneys general who professed all the empathies we could want in an AG.

These were the attorneys general who were supposed to preside over the reforms so critically necessary. Everything from reformation of junk science in the courtroom to removal of marijuana from Schedule I, from the eradication of mandatory minimums to the reformation of law enforcement tactics to conform to constitutional rights.

Eric Holder. Loretta Lynch. These were the attorneys general who should have fixed things. They failed. They refused. And you’re angry with Jeff Sessions? What are you thinking?

Many of you gushed with hope and change when the AGs mouthed the words our ears so desperately wanted to hear. Yes, yes, it’s finally going to happen. And then . . . nothing. There is a trick that government officials learned long ago, that points are scored by saying the words advocates pray for, and they will sing your praises even if you don’t actually do a damn thing, make any change, fix a problem.

Putting aside the irony that the same feds who look so adorable now were the ones committing the atrocities of their time, one of the few faux changes of the Obama administration was the writing of scathing reports about civil rights violations by police. Journalists loved these reports, as they provided great quotes and validated their stories about the evils of police.

This produced bias that blinded writers. They were reports, after the fact, that did nothing. They were mere words. No one was saved. Nothing changed. Police chiefs would hold solemn press conferences where they would promise to do better, praise the Constitution and explain how vital it was to humanity that all lives mattered. It was so thrilling that no one noticed that not a single cop on the street changed a single thing that he did. Ever.

My good buddy, Radley Balko, who’s been surprisingly emotional about Sessions’ nomination, wrote about Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s rejection of the PCAST report, just as Eric Holder rejected the 2009 National Academies of Science report before her. These weren’t far out reports, but reflected the clear assertion of the scientific community that we were convicting people by the use of invalid forensic science, manufactured for the purpose of conviction and in flagrant conflict with anything remotely scientific.

Radley called Lynch’s refusal to recognize science “at odds” with President Obama’s self-congratulatory magnum opus. Had it been Sessions who rejected science, the characterization might be a bit more harsh. But since it was the beloved Democratic savior of criminal law, the blow was, shall we say, mild.

Who do you think is going to be the champion for reform, for science, for undoing the machinery of death, for ending the pretense of safety at the expense of constitutional rights? Who should have been the Attorney General to finally remove marijuana from Schedule I? Who should have never started giving MRAPs to police departments with seven cops? Who should have ended the policy of charging every federal criminal defendant with the highest possible charge to coerce pleas and cooperation regardless of guilt?

Who the hell did you think was going to fix these things? Sessions?

But Holder didn’t. Lynch didn’t. Obama didn’t. We had eight years of an administration that could have, should have, reformed the things that everyone conceded needed reforming. Hell, even law enforcement “leaders” put on their own dog and pony shows to let us know they were wrong. The iron was hot. The people who were supposed to be better held office, had the power to change things. The stars were aligned. And . . . nothing.

Will Jeff Sessions be the savior of criminal law? Of course not. But then, Trump never promised to reform the law, never suggested he would do anything other than put a guy like Sessions into office. What about this surprises you? Will Sessions be worse than Holder and Lynch? Probably, but then, aside from not mouthing the words that warm the cockles of advocates’ hearts, what could he do on the ground that would be much different from the past eight years?

We had eight years of the “good guys.” We got, essentially, squat. If you want a direction for your outrage, blame the people who should have known better and failed you, not the person whom no one expects to fix anything. Your problem shouldn’t be with Jeff Sessions, but with the cesspool he’ll take over once he’s confirmed.

10 comments on “The Problem With Jeff Sessions

  1. RICHARD KOPF

    SHG,

    You have failed to answer the essential question about Senator Sessions and his nomination to the post of AG. What does Meryl Streep think?

    All the best.

    RGK

    Reply
  2. John Barleycorn

    You looking to break in the Chinese New Year with a nomination for the Extra Padded Gloves award or what? Granted everyone is or should be afraid of roosters but let’s not get carried away here….

    BTW, Didn’t you get the memo? They haven’t awarded extra points for doling out the apathy like the delicate doily the Extra Padded Gloves award is presented on since the mid 80′

    P.S. When in doubt, always remember your consise headlines are usually more cogent. Even ‘The Problems Problem Problem” is too long. Why not just go with Problems or The Problem?

    Reply
  3. Roxanne Chester

    I’m afraid that those who cheer progressive politicians miss a VERY key point. Those politicians have made it to where they are by having the right opinions and values, not because of their accomplishments. So is it any wonder that once in higher office they fail to implement any of their stated goals? The actual work that goes into accomplishments has never been a part of their skill set. Being “the right people” IS their only skill!
    ACA stands as a testament to their skill set at drafting change.

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      There’s a problem inherent in many progressive politicians. The rhetoric doesn’t add up. Advancing one person’s rights comes at the expense of another’s. Free for one is an expense to another. When they’re in office, they realize that actually making the things they profess happen doesn’t work, so they’re left with the rhetoric and the hope that no one notices that they’re full of shit.

      Reply
  4. John Barleycorn

    Oh my!

    Do you fgure Jeff got help from the Lolipop Gang standing on five gallon buckets while tightening up his Gansta Windsor this morning or what?

    I am thoroughly bummed out, and here I thought Jeff was gonna go with a masterfully tied Bully Balthus.

    I can’t hardly bear to watch it to anymore but I can’t wait to catch a glimpse of his cufflinks and watch while he is checking out his manicure durring a dodged question or two.

    Which script a guy goes with while dodging questions should reveal his hand unless he has the stones and IQ to mix it up in that department.

    Reply
  5. Radley Balko

    Scott:

    This is a pretty stark mischaracterization of my posts. I do not believe that Obama is the “beloved Democratic savior of criminal law.” The posts you cite, two in two days, specifically called Obama and Lynch out. I didn’t merely write that Lynch’s rejection of the PCAST report was “at odds” with Obama’s talk of reform. I wrote that Obama should have fired Lynch, and that he’s just as culpable as her for failing to do so. I wrote that his reforms overall have been far more symbolic than substantive. I wrote that if they can’t even make this happen, the Democrats need to stop being so smug about “science.” I called Obama’s failure on forensics reform “maddening and utterly disappointing,” and a historic missed opportunity that will have profound consequences. The last sentence reads: “When it mattered, [Obama] dropped the ball. And that will be as much of his criminal-justice legacy as his commutations, his panels, his talk of justice and equality, or his law review articles.”

    I get that you don’t share my disdain for Trump. Or you think I’m too “emotional” about him. Or something. But if you’re going to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I actually wrote.

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      You’re a bit oversensitive (too emotional?) about connecting my characterization of the larger issue as if it’s attributed to you. To the limited extent this post relates to your posts (which are linked, so they’re there for everyone to read and reach they’re own conclusion as to whether you were critical enough, or too critical), which are critical of Lynch, as you have been of police and government over the past eight years, I don’t disagree with you. Nor does this have anything to do with your disdain, or my lack thereof, for Trump. This is about the facts, regardless of what anyone feels about Obama or Trump.

      What this has to do with is the notable shift in tone and even word choice since the election. For nearly eight years, you’ve been one of the most forceful and accurate critics of impropriety, particularly with junk science, and while you are still critical (even as President Obama pats himself on the back for all the great reforms he’s “started” that never happened), the tone is significantly softer.

      This wasn’t all about you. In fact, this was barely about you. But you’re one of the people I look to when it comes to a hard-nosed, credible person to call out impropriety without regard to team politics and in language the clearly expresses when someone is doing wrong and full of shit. We’ll both have plenty to attack when the next administration comes into office, no doubt, but I will not pretend that the last one, the one that should have been the administration that actually did something, wasn’t totally full of shit and didn’t blow it.

      Obama didn’t “drop the ball.” He failed, and failed miserably, while lying about what a great progressive reformer he was. So Trump’s going to be Trump? I’m shocked. But that doesn’t make Obama any better. If that’s not sufficient disdain for you, sorry, but that’s about the best I can muster.

      Edit: By the way, your word choice, “maddening,” is an emotional word. So what if it “annoys or infuriates”? What matters is that it’s substantively wrong, regardless of how it makes you feel. That’s what I mean by “emotional.”

      Reply
  6. Pingback: A Tale Of Two Nations | Simple Justice

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. Anyone using the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly will be ridiculed. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.