Trump has officially nominated his criminal defense lawyer, now on the payroll of the Department of Justice as the Acting Attorney General following the firing of Pamela Jo Bondi, who replaced his first choice, Matt Gaetz, to be the Attorney General of the United States. While this might not come as much of a surprise to anyone, even if other names were floated earlier and Blanche told the press that if the president was to nominate someone else, he would still say “thank you very much. I love you, Sir.”

It’s entirely understandable why any president would select an attorney general in whom he or she reposes extreme trust. But then, that trust is constrained by the understanding of the function of the office. Historically, the Department of Justice has been somewhat independent of the president, with the AG, theoretically at least, making decisions based on the Constitution and law rather than partisan politics. There is no legal mandate that limits the president’s involvement in the use of the DoJ, and the norm of independence has not always been respected by presidents in the past.

But then, the Attorney General represents the United States of America, not the president, either officially or personally.

Blanche, a former AUSA in the Southern District of New York, where he was well regarded. has prosecutorial chops, which puts him ahead of other cabinet appointees who received Senate confirmation. Having served for the past year and a half as DAG, he has gained managerial experience in the running of the Department.

The president, and like it or not, Trump is indeed the president, should be entitled to a cabinet of his choosing. Deference should be shown to the president’s nominees as the people to whom the president turns for advice and service. But that deference is not without limits, which is why the Constitution mandates advice and consent by the Senate. The Senate has an independent role in determining whether the president’s choice is sufficiently sound for confirmation.

Does Blanche deserve to be confirmed?

The announcement, teased by White House officials last week, paves the way for a potentially contentious confirmation fight after intense public scrutiny of Mr. Blanche over his role in an administration push for a $1.8 billion fund to pay those claiming they were victims of government mistreatment. The proposal raised the possibility of funneling taxpayer money to Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters, including rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Blanche suggested that the slush fund was dead. Trump feels otherwise. Will Blanche do Trump’s bidding nonetheless? Then there’s the gift of releasing Trump, his boys and businesses, from IRS liability in a faux settlement after dismissal of Trump’s suit with prejudice, signed off only by Blanche. And that’s just the issues raised over the past month.

In recent weeks, his predecessor, Pam Bondi, who was fired in April after Mr. Trump privately vented over her failed efforts to prosecute his political enemies, placed primary responsibility for the release of the files on Mr. Blanche during an interview with a House committee.

Of course, that could have been Bondi throwing Blanche under the bus to save her own skin, but it is undeniable that the massive failure to properly disclose the Epstein files was covered with Blanche’s fingerprints. And then there is his role in promoting Trump’s retribution tour.

As acting attorney general, Mr. Blanche has taken a series of actions against Trump targets, including greenlighting the indictment of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, for posting to social media an image of seashells arrayed to read “86-47,” which Mr. Blanche has described as a credible threat of violence against a sitting president. (The phrase “86” is a slang term evolved from restaurant parlance for throwing something out or running out of a menu item, and “47” refers to Mr. Trump, the nation’s 47th president.)

The New York Times described Blanche’s performance as acquiescing to Trump’s “maximalist demands,” or to put it more blunting, doing Trump’s dirty work without regard to its legality or merit. As former Republican Judiciary Counsel Gregg Nunziata noted, this is not what the founders had in mind.

The Senate confirmation process is meant to prevent the President from filling key roles with people possessing the “pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.” (Hamilton, Federalist 76).

On the one hand, Blanche possesses the professional qualifications for the job. On the other, he has overwhelmingly demonstrated his willingness to use the power of the office to do Trump’s bidding, no matter how improper or illegal Trump’s demands might be. Blanche was Trump’s personal lawyer before Trump was elected, and has continued to pursue his client’s interests since then.

Should the Senate confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General of the United States of America because he possesses the facial professional qualifications for the position, or reject his nomination because he loves the president too much to be trusted to use his office for the benefit of the people rather than Trump?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.