Partisanship in American Attorney General History: Evaluating William Barr

In recent discussions about the role of the United States Attorney General, questions have arisen about the degree of partisanship exhibited by various incumbents. One incumbent, William Barr, has been a particular focus, with some suggesting he is the most partisan Attorney General in American history. Let’s explore the history and context surrounding this debate.

Historical Partisanship in the Office of the Attorney General

The role of the U.S. Attorney General dates back to the early days of the nation. One of the earliest mentions is in the United States Constitution, where the President is given the power to nominate and with the Senate's advice and consent, appoint high officers including the Attorney General. Throughout history, the Attorney General has served as a critical legal advisor to the President and the Department of Justice.

Notable Partisan Instances

Several instances in American history have seen Attorney Generals engaging in highly partisan behaviors, which serve as useful references for evaluating William Barr’s partisanship.

Eric Holder and Janet Reno

Eric Holder, serving under Democratic President Barack Obama, garnered controversy for his actions that some viewed as overly partisan. For instance, Holder faced criticism for entering private meetings with the spouses of presidential candidates under investigation by the FBI, including a notable instance involving Loretta Lynch (who was then the Director of the FBI) meeting with Bill Clinton at the tarmac in Arizona. Janet Reno, serving under Republican President Bill Clinton, also faced scrutiny for certain decisions, such as the decision to burn down the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, which was controversial and seen by many as an unnecessary use of military assets.

John Mitchell

John Mitchell, the only sitting Attorney General to be convicted of a crime, remained in office until his conviction for obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal. His actions pre-date modern partisanship but have been a significant point of reference in debates about the role of the Attorney General in political investigations.

William Barr and His Record

William Barr, serving as Attorney General under President Donald Trump, has indeed faced criticism for various actions that some see as highly partisan. However, others argue that these actions are within the bounds of legal and policy compliance and do not necessarily indicate a level of partisanship that surpasses that of his predecessors.

Barr's Actions and Their Implications

Some critics argue that Barr's actions align closely with the legal advice and policies of the Department of Justice, and that his behavior is well within the realm of what has been seen before in the office. For instance, under Barr, the Department of Justice has taken a hardline approach on issues such as immigration, which some view as reflected in his personal views.

Criticism vs. Compliance

While some critics point to high-profile actions taken by Barr, others argue that these actions are primarily driven by policy and not partisan considerations. For example, the decision to investigate and prosecute certain cases under the guise of enforcing the law is often framed as a legal duty rather than a political one.

Comparing Barr to His Predecessors

When comparing Barr to other notable attorneys general, it becomes clear that he is not the most partisan in American history. While his actions have certainly drawn more immediate public scrutiny, several of his predecessors, such asEric Holder and Janet Reno, have also been seen as highly partisan figures in their respective administrations.

Eric Holder, for instance, was known for his aggressive stance on issues such as whistleblowing and health care reform, and was often critical of then-President Bush’s policies. Janet Reno, while praised for her efforts in civil rights and personal liberty, also faced criticism for her handling of controversial cases, such as the Waco incident, which remains a subject of political and judicial debate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while William Barr has faced significant criticism for his actions, particularly during the Mueller investigation, the degree of partisanship in his administration is not unprecedented in American legal history. While Barr’s actions may have been more controversial and in the public eye, many of his predecessors also exhibited highly partisan behaviors under different circumstances. The debate about partisanship in the office of the Attorney General will likely continue, as it has throughout American history, with each incumbent contributing to the broader narrative of the office's independence and political positioning.