Commentary on Obama White House Counsel's Staff:
A friend and former Bush Administration lawyer writes in with some interesting thoughts on the initial staffing of the Obama White House Counsel's Office:
  The lawyers are all very accomplished, with pedigrees from elite universities and distinguished clerkships (Breyer and Stevens seem to be the biggest feeder judges). By my count, there are 4 Deputy White House Counsels, 1 Special Counsel, 14 Associate Counsels and 4 Deputy Associate counsels. The total numbers aren't particularly out of line with past offices except for the George W. Bush White House Counsel's Office at the start, which had a total of only ten lawyers - one counsel, one deputy and eight associates. Bush's Counsel's office was quite different, and much larger, at the end of his term, once investigations started.
  Two things stand out about the new Counsel's Office staff. First, there are way more deputies than in the past, and the resumes of the deputies suggest that they will play a major role in policy development, possibly at the expense of the DOJ's OLC and other agencies. On the other hand, the Obama Administration has expanded the policy capacity of the White House staff in general (adding new policy czars in a number of areas), so perhaps the added number of legal deputies is simply necessary to address the internal White House needs of the new czars. Second and more puzzling, the new Counsel's Office will include a non-lawyer research director position -- staffed by a former campaign opposition research specialist. Hopefully journalists will press to find out why this position has been created. It could simply be a mechanism for rapid response on judicial nominations, but it could also signal a desire to run political opposition activity out of the legal shop, which would be very unfortunate.
Jack Black (mail):
Unfortunate for whom?
1.30.2009 2:41pm
Thang (mail):
Perhaps it reflects that research involving policy issues warrants more than an ability to use Westlaw or Lexis.
1.30.2009 2:55pm
Gone Fission':
The taxpayers.
1.30.2009 2:56pm
Sarcastro (www):

desire to run political opposition activity out of the legal shop

Sounds like good, clean politics to me! Just don't fire the US attorneys or I will whine till your ears bleed!
1.30.2009 3:04pm
ginsocal (mail):
The fact that we are being run by lawyers does not bode well for the future of the Republic. They wiil be the ruin of all of us.

With apologies to the conservative lawyers here.
1.30.2009 3:07pm
govols:
ginsocal:

35 of the 55 founding fathers were lawyers.

Does that refute or support your complaint?
1.30.2009 3:13pm
Just an Observer:
If the role of OLC is diminished relative to the White House, that is what would truly be unfortunate. We recently experienced the ill effects of that (with the twist that the real center of influence was the veep's office).

But given the stature of the appointments in the new administration's OLC, and Dawn Johnsen's high-visibility assertion of OLC independence, one would think they could hold their own.
1.30.2009 3:14pm
Sarcastro (www):
I like to paint everyone of a given profession with a broad brush.

Clayton Cramer and me are like twins!
1.30.2009 3:23pm
Mule:
Personally I think this position wreaks of redundancy given the fact Obama possesses a luxury not held by the previous administration: a complicit medium serving as your opposition specialist(s). Obama has definitely learned from Bush's mistakes in the marketing department and seems determined to better "shape" the message. However, it won't be difficult to spot this "non-lawyer research director" in a crowded room - he/she will be the one holding the over-sized thesaurus.
1.30.2009 3:25pm
Just an Observer:
As for opposition-research experience, that would seem to come in very handy for internal vetting of nominees and appointments -- an area where the Obama transition team had some miscues. Vetting of judicial nominees would traditionally fall under the WH counsel's office, I think. Not so sure about cabinet and sub-cabinet candidates.
1.30.2009 3:27pm
ginsocal (mail):
govols:

Do you really believe that the "lawyers" of today are anything like the lawyers of 235 years ago? I don't.
1.30.2009 3:29pm
Mule:
ginsocal:

Outside of the opposable thumbs?
1.30.2009 3:32pm
PLR:
It could simply be a mechanism for rapid response on judicial nominations, but it could also signal a desire to run political opposition activity out of the legal shop, which would be very unfortunate.

It could also be a sign that the distinguished lawyers need someone to bring the donuts and to make coffee.
1.30.2009 3:35pm
Houston Lawyer:
Someone has to keep all those lawyers informed as to what Rush Limbaugh is saying to the enemy.
1.30.2009 3:38pm
krs:

Second and more puzzling, the new Counsel's Office will include a non-lawyer research director position -- staffed by a former campaign opposition research specialist. Hopefully journalists will press to find out why this position has been created. It could simply be a mechanism for rapid response on judicial nominations, but it could also signal a desire to run political opposition activity out of the legal shop, which would be very unfortunate.

I doubt it. The official party line is that the reign of terror has ended. The US no longer tortures, it now keeps the country safe without compromising civil liberties in the slightest, our "credibility with the international community" is restored, the environment will be fixed by the end of the decade, race relations are almost repaired, oppression in all forms is nearly at an end, and by the time Obama exits office there will be no more war or disease.

Anyone who asks questions in light of all that is just out to sabotage the first black president. Besides, Obama needs to keep track of the bad people.
1.30.2009 3:43pm
luagha:
It seems obvious that anyone who opposes policies generated from this office, or any lawyer who argues against the White House counsel in any court; will be subject to political opposition research. To be followed by this information being given to Media Matters, hostile ads being put up on YouTube against them, etc etc.

Better not have a $1000 tax lien against you that the state hasn't informed you of yet.
1.30.2009 3:52pm
Sarcastro (www):
Youtube? Media Matters? Oh, it's worse than that luagha! They'll mark your mailbox! Watch out - if you have a blue or red reflector on your mailbox, Obama already knows what side you're on.

The Hitler Youth ACORN will target you, and take your guns.

And then the REAL looting begins.
1.30.2009 3:56pm
gab:
Mule writes:


Personally I think this position wreaks of redundancy given the fact Obama possesses a luxury not held by the previous administration: a complicit medium serving as your opposition specialist(s).


Hell, if the medium is any good, they already know what's gonna happen and they can fire all the attorneys. Save the taxpayer some dough...
1.30.2009 4:00pm
Matthew K:

Hopefully journalists will press to find out why this position has been created. It could simply be a mechanism for rapid response on judicial nominations, but it could also signal a desire to run political opposition activity out of the legal shop, which would be very unfortunate.

I think we should not overlook the possibility that the press office might actually tell us what this person will do. It's a radical thought, but things are working somewhat differently down there now.
1.30.2009 4:09pm
A Law Dawg:
things are working somewhat differently down there now.


[Citation needed]
1.30.2009 4:15pm
LM (mail):
Why all the lawyers? Obviously Sharia ain't gonna just implement itself.
1.30.2009 4:29pm
Sarcastro (www):
ACORN LM.

And the blacks fit in there somehow as well.
1.30.2009 4:31pm
Constantin:
It's a radical thought, but things are working somewhat differently down there now.

No they're not.
1.30.2009 4:53pm
Mike& (mail):
it could also signal a desire to run political opposition activity out of the legal shop, which would be very unfortunate.

Why didn't this fellow write any letters during the Bush Administration?

Is he upset based on principle, or based on politics?
1.30.2009 5:10pm
RPT (mail):
What, no Regent Law School grads? But Constantin has a pipeline into the office.
1.30.2009 5:40pm
Oren:


Do you really believe that the "lawyers" of today are anything like the lawyers of 235 years ago? I don't.

The distinction being that today you disagree with their politics?
1.30.2009 5:50pm
UnintelligibleLiberal (mail):
Assuming the charge that Obama may be running political opposition activity out of his legal shop is true, is that any more unfortunate than running oppo activity from non-political executive departments like the GSA?

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/3738/52
1.30.2009 6:11pm
New Pseudonym:

Do you really believe that the "lawyers" of today are anything like the lawyers of 235 years ago? I don't.


The distinction being that today you disagree with their politics?


No, they didn't go to law school and even the few with degrees weren't "Doctors" of anything. And their apprenticeships didn't carry a starting salary of $160K/year.
1.30.2009 6:39pm
ginsocal (mail):
No, Oren, I disagree with their very existance.

I simply don't like lawyers very much.
1.30.2009 6:40pm
Sarcastro (www):
It's the liberal pleading rules. Nowadays any hack can go into court. Back in the good old days day they were like American aristocats.
1.30.2009 6:45pm
Arkady:

It's the liberal pleading rules. Nowadays any hack can go into court. Back in the good old days they were like American aristocrats.


Punchline:

"What do you call your act?"

"The Aristocrats."
1.30.2009 6:56pm
Real American (mail):

Hopefully journalists will press to find out why this position has been created.



LOL! Maybe when the tingling stops, but I doubt it.
1.30.2009 7:09pm
AlanDownunder (mail):
Clearly there's no-one there of Gonzales or Miers' calibre.
1.30.2009 11:51pm
jab:
It's gonna be a very long eight years if all we hear from the right is:

"Bush was a huge success with no failures, it was just the media being unfair..."

or

"Obama could personally go on a serial killing spree and the commie liberal press will cover for him..."

Seriously, get over it.
1.31.2009 12:17am
Matthew K:

things are working somewhat differently down there now.
[Citation needed]

Most basically, FOIA requests are apparently going to be much more fruitful.
1.31.2009 12:44am
Matthew K:
Apparently I can't post links. Oh well, google Obama+FOIA. Shouldn't be hard to find.
1.31.2009 12:45am
Perseus (mail):
Putting an opposition researcher in a legal office seems merely to be following the example set by the founder of the Democratic Party (who, of course, put a partisan journalist masquerading as a translator on the State Department payroll).
1.31.2009 4:09am
fishbane (mail):
No, they didn't go to law school and even the few with degrees weren't "Doctors" of anything. And their apprenticeships didn't carry a starting salary of $160K/year.

Aw, that's not fair. Those $2K suits they sweat through trying to pull 2600 hours out of a crashing economy don't pay for themselves. Plus, they have to find a trophy wife that will put up with the workplace insanity to marry, otherwise they aren't "balanced" enough to be a partner - those wives aren't cheap. Add in a mistress and some hobby to keep them sane in the very fleeting "free time" - a boat or something - money management is _hard_.
1.31.2009 6:26pm
Fub:
Sarcastro wrote at 1.30.2009 6:45pm:
Back in the good old days day they were like American aristocats.
So why didn't Disney sue all those aristocats for copyright infringement?
2.1.2009 12:33pm
LM (mail):
Fub,

If you have the DVD and haven't listened to the bits that didn't make the movie, do. I think the best of those are better than anything in the movie. My favorites were Doug Stanhope, Otto &George, and Kevin Pollack (channeling Albert Brooks).
2.1.2009 6:32pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.