In Search of an Argument

Publius, who is almost always worth reading, asks a particularly cogent question about why the Department of Justice has ordered its career attorneys to refrain from making recommendations in voting rights cases, leaving the decisions instead to the political appointees at the top.

It’s fairly clear that I have many disagreements with Republican policies and, more specifically, with this administration’s policies. Despite my disagreements, I recognize that many of these debates boil down to subjective value judgments. I also recognize that there are a number of arguments that can be raised in good faith in support of policies I disagree with. For instance, I may disagree with a tax cut, but I can at least imagine some plausible reason why others might support it.

That said, I’m having trouble imagining any argument whatsoever that could justify prohibiting career DOJ attorneys who have devoted their lives to voting rights law from making recommendations on major voting rights cases. It’s not just that I disagree with this action, I can’t think of a single argument that could even plausibly justify it. The Iraq payola stuff is really bad, but I can at least imagine some argument in favor of it. But not here – this seems like pure Putin.