My idea on restoring our republic is to prosecute the criminal behavior of the Bush administration. This would include initial steps like stripping Lieberman of his committee chair.

This has not happened.

As someone said in one of the comments on this blog, during the election cycle there were many times we thought that Obama did not respond to an attack, or did not take the right position, especially on FISA. But overall, his strategy has been sound.

My hope is not totally gone. Maybe this appointment can be one of the steps to restore the constitution and the rule of law.

At this point, even Ed Meese and John Mitchell would represent far superior appointments than the shameless hacks and radical ideologues we've seen as Attorney General under the Bush regime.

What was Holder up to during "Ruby Ridge" and "Branch Davidian" raid? Neither were shining moments in democracy.

I'm not trying to start a fight....just curious.

Was bitching last night that Holder was involved in the Elian Gonzalez deal. Conservatives. Pissed off about a successful ending to a hostage situation.

Is this some bizarre and failed attempt at Swiftian satire on the part of Mr. Greenwald?

What was Holder up to during "Ruby Ridge" and "Branch Davidian" raid?

I'm pretty sure Holder had no involvement in either.

The Ruby Ridge outrage actually occurred during the Bush 41 administration, not the Clinton administration (it was in mid-1992). It's easy to forget that because that attack was part of the 1990s right-wing case against federal power and because most of the fallout happened under Clinton (the investigation, lawsuits, firings of FBI agents and the like), but that was all Bush 41.

Waco was 1993. At the time, Holder was the U.S. Attorney for DC and would have had no involvement. He didn't move to the DOJ until 1997, when he became Janet Reno's Deputy AG.

prove that you should not judge somebody by what he said right after 911.

There was so much said and done you only can explain with 911 and I am glad that you

approve of Holder.

I don't know the facts about who Holder defended beyond what I have read here, but I do believe there is an ethical difference between choosing to become a lawyer the bulk of whose time is spent defending corporations, and choosing to become, say, a public defender (who make up a large portion of those "defending" the prisoners in Guantanamo). I suppose corporations have some sort of right to defense in the way that people do (though I don't think such rights are properly comparable) but I think it matters in judging a person who they choose to systemically defend and for what reasons. Public defenders, in my experience, defend out of a deeply felt belief that, although most of their clients may in fact be guilty of their accused crime, their treatment by the state and the likely degree of punishment is deeply unjust. Corporate lawyers I've known present no such moral justifications for their jobs, and usually do it just as part of a self-interested career. Few seem to believe that their clients are systematically prevented from getting a fair shake, regardless of what they have or haven't done. So in short, yes, I believe that there is a difference between choosing to spend one's life defending the under-class versus defending the over-class (such as corporations). But again, this isn't to say that the corporations might not in some sense deserve representation -- only that I don't have to like the people who choose, of all the things they could do with their law degrees, to spend their time on that. And nor is it to say that Holder made such a choice himself: for all I know, defending an evil corporation like Chiquita (and they really are pretty damn bad) was a one-off -- in which case, it's (mostly) ok.

"Lawyers who defend even the worst parties are performing a vital service for our justice system. Holder is no more tainted by his defense of Chiquita than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo are tainted by that."

It's good to be reminded of this, Glenn.

When we think of the close association Gonzales had with GWB back in Texas, his WH Counsel and ultimately AG, we see the corruption of the DOJ that ensued.

When we pondered the cases that lawyers/judges (Alito and Roberts) adjudicated prior to their nominations for SC, we were appropriately concerned.

When you point out Holder's historical comments (from 2002-present)and evolution of positions we are enlightened, but also justifiably concerned.

As you say, Holder is a step in the right direction, but we progressives have been burned too often to feel any sense of relief until we see him confirmed. Morerover, only when he acts like an AG upholding the laws of the USA for everyone are we placated. If he believes his office (ala Gonzales) is to protect the Administration's turf, then we've reinstated the Bush nightmare of justice for the unjustifiable.

I just want to thank you for the research and thought you put into this. I have to confess that I rely on your judgment to a great degree when forming my own opinions. Even on issues that I may disagree with you on, your own thought processes and evaluations are sufficiently open and transparent and your approach of using principles first rather than identities and group membership as the basis for your decisionmaking allows me to use articles such as this one as a good starting point in formulating my own viewpoints.

Besides, after the Liberman fiasco, I was sort of hoping for something to feel good about!

Thank you for this piece on Eric Holder. The only thing I get from the MSM is "Marc Rich, Marc Rich, Marc Rich."

Another example of why I think you are the best thinker/commentator (I don't know what else to call you) in all of the daily media.

Holder says, "If you're going to listen in on attorney/client conversations, as we did in the Clinton administration...."

I didn't even know this was legal - with our without judges! My innocence and naiveté are showing in that I find this outrageous.