Deputy Assistant Attorney General Emil Bove Instructions Daniel Sasson, representing SDNY, has dismissed the indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice. I wrote about the instructions here.
Sasson refused and resigned. Bove accepted her resignation. There is a lot to say about these letters. Here we will focus on one small part.
Sasson emphasizes that she wrote for Judge Scalia.
I am also led by the values ​​that have defined public services for over a decade. You and I have not met yet, not to mention discussing this case. But as you may know, I was written for J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of the Fourth Circuit, and for J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and for Judge Antoninscalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. Both men instilled me with a sense of obligation to contribute to the public interest and support the rule of law, as well as a commitment to a rational and thorough analysis. I have always considered my duty to pursue justice in a fair way, without being harsh on the wealthy and important public office people, or on the basis of those who are so powerful.
Here, Sasson summons the authority of Justice Scalia to protect her decision. On a general matter, I find it somewhat uncomfortable how people define themselves by clerks, especially the Supreme Court clerks. This was your first job you left law school and was hired primarily based on grades and recommendations from elite professors. What is written in the courts, especially the Supreme Court, is by no means a measure of who you are as a person. We overdecorate our store clerks.
However, I find this call particularly uncomfortable. Because she implies that Judge Scalia supports what she is doing. How does she know? Did she have a seance? Everything is going well with WWND (what will Nino do?), but we really have no clue. Judge Scalia in 1986 was different from Judge Scalia in 2001 and Judge Scalia in 2016. And I was amazed, and Judge Scalia had survived what had happened in the last decade.
The bigger problem, of course, is that Justice Scalia opposed it. Morrison vs. Olson. He was an OG Unitary Executive Theorist. On behalf of the Sovereign District, I believe Sasson’s letter is an antithesis of the Unified Enforcement Theory. And Bove’s response works well in that regard:
In your letter to the Attorney General, you made the suspicious choice to call Judge Scalia. Just as you most likely knew from your professional experience, Judge Scalia had a full understanding of the risks of weaponization and law.
Nothing is more politically effective than the ability to accuse the opponent and his peers of being not only simply wrong, naive, ineffective, but also “con artists” in all possibilities. And nothing so effectively gives the emergence of validity to such accusations, such as the Department of Justice investigation.
Morrisonv. Olson, 487 US 654, 713 (1988) (Scalia, J., disagree). The former US lawyer is not a special advisor, but Judge Scalia’s Morrison opponents have here adequately summed up concerns about the weaponization of the department.
Bove is right. There’s no need to take the original boss into this scenario. If so, it’s better to stick to it.
I have ignored the fact that Sassoon called her clerk to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson. Wilkinson gave unspoken support to Sussone’s ultimate decision New York Times:
Initially, J. Harvey Wilkinson III of the Federal Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, remembered Ms. Sussone as whip-smart and versatile.
He said he would not comment on the Adams incident and the decision he faced with others “in any form, in any way, or in form.” He added:
Remember the moment when George W. Bush had to choose between John Roberts, Mike Ruttig, and J. Harvey Wilkinson. All things considered, Bush didn’t make the worst choice.
