Barr gave a long speech at the Federalist Society last night explaining his theory that presidents must be absolute, provided they are Republicans.

As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President.  Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

Really? How very shocking. But perhaps that has something to do with the “entirely new character” of the criminal bully who is The President? Perhaps it has something to do with the monstrous things he is doing while we watch helplessly? Is the word “Putin” any help?

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration.

Again, shocking, and yet, perhaps there actually is some urgent reason for this resistance? Perhaps there is something, or many somethings, about this particular president that prompts or even requires resistance? Is that at all possible?

Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power.  It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate.  This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic.

Indeed, and yet, could it have something to do with genuine lack of legitimacy in this particular election? Something to do with bots and social media and Russia?

What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.

A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process.  The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.

I can hardly believe he had the gall to say that. Merrick Garland? Other nominees? Politico in July 2016:

Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland may be the most prominent casualty of the GOP-controlled Senate’s election-year resistance on the federal judiciary — but the pace of overall judicial confirmations under Mitch McConnell is on track to become the slowest in more than 60 years.

Under the McConnell-led Senate, just 20 district and circuit court judges have been confirmed at a time when the vacancies are hampering the federal bench nationwide, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Back to Barr’s rather selective account of the current state of play:

Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits.  And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents.  I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power.  But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.

But could it be that there is an exceptional amount of oversight needed, because of the criminal and self-dealing nature of the man squatting in the Oval Office?

In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of executive privilege.  The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off limits to Congress and the public.   There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well.  But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.

But, again, could that possibly be because the man who presides over the Executive Branch is committing crimes and thus has to be investigated more intrusively than is normal?

One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law.  When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to?  I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing.

No he doesn’t. That’s just a stupid lie. It’s shockingly easy to give examples of this administration’s shredding constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law.

  While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him.

No they did not. The Electoral College voted for him; the people voted for Clinton, by over 3 million. And what, exactly, is the difference between “throwing out the traditional Beltway playbook” and “shredding constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law”? Aren’t they the same thing presented in different terms? One of those irregular verbs? I have an independent mind, she’s crazy? I am throwing out the traditional Beltway playbook, she is shredding constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law?

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.

I’ll let Mimi Rocah sum up:

This is so outrageously inappropriate for an AG to be saying. You are the head of the DOJ for all Americans not just the ones in the Federalist Society. Please start acting like it.

He won’t though.