Confirmation Hearing: Dereich for Attorney General (Confirmed)

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators are now invited to ask the Honorable nominee questions.

[Adam Griffin]

Not my first choice (but definitely my fourth)!

[_]

What qualifications do you have to become Attorney General? And what legal experience do you have?

[wxtransit]

I'll just echo the honorable member from Illinois's questions, but otherwise, I have no concerns for the nominee and intend to support.

[Dereich]

What qualifications do you have to become Attorney General? And what legal experience do you have?

In-game I have experience on both sides of the legislative process, as a multiple-term legislator in the IDS, the old Midwest, and Fremont. I was Speaker of the IDS and Archduke of the Midwest Alþing. I also served as Emperor of the Imperial Dominion of the South, Governor of the Midwest, a Federal House member, and Senator for Fremont. I spent some time as an associate justice which ended when I withdrew from the game due to events around November 2016. I have filed several amici curiae with the Supreme Court and have represented clients before the Court as well.

Out of game, I am a member of the Florida Bar in good standing and am employed as a prosecutor by the State of Florida.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I’m liking what I’m hearing. What are your positions on civil liberties?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lawyer not named Badger = Yes from me.

[_]

Question on behalf of 1184AZ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pericles]

Lawyer not named Badger = Yes from me.

Badger is a FF.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not my first choice (but definitely my fourth)!

Is that a reference to him always preferencing Seatown?

[Dereich]

I’m liking what I’m hearing. What are your positions on civil liberties?

That's a rather broad question Senator; almost no one would say they were "against civil liberties," but when it comes down to specific circumstances reasonable minds can and do differ as to whether or not those liberties are at stake. If you could clarify which issues, cases, or incidents you are interested in hearing my position on, I'd be glad to answer that more thoroughly.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I’m liking what I’m hearing. What are your positions on civil liberties?

That's a rather broad question Senator; almost no one would say they were "against civil liberties," but when it comes down to specific circumstances reasonable minds can and do differ as to whether or not those liberties are at stake. If you could clarify which issues, cases, or incidents you are interested in hearing my position on, I'd be glad to answer that more thoroughly.

Sorry, let me rephrase that. What is your position on government surveillance upon unknowing Atlasia citizens, and will it be practiced in this administration?

[Blair]

I hope my distinguished friends in the Senate, will allow a former Senator, and current Justice to ask some general questions, that I've asked to various nominees before, because you can never have too many questions.

1.) Will you be willing, and more active than your predecessors in both challenging legislation at both Federal, and regional level when it clearly has elements that could be unconstitutional? One of my greatest gripes (and one I should have acted on more before my days as a Justice) was that we don't seem to challenge Laws anymore in Atlasia.

2.) In the last administration, Attorney General Oakvale prosecuted Speaker Ninja with crimes involving thread deletions, despite the opposition of a lot of people. (and possibly the President) If you believed someone had committed a crime would you prosecute them, even if the President and other officials opposed the action? 

3.) To the above, if you believed a law was unconstitutional would you file a suit against it, even if the President and other officials disagreed?

[Dereich]

First, I want to apologize to the Senators whose questions I have not yet answered. My focus for much of the week was on preparing for a trial which was set to begin this morning. I will try to get to the questions still outstanding today.

I hope my distinguished friends in the Senate, will allow a former Senator, and current Justice to ask some general questions, that I've asked to various nominees before, because you can never have too many questions.

1.) Will you be willing, and more active than your predecessors in both challenging legislation at both Federal, and regional level when it clearly has elements that could be unconstitutional? One of my greatest gripes (and one I should have acted on more before my days as a Justice) was that we don't seem to challenge Laws anymore in Atlasia.

2.) In the last administration, Attorney General Oakvale prosecuted Speaker Ninja with crimes involving thread deletions, despite the opposition of a lot of people. (and possibly the President) If you believed someone had committed a crime would you prosecute them, even if the President and other officials opposed the action? 

3.) To the above, if you believed a law was unconstitutional would you file a suit against it, even if the President and other officials disagreed?

You've definitely raised interesting issues here. While I don't think you will like them, I believe the answers are clear the way the law is written. While some offices can perhaps claim broader authority through creation by the legislature, the current position of Attorney General was created by presidential fiat last year. The role of the Attorney General was set out by an immediately following executive order. Namely:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There has been no change to the Attorney General's authority since then. As that is the limit of the office's legal mandate, I would very strongly hesitate to go beyond it. It isn't a good look for the Attorney General to ignore the law! So, with the background out of the way, to answer your questions in order:

1. While I will certainly do what I can with regional issues that are preempted by Federal action, I do not believe the Attorney General currently has the authority to challenge Federal law. If that authority should change, I would change how I acted. Also, while it wouldn't be necessarily "challenging the law" I see no problem with informing the President and the legislature that I believe a bill they are considering would be unconstitutional and would be successfully challenged if passed. I do intend to act in that advisory role where possible.

2. Absolutely. I would assume that I was nominated for this post to actually fulfill the position's obligations. If people are upset that the Attorney General is enforcing an unpopular law, I would suggest that their energy be directed at changing the law. Laws often seem stupid and create unintended consequences, but that should be an issue for their representatives to handle, not for the Justice Department to dance around.

3. For the reasons stated in #1, no. Disapproval on the part of the President or other officials need not enter the equation. I do not believe the Attorney General currently has the authority to file suit against an unconstitutional law. I might do so as a private citizen if the law was egregious enough, but not in an official capacity. Assuming I did have that power, as I said before, I would follow the requirements of the law, not the whims of the President. If the President disagreed with my behavior, he would of course have the authority to dismiss me or change the authority of my office.   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If I can chime in, having some experience with challenging a federal law (and winning 3-0), the Attorney General typically acts in the capacity of the defense for the Federal Government when said federal law is challenged, typically by a private citizen or wronged individual.

In March 2013, I sued the gov't as a private citizen over the Department Renaming Act (after having certified it as passing the Senate as PPT), because I came to the conclusion that it was unconstitutional based on information I came upon by accident after the vote. Attorney General DemPGH was the defendant.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is one of those instances where the third constitution was actually better and it was so completely by accident. Attorney General was a constitutionally defined office and thus above the interference of the President and the Congress (Senate), beyond appointment and confirmation.

[_]

Question on behalf of 1184AZ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reposting this

[Dereich]

Question on behalf of 1184AZ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reposting this

In a way, this is the most difficult question to answer because there are some very valid concerns here. There is no getting around the problem that I have had problems with activity for some offices in the past and the way my work schedule is now there will be some weeks where heavy activity just isn't possible. This week was a good example of the type where my access to the game was seriously limited by work issues.

I guess my best answer to this is that this is another time and another office. I have not held seriously held office for about two years, with a brief period of service last year. Tempora mutantur; very few people stay consistently active for years at a time, but there are plenty of examples of people rejoining with renewed interest after some time.

And I think it being a different office is a big difference too. I am a lawyer and reading/interpreting/arguing about laws is what I have studied for years and now do for a living. Being able to do it in a setting where people's liberty does not literally hang in the balance based on my decisions is an interesting and amusing prospect.

I understand this answer might not be enough for everyone; it was almost not enough for me. This issue was the biggest one I wrestled with when President Yankee asked if I was interested. In the end I came to the conclusion that I would be able to actively hold the office. I hope that answers your question.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Any more questions?

[wxtransit]

None from me.

[_]

Nope

[Terry the Fat Shark]

If there are no more questions within the next 24 hours, I will commence a final vote on the Confirmation of Dereich for Attorney General, if anyone has objections to this, please state them in the next 24 hours.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

With no further questions or objections being noted, a final vote on this nominee begins. Senators will have 72 hours or until every Senator votes --- to vote on this nominee's confirmation.

[Sestak]

Aye.

[_]

Aye