Feingold's service to Wisconsin, America
By John Nichols

A good argument can be made that the most important role of the U.S. Senate is to keep a watch on the White House. The founders established a separation of powers within the federal government with the precise intent that the Congress would check and balance the president and his aides. Without those checks and balances, a presidential administration might begin to operate in a regal rather than a responsible manner.

Unfortunately, in recent years, neither the Senate nor the U.S. House has provided much oversight on the Bush administration.

During the darkest days of the Bush interregnum, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was a lonely advocate of oversight in particular and checks and balances in general. That was evident when he cast the sole vote against the Patriot Act and when he proposed censuring President Bush for authorizing illegal surveillance on the American people

Now he is not so lonely.

Last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the controversy surrounding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys was a classic example of how the oversight process is being renewed.

Predictably, it was Feingold who asked the toughest questions and made the most important points. In particular, he went to the heart of concerns about the politicization of federal prosecutions.

Citing the example of U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic's pursuit of a case against state employee Georgia Thompson on a timeline that Wisconsin Republicans exploited to campaign against Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, Feingold pressed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on some of the most serious consequences of the Bush administration's partisan meddling with U.S. attorneys.

"I am particularly distressed by the recent events concerning the case of U.S. v. Thompson in my own state of Wisconsin," said the senator. "In that case, just a week and a half ago, the 7th Circuit was so troubled by the insufficiency of the evidence against Georgia Thompson that it made the highly unusual decision immediately after oral argument to issue an order reversing the conviction and releasing Ms. Thompson from custody. Implicit in that decision, and explicit at the oral argument, was the three judge panel's view that this case should never have been brought at all. Many in my state have taken the further step of questioning the impartiality of the U.S. attorney's office and the motivation for pursuing the prosecution."

Questions about Biskupic's actions are of particular concern to Wisconsinites. But they are, as well, concerns of all Americans who worry about the damage this administration has done to the credibility of the Department of Justice.

"There seems to be a fundamental disregard for the integrity of the criminal justice system," said Feingold, "and for the legitimate oversight role of the legislative branch."

On that issue, the senator has reached the only appropriate conclusion.

"I voted against Alberto Gonzales to be the attorney general because I was not convinced he would put the rule of law, and the interests of the country, above those of the president and the administration," explained Feingold. "Unfortunately, those concerns have been realized over and over -- not just in this scandal, but in the department's handling of the NSA spying program and the Patriot Act reauthorization process.

"Whether this latest story is essentially one of improper, politically motivated firings and dishonesty, or is merely a story of incompetence and inattention, this attorney general has not acted in a manner that upholds the best interests of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. This attorney general does not have the confidence of Congress or the public. That is the performance problem' of the biggest concern at the moment."