Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight

Opinion

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight
President Donald Trump holds a press conference with Attorney ...

Checks and balances can only work if government officials are willing to use their authority to check abuses of power by others. Without that, our Constitution is an empty promise.

And without the will to stand up to such abuses, freedom and democracy also become empty promises. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, the Constitution was designed to ensure that “the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”


In this design, he argued, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place….you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

That is why it matters whether Congress is willing to do its job of controlling the Executive. This has never been truer than it is today.

Let’s face it, the presidency is now much more powerful than Congress. Powerful and, as a result, a danger to liberty.

That was true before Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office. It has only become more apparent since then. In response, congressional Republicans have been unwilling to use their authority to rein him in.

No news there. Still, it was shocking to see Attorney General Pam Bondi’s open contempt for Congress displayed in her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, October 7.

It was also shocking to watch Republican Senators cheer her on as she denigrated their Democratic committee colleagues. Both were unprecedented.

Both suggest that our constitutional system is broken and that while Republicans may give lip service to that system, they are guilty of aiding and abetting in its overthrow. In criminal law, someone aids and abets the commission of a crime by another when they intend to assist or participate in that offense.

They can do so by encouraging or facilitating it.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are guilty of a crime in the ordinary sense.

They are, however, guilty of aiding and abetting Pam Bondi’s and Donald Trump’s crimes against the Constitution. Fidelity to that document requires that we call out their behavior in the strongest terms.

Let’s start with contempt of Congress. The law defines it as willfully refusing “ to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry".

During her appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Bondi refused to answer a long list of questions pertinent to its oversight inquiry. Among them, as California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff pointed out were questions about possible bribery involving Trump border czar Tom Homan, criminal investigations into the president’s political opponents initiated at the behest of the president himself, and the firing of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.

Those are just a few of the questions the Attorney General batted aside. Committee Chair, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, sat quietly as she stonewalled his colleagues. And when he was not silent, he tried to derail the inquiry by shifting the focus to the behavior of the Biden Justice Department.

Grassley’s opening remarks foretold what was to come. He went on at length about "weaponization" of the Justice Department under the Biden Administration. He characterized investigations of then-former President Trump as “indefensible acts.”This was a political fishing expedition to get Trump at all costs."

Grassley was joined, as Politico reports, by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who “falsely claimed…that newly disclosed records revealed that the FBI ‘tapped’ the phones of eight sitting U.S. senators during special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.”

Not surprisingly, “Attorney General Pam Bondi, during her Tuesday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not correct Hawley’s characterization of the records.”

But Bondi’s performance was not limited to her refusal to answer questions or to correct erroneous information. She used her appearance to attack Democratic Senators directly, offering up accusations or allegations of misconduct that had nothing to do with the hearing.

She called out Illinois Senator Richard Durbin. “You are sitting here as law enforcement officers aren't being paid. They're out there working to protect you. I wish you love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”

In response to a question from California Senator Adan Schiff, Bondi replied, “If you worked for me, you would’ve been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying.”

She accused Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal of misrepresenting his military record. She claimed that Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had ties to “dark money” groups and backed legislation that would “subsidize [his] wife’s company.”

Such personal attacks would not have been allowed under Senate rules if they had been made on the Senate floor during a debate. But Chairman Grassley did nothing, and neither did any of his Republican colleagues.

James Madison would be rolling over in his grave to know that Senators of either party would condone such behavior by a member of the Executive Branch. He would have seen it as a crime against the constitutional order he worked so assiduously to construct.

But welcome to America’s new world. It is defined by a cabal that has set out to undermine checks and balances.

Pam Bondi and Republican Senators showed what that looks like. Americans should not shut their eyes and imagine that the constitutional system will survive their assault on it without a large and sustained public response.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less