interpretation is sound or not. that opinion until reversed at some point stands for the entire government. but basically, these agencies are often times, set about their own agendas without asking for an opinion. and often, they are narrow minded or they re focused only on what they feel the goals of their agency, and don t give sufficient respect to the rule of law, and the pro pry ty of what they re doing in particular, did the congress really intend this, does this law really cover interest or is it something you want to accomplish in your twisting the law to justify your actions. those are the kind of things that we do need to guard against. well, i appreciate that. and i hope that under your leadership, we will have a justice department that will give strong advice where it can. and have strong influence where it can.
to clinic entrances act, to empower and mobilize the fbi, the federal marshall sfls, or bureau of alcohol alcohol, tobacco and tire arms if there were harassment or intimidation. i would use the appropriate federal agencies and i believe it is in violation of the law to excessively or improperly hinder, even, the access to an abortion clinic. will you rigorously even force statutes that prohibit purchase of guns by felons or domestic abusers or drug addicts and use the statutes that exist right now on the books to ban those individuals from purchasing guns? well, congress has passed those laws, they remain the bread and butter enforcement mechanisms throughout our country today, to enforce gun laws. the first and foremost goal i
intent of congress and the laws plain words can be beneficial. i think normal they re issued by the department or agency that administered, health and human services, homeland security, department of commerce. they often, sometimes, they ask the office of legal counsel for their opinion about what the proper interpretation of the sfat out is. but i do think you raise a valid concern a guidance document cannot amount to an amendment of a law. brewer brewer owe drats do not have, department and agency attorneys and members don t have the ability to rewrite the law to make it say what they want to it say f we get away from that principle, we ve roded respect for law in the whole constitutional structure. where congress makes the laws not the executive branch. what about in the context of litigation where you re
the department of justice receives subpoenas, one of the entities being represented by the department of justice might receive requests from members of congress, from committees in congress, including some committees that have the power to issue subpoenas. other instances, just letters, or other types of requests from congress for documents. i suspect that there may be a number of outstanding requests of this nature that are left pending at the end of this administration. requests that were issued during the 114th congress, congress previous to this one. but that will still need to be handled. within the department after you re confirmed, assuming you are confirmed. will you commit to reviewing any of those that remain pending and doing so in a manner that s timely and showing the respect
advice to the attorney general and the president. we have seen in eight years a highly politicized olc. olc that s given politically convenient rulings, whether on recess appointments, on executive amnesty, and early on perhaps that was started by 2009 attorney general holder overruling olc concerning legislation trying to grant the distribute of columbia representation in congress. it may well be that that sent a message to olc its opinions were to be political and not legal in nature. what will you do as attorney general to restore professionalism and if i department to the office of legal counsel? senator cruz, i think any short term political agenda gains that come from the abuse of the law making processes and requirements of the department of justice, just don t make sejs. it will always, in the long run,