As foolish as it is to think that DOJ is not a political animal, it's even more foolish to misunderstand those politics -- or, more accurately, to so badly misrepresent them, as our neoconservative "court jesters" have tended to do in recent weeks.
Political appointees to DOJ will bring different views on how aggressively to enforce cases brought under legal and regulatory regimens like EEOC, fair labor and OSHA standards, anti-trust, SEC violations, and so forth. Republican appointees are by their nature going to be hesitant to prosecute marginal cases. In contrast, Democratic appointees will tend to use judicial process to influence outcomes more aggressively.
By that I mean, for example, a business combination that might be OK under the letter of the anti-trust laws but that DOJ, under a Democratic Attorney General, thinks is in violation of the spirit may well become the subject of DOJ enforcement--even if DOJ is not likely to win, just filing a suit can sometimes derail a merger or acquisition by delaying it, bringing bad publicity and increasing transaction costs and serve as a warning to like-minded businesses.
A Republican AG, however, is going to be inclined to use enforcement power only in the most egregious cases. Or, where a regulation might be subject to differing interpretations, the DOJ under a Democratic AG will prosecute that interpretation which gives greatest effect to the remedial purposes of the regulation while a Republican AG's DOJ will tend to side with a "no enforcement" interpretation. Believe it or not, that's fair game. Whoever doesn't like it has the chance to change it up in the next election.
What isn't fair game, and the song the enablers and defenders have been singing, is using the power of the Justice Department not just to shade enforcement meanings and interpretations but to specifically target the opposition party while going light-touch on the party in power. This is not simply having a DOJ that reflects a preferred legal position that is tied to a political viewpoint, it is a hijacking of the judicial system itself and a violation of core provisions of every code of legal ethics and government conduct you can cite. It is not "political" in any way; it's subversion, pure and simple.
I spoke to a labor lawyer with the US Labor Department early in Bush's first term who confirmed my assumption that enforcement actions against management were way, way down. This, of course, was long before this string of revelations that really began with DOJ clearing NSA's warrantless spying, includes DOJ's "vertical cliff" hiring practices for all but right-wing religious attorneys, and continues right up to this minute in Purgegate and its manifestations.
It's the AG's job to tell the Administration "NOT ON MY WATCH" and exercise some independent judgment when it comes to an Administration's most egregious instructions, even while giving effect day-to-day to the Administration's prevailing legal priorities, theories and interpretations in its enforcement choices and strategies.
This is where the Defenders of the Regime now look royally stupid. This whole situation goes well beyond the pale of what is acceptable, ethically, morally and politically, in the field of law as practiced within government. Any bar association with integrity would disbar private attorneys who so blatantly ignored their professional responsibilities.
I just wish more people understood this.