Talk:Office of Legal Counsel

M. Edward Whelan III
I have commented out the line "* M. Edward Whelan III, Acting Assistant AG October 2003 to December 2004". Although consistent with the referenced source, namely the Congressional Directory for 2003–2004, it cannot be reconciled with the well-documented fact that Jack Goldsmith was the Assistant Attorney General for the OLC from October 6, 2003 – the day he was sworn in – till July 2004. It is possible that Whelan, being Deputy AAG, was Acting AAG in the interlude between Goldsmith and Levin, but he definitely was not Acting AAG for the whole period. Also, an article in the NYT called Levin the "acting successor [of Goldsmith] as head of the Office of Legal Counsel". --Lambiam 12:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OLC (then called Executive Adjudications Division) created by which 1934 act of Congress?
There is no executive reorganization for 1934 in the List of United States federal legislation, 1901-2001 at this time. I am assuming that list is incomplete. Does anyone have a reference to the specific act?

Craig Pennington (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Office of Legal Counsel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430081211/http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/president-elect_obama_announces_key_department_of_justice_posts/ to http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/president-elect_obama_announces_key_department_of_justice_posts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

List of AAGs "Notes" column
I recently made some additions and clarifications to the "Notes" column in the table list of AAGs, but it could really be a lot more consistent. I was not even sure whether certain facts should be added or not, because there was no guiding standard. Here are some initial questions and thoughts:
 * This column could be used to list another position only when the person left the AAG role for that other job - e.g., it appears Luttig was head of OLC right up until he became a judge. I don't think this has been the rule so far for this table, and I don't think it should be, because many of these people moved on to very distinguished and well-known positions some time later, and it would seem really odd to mention that Rankin became Solicitor General but not mention Scalia became a Supreme Court Justice.
 * This column could be used to list any high government position held after serving as AAG. I'm not sure how to define "high" in this case - presumably Attorney General or other Cabinet secretary, federal judge, ambassador, that sort of thing. I think this concept is what was sort of being done here, and that's the sort of thing I added, but it's certainly not comprehensive - essentially, what I did was saw some names I knew, confirmed it was the same person I thought it was, and then added their other title. There are surely other instances that I did not notice.
 * Arguably, none of this is directly relevant to this topic. But it is a fact, as demonstrated by this page so far, that AAG for OLC is frequently a stepping stone to other, very-big-deal positions. Actually, that might be worth adding to the article body if a sufficiently reliable source can be found that makes that point (more eloquently than I have).
 * I'm not sure about Deputy Attorney General. It is senior to AAG, and to the Solicitor General for that matter, but I'm not sure serving as DAG is necessarily notable, particularly if the person later became the Attorney General. And I'm really not sure something like Principal Deputy AAG is notable. On the flip side, while I would generally say not to include other AAG positions, Wilson White's service as the first head of the Civil Rights Division is at least interesting.
 * Should this be limited to senior government roles? PRO: It's at least a standard that can be applied fairly objectively. CON: The table already includes some noteworthy items that don't fit this category (e.g., Harvard professors), and it could have more (Luttig at Boeing comes to mind).
 * What about discussion of the person's actual OLC service? Bybee seems to be the only one with any detail on that point. But certainly many, many OLC opinions and actions have had some import; see the recent public discussion of the OLC conclusions that the president cannot be indicted. Or consider this from Rankin's Wikipedia article: "In 1953, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel. In this capacity, Rankin may best be remembered for arguing in favor of the African-American plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)..." That seems highly notable if we are going to try to highlight what people actually did in this role. The flip side of that is that there is a considerable risk of violating neutral point-of-view rules or giving certain issues undue weight. I'd be more inclined to strike the Bybee note as opposed to trying to figure out what "notable" opinions were issued under any given OLC head.
 * (EDITED TO ADD: After further thought, the better course for this sort of thing is probably to beef up the History or Controversies sections, as appropriate, rather than including it in the list of office-holders. Obviously, to the extent it's relevant, the discussion would probably mention the involved AAG. Bybee and the "torture memos" are already mentioned there, for example.)
 * Non-substantive issue: There should be a standard on dates - always use them? Sometimes (e.g., when the person goes directly from this job to that job)? Never? And then of course the separate question of ending dates: Would you say Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986, or that Scalia served on the Supreme Court from 1986 to 2016?
 * Another non-substantive issue: I think we should disfavor abbreviations. I suspect a majority of U.S. lawyers would not immediately recognize "AAG" so surely the vast majority of Wikipedia readers will not see it as obvious.

Anyway, apologies for long-windedness, but I'd appreciate any feedback on the above. --EightYearBreak (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC) (Note, minor edit made before any responses --EightYearBreak (talk)  14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC))