The Clinton scandal led to new interest in the lone dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in the Morrison v. Olson decision upholding the independent counsel statute. His claims that the arrangement was a grave threat to presidential power seemed prophetic in the midst of the scandal. But the outcome of the scandal points to the opposite conclusion. The independent counsel's powers are no match for the president's political powers to influence the media coverage of events, mobilize public opinion on his behalf, and marshal support within Congress. The independent counsel lacked an institutional base of power and was constrained from mobilizing a counterresponse in the political realm by the rules of prosecution and the need to appear independent. Presidential Studies Quarterly 31, no. 2 (June) © 2001 Center for the Study of the Presidency Katy J. Harriger is associate professor of political science at Wake Forest University. Her recent publications include The Special Prosecutor in American Politics (2d rev. ed.) and articles on the independent counsel and the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the areas of separation of powers and federalism.

No abstract

The Clinton scandal led to new interest in the lone dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in the Morrison v. Olson decision upholding the independent counsel statute. His claims that the arrangement was a grave threat to presidential power seemed prophetic in the midst of the scandal. But the outcome of the scandal points to the opposite conclusion. The independent counsel's powers are no match for the president's political powers to influence the media coverage of events, mobilize public opinion on his behalf, and marshal support within Congress. The independent counsel lacked an institutional base of power and was constrained from mobilizing a counterresponse in the political realm by the rules of prosecution and the need to appear independent.

This chapter discusses how college students can develop democratic dispositions and a civic identity through learning how to engage in deliberative dialogue on public issues.

The tensions between law and politics in the federal administration of justice are long‐standing and rooted in the expectation that the Department of Justice acts as both a presidential policy agency and an impartial prosecutor of federal crime. The investigation and trial of I. Lewis Libby by a special counsel (2003‐7) and the scandal over the firing of U.S. attorneys by the George W. Bush administration (2006‐7) demonstrate the challenges faced in trying to strike a balance between democratic accountability and the impartial administration of justice. Congressional and public confidence in the impartiality of the attorney general is the most important factor in managing these ever‐present tensions.