Recently-fired U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias, is set to testify tomorrow before the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to a subpoena. Iglesias, you'll recall, alleges that he was called directly by two Republican federal lawmakers and pressured to speed up a case he was pursuing against Democratic state officials -- a definite no-no.

Iglesias says he's ready to name names. The suspicion, of course, is that Iglesias was not fired for "performance-related issues," as the "administration" claims, but rather for "not prosecuting Democrats while ignoring Republican crime-related issues," as is rumored to be the case with several other mysterious firings.

So tomorrow's opportunity is good news, at least for those who prefer their Justice Department with a little less corruption.

But are Democrats in Congress ready to open up this Pandora's Box?

After voting to issue the subpoenas Thursday, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), who chairs the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, stressed the importance of a judiciary branch that is separate and independent from the executive branch. "When the executive branch is interfering in the justice system-in other countries we call that corruption," she said. "It's very troubling to me that there seems to be this undercurrent."

High praise for the sentiment, certainly. But remember, Iglesias' claims do not implicate the independence of the judiciary branch. Rather, they are a symptom of the way this "administration" runs the executive branch. U.S. Attorneys are, of course, officers of the court. But they are employees of the Department of Justice, and as such, members of the executive branch.

So is it just a slip, or is it a troubling indication that we may not be viewing this case in context? And whose slip is it? Sanchez's or the reporter's? Sanchez's quoted words are quite correct. The executive is interfering in the justice system. The set-up which precedes it -- not a direct quote -- conflates the justice system with the judicial branch.

Ordinarily, I'd simply say the phrasing -- to whomever it belongs -- is simply a less than 100% accurate, off-the-cuff remark, and there's nothing to worry about. But I'm a little bit concerned here because I think this case is indicative of an "administration"-wide problem that's most dangerous in its manifestation in the Justice Department (simply because of the nature of what they do -- or at least, are supposed to do), but by no means limited to that department. You'll recall, after all, that this is also the "administration" that fires generals who don't say Iraq is a success, blows the cover of CIA agents whose spouses don't keep it to themselves when they catch them lying us into wars, and smears national security staffers and even Treasury Secretaries who confirm that it's all horrible-but-true.

But these issues are at least arguably confined in-house -- that is, within the executive branch. While the "administration" may well have corrupt motives in doing what it does, our system of government allows them a tremendous amount of latitude in doing so. It's where there are areas of overlap between the branches where our thinking -- and our understanding of the "administration's" thinking (if that's a term I can use here) -- will have to be at its sharpest.

The White House and the DoJ clearly consider these unprecedentedmass firings of U.S. Attorneys to be routine "personnel matters." They clearly know they're anything but routine, but they also know that by claiming they're "personnel matters," they are presumed to be entitled to the shield of the discretion we normally afford law-abiding administrations. This is of a piece with their, shall we say, "less than orthodox" theories on the extent of the executive's "inherent powers" and the nature of the "unitary executive." Under normal circumstances -- that is, with a law-abiding administration -- the firing of a U.S. Attorney might well be left unquestioned as a "personnel matter." But with an "administration" that walks out of Congressional hearings they don't like, purports to nullify laws by executive fiat, and attempts to intimidate whistleblowers by issuing subpoenas to Congressional investigators, we're well outside of affording the traditional benefit of the doubt without even reaching the fact that we're talking about multiple firings -- a brazenness in DoJ "personnel matters" not seen since the Saturday Night Massacre.

That's going to mean that everyone -- the public, the Congress, and the media -- are going to have to keep a sharp eye out, and not get lazy about assuming that the "administration" is in fact entitled to everything it claims it's entitled to. Hard questions have to be asked. Is the executive entitled to do whatever it wants on "personnel matters?" Is this in fact a "personnel matter" at all? Is the department chiefly tasked with enforcing the law breaking it instead? Is it, as I argue Gonzales has hinted before in other ares of questionable DoJ activity, not really breaking the law, if only because the laws don't apply to presidents?

And, we'll very likely soon be asking, is it within the executive's prerogative to direct the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia -- to whom the task would fall -- not to prosecute contempt of Congress charges against "administration" officials who defy Congressional subpoenas?