This is rich:

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

I seem to remember this was the root of the complaints about the Bush Justice Department appointees. In particular, Democrats had a vendetta against Hans von Spakovsky who overrode the opinion of career attorneys to assert the legitimacy of voter ID laws — a position ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. But we can’t have that, the liberals cried and denied von Spakovsky a post with the FEC.

The Washington Post explains:

Holder’s decision to get involved may expose President Obama’s Justice Department to some of the same concerns raised by Democrats during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Democrats claimed then that political considerations infused decisions on subjects including environmental regulations and national security policy. In particular, Bush’s OLC drew criticism when lawyers allegedly shaped their analysis on harsh interrogation tactics and warrantless eavesdropping to fit the views of superiors in the White House.
M. Edward Whelan III, who was a deputy at OLC during the Bush administration, said when informed of the matter that Holder’s decision to override the office’s conclusions amounted to a “blatant abuse” of the office’s purpose.

And the Post dryly recounts:

At his confirmation hearing in January, Holder promised to review OLC opinions issued by the Bush administration. “We don’t change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over,” he said. “The review that we would conduct would be a substantive one and reflect the best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be. It will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.”

So now that Holder overrides the opinion of career attorneys and does specifically what he promised not to do during his confirmation hearing, will he face the wrath of Senators Schumer and Leahy? I think not. But it will make for some interesting oversight hearings.