I openly admit it was the culmination of a political clash between a civil servant with respect for political norms and a president who regards those norms as dispensable. That is the sort of politics I believe any office holder is right to engage in. I believe your argument took in the bare minimum of context and had limited regard to the importance of conventional rather than merely black letter constitutional restraints on presidential power. Departments report to the President. That is incontrovertible. However, that usually occurs in the context of mutual respect of due process and proper advice. Departments have their expertise consulted in making decisions and the President takes their advice into account. That tradition is important in legal affairs. It stops the President from making legal decisions which impact rights arbitrarily. All reporting indicates this was made with little consultation with anyone and none with the DoJ. This is also vital because the President, unlike a prime minister, answers to no superior. He must willingly take in the moderating advice of cabinet members and other officials. The preservation of constitutional convention is what keeps a democracy truly open and fair. In the US, the President must be the one to accept those conventional limitations. The begrudging observance of the constitution in its most literal, minimalist form is not enough for democracy to flourish. A level of good faith and restraint is necessary to keep government fair and reasonable. Disingenuous methods such as reporting what the President is doing and fact-checking? The bar is higher than criminality, come on mate. Sessions has an appalling record on racial discrimination and remarkably little policy vision. Questioning him on those grounds isn't an arbitrary blocking. Getting him to justify himself and outline a vision for the DoJ is a clear benefit for public discourse and accountability in a system where cabinet members don't regularly receive opposition scrutiny, about personal or policy matters, which they are obliged to respond to. That argument is also a ridiculous silencer, both in itself and if taken to its fullest extent. Why should appointments in a confirmation process be unquestioned beyond establishing constitutional fitness for office? If the logic is extended, should opposition parties not speak against bills or question executive decisions just because they can't block them or if they have the basic information at hand?