Where is Judge John J. “Maximum John” Sirica when we need him — or her? That’s the question in the Hunter Biden case. Sirica — now gone, alas — was a United States district judge at Washington. It was he who, in respect of the Watergate break-in, forced open the question of the conspiracy behind it and, not to put too fine a point on it, brought down the Nixon administration. Who is going to do that in respect of the case of Hunter Biden and his father?

Could it yet be, say, Judge Maryellen Noreika? She hasn’t earned the sobriquet of “Maximum Maryellen” — at least not yet. She is, though, the United States district judge who is presiding over the case the Biden administration  brought against President Biden’s son, Hunter, in respect of his taxes and firearms purchase. It is she who will have to approve the see-no-felony deal struck the other day between Hunter Biden and his father’s justice department. 

A hearing is currently set for July 26, though Judge Noreika — a Trump appointee supported by Delaware’s two senators, both Democrats — is coming under pressure, from, among other sources, a suit filed by the Heritage Foundation over the misdemeanor tax charge. Looming out there are bigger questions about Hunter’s financial dealings, influence peddling and, most importantly, the involvement (or lack thereof) of his father. 

So what would Maximum John Sirica, known for his stiff sentences, do? History suggests that he’d refuse to accept what GOP lawmakers are calling “a sweetheart deal.” That proposed plea deal fails to hold Hunter accountable for any possible offenses beyond misdemeanor-grade tax evasion, while offering an escape hatch for  lying, in his quest to be able to purchase a gun, about his drug use. He would leverage what powers a judge has in order to get answers.

Was the federal prosecutor, David Weiss, overruled by his superiors within DOJ, or blocked by others within DOJ, in his effort to expand his remit and charge Hunter with other crimes in other jurisdictions? Two whistleblowers have alleged that to be the case. Was Mr. Weiss blocked from investigating other whistleblower allegations of a bribery scheme involving Hunter and his father? It’s hard to imagine Maximum John signing off without answers.

No, Sirica, using what powers he could muster, would try to force the issue. He certainly used his sentencing powers to throw fear into those before him. He did so in what legal scholar Anthony J. Gaughan calls a “highly unorthodox approach to sentencing” that “shattered the administration’s wall of silence.” He broke through the prosecution’s attempt to focus solely on the Watergate break-in itself rather than the conspiracy.

Does Judge Noreika have it within her to emerge as “Maximum Maryellen?” She might not need our, or anyone else’s, help. If she’s wavering, though, she could study the example of Judge Sirica. Mr. Gaughan writes that the judge’s tough questioning spurred “a race to the courthouse among key figures in the Nixon Administration.” Sirica, in his autobiography, asserts that the scandal “vindicated the judiciary’s role in exposing executive branch wrongdoing.”

There are those who reckon that Judge Sirica went too far, abandoning a role that Chief Justice Roberts, later and in a different context, likened to an umpire calling balls and strikes. Sirica became, in essence, the pitcher. Conrad Black has made what, to us at least, is a convincing defense of the 37th president. He credits Nixon for his famous statement, “I am not a crook.” It’s not so clear, though, that the same could be said by President Biden.