In an effort to take control of the judicial branch of the government, conservative George W. Bush has machinated the firings of multiple US attorneys that were insufficiently "conservative" for his liking in order to, without any oversight from congress, replace them with more conservative attorneys.

This would help ensure that the conservative agenda dominates the judiciary.

While former presidents have been able to replace previously appointed attorneys, congress has had a say in the matter and there has been some oversight. But under the patriot act, bush is doing it without a word of input from anyone.

People said the patriot act would be abused for political gain. Well, it is.

It has nothing to do with the PATRIOT ACT, you dofus.

Every US Attorney serves at the whim of the President. They can be fired for any - or no -reason.

The President APPOINTS these attornies (and I know, some hold over from prior administrations - BUT). They're HIS guys.

Yes, this was political. So what? Its perfectly legal (and not just since BusHitlerBurtonMcCo. took over the world). Clinton fired ALL 93 at one shot. Were you screaming then?

Perspective. Its more than an artist's technique.

....Laughing my ass off.
 I have the OP on ignore - but I can kind of guess what he said by WereKoala's response.

 Please tell me you guys talk politics less than folks do on those  other gamer forums .....Please?

 Oh ...and "on topic" - I was honestly surprised the current administration did not make these changes during the first term. It is rather expected and a bit traditional at this point.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: Koltar....Laughing my ass off.
 I have the OP on ignore - but I can kind of guess what he said by WereKoala's response.

 Please tell me you guys talk politics less than folks do on those  other gamer forums .....Please?

 Oh ...and "on topic" - I was honestly surprised the current administration did not make these changes during the first term. It is rather expected and a bit traditional at this point.

- E.W.C.

Wow, I can just imagine you laughing your ass off.

Then picking it up to kiss it. Wow, that might be a dream come try for you.

BTW, for the record any working class american who supports bush is not only brain dead, but is in fact commiting class suicide as bush is out to destroy the middle class in america.

Please, do tell us - who are our saviors, Nox? Or is it too late?

The problem isn't that he fired attorneys (though the reasons behind the firing are scummy to say the least), but that he used a new loophole introduced by the PATRIOT Act to replace them without oversight from the legislative branch. His appointments will be not be subject to review and approval by other branches - "checks and balances" have been removed without good reason, and that is never a good thing.

I'm not that worried about it.


 But hey - can we fictionalize it and turn it into an RPG campaign story plot?


- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarI'm not that worried about it.


 But hey - can we fictionalize it and turn it into an RPG campaign story plot?


- E.W.C.

In the cyberpunk future, lawyers are outlawed.  Cases are argued by cybernetic jurists with segmented brains that store all legal data in deeply encrypted subroutines that can only be activated when the carrier's conscious mind is put on standby.

The last known copy of Black's Law Dictionary sits on your desk.  What will you do?  Who can you trust?  Where can you hide the most dangerous book in the world?

Thats twistedly cool.

 I'm now imagining Denny Crane or Alan Shore crossed and merged with Johny Mnemonic as an AI legal advocate.


- E.W.C.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe problem isn't that he fired attorneys (though the reasons behind the firing are scummy to say the least), but that he used a new loophole introduced by the PATRIOT Act to replace them without oversight from the legislative branch. His appointments will be not be subject to review and approval by other branches - "checks and balances" have been removed without good reason, and that is never a good thing.

Oh. Well, that's not what all the screaming I've heard from Chucky Schumer is about. I guess he'll get around to it eventually.

I'm against the PATRIOT ACT and have been since day one, for the record. Its a prime example of "Oh my god we've gotta DO something!" legislation that also gave us the TSA and Homeland Security. In hindsight (or in my case, foresight) they were all things we coulda done without.

Quote from: WerekoalaOh. Well, that's not what all the screaming I've heard from Chucky Schumer is about. I guess he'll get around to it eventually.

I'm against the PATRIOT ACT and have been since day one, for the record. Its a prime example of "Oh my god we've gotta DO something!" legislation that also gave us the TSA and Homeland Security. In hindsight (or in my case, foresight) they were all things we coulda done without.

You're right re the patriot act, and the administration still hasn't done any of the things it should be doing, like seeing to it all major aircraft have reinforced cockpit doors and a weapon in the cockpit that at least one crewman in trained to use.

The only right response W's regime has done in light of 911 was to crush the taliban. Of course that proper act was dwarfed by the move into iraq, a country ran by a strongman who hated radical islam because he was a secularist who had no use for religious fanatics.

Either you're mistaken in your thinking or in your typing.  Perhaps a litte more clarity would help.

• There is nothing that prevents a President from firing a US Attorney.
• Until the Patriot Act, a President required Congressional approval for permanent replacements of an open US Attorney position.
• The PATRIOT Act allowed the President to fill an open US attorney with an "interim" replacement not subject to Congressional oversight.
• A loophole in the PATRIOT Act allowed for the "interim" replacement to last indefinitely.

Therefore, in theory, a President could fill an open US Attorney position with an "interim" replacement that lasted indefinitely.

So, where does that leave us.

• The firing of the 8 US Attorneys, for reasons of various levels of "validity" are perfectly within the rights of the President with or without the PATRIOT Act.
• The replacement of those attorneys could, in theory, avoid Congressional oversight.

And finally:

• The President has agreed to allow the replacements to be subject to Senate oversight.
  
• Even if the President didn't, the longest those "interim" US Attorneys, not subject to Congressional oversight, would most likely serve would be until the end of the term of the President by whom they were appointed. In this case, less than two years from now.

Run, Nox....run for the hills.  Run as fast as you can.  Take some canned food and a couple of gallons of water.  Oh, and the biggest gun you can get.  They're coming for you next.

What's next - a post about how the earth is warming and we'll all be dead unless we buy carbon offsets for our 10,000 square foot mansions?

EDIT: That link is from the LA times and it's over a week old. And you're posting about it now?  WTF?

Quote from: James J Skachwisdom and stuff

Game. Set. Match.

Just another note from the LA Times article:

From 1986 until last year, the Attorney General could appoint an interim US Attorney for 120 days. If a new permanent US Attorney could not be appointed and confirmed, the local US District Court appointed an interim US Attorney.

The article is not clear, but it seems to imply that last appointment would also be indefinitely.  In this case, until the President and Congress could agree on a permanent.

That means it could take years to appoint a permanent replacement to take the place of the "interim" one appointed by the local US District Court.

Whether the local US District Court is also subject to the 120 days or not, it's still a bit scary to me that the court could appoint a US Attorney.  That seems to be a bit of conflict of interest, no?

Given all of this, I'm most in favor of the President braod powers of the Executive Branch with some oversight by the Congressional.  In the end, the last people involved should be the Judiciary, IMHO.

EDIT: Also, anyone know the procedure before 1986?

I found the subject line pretty damn amusing, myself.

I mean, come on, it's 2007. Beginning?