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. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-usatty9mar09,1,1562925.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)
- 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?
Do you think that the provision to appoint attornies without congressional oversight was:
a) a provision of the Act to be used in case Congress was unable to meet or was attacked and subject to massive losses of Members
or
b) a Chimpy McBushHitlerShrubBurtonMcExxonCo. loophole to help take over the country?
Quote from: WerekoalaDo you think that the provision to appoint attornies without congressional oversight was:
a) a provision of the Act to be used in case Congress was unable to meet or was attacked and subject to massive losses of Members
or
b) a Chimpy McBushHitlerShrubBurtonMcExxonCo. loophole to help take over the country?
The latter. Bush's neocon buddied basically want to dominate america thru any means possible, and stacking the judicial branch of government with neocon drones is just another way to make sure that the neocon views on social issues get crammed down people's throats.
So it wasn't lack of clarity in typing.
How much tin foil do you go through, man?
Quote from: James J SkachSo it wasn't lack of clarity in typing.
How much tin foil do you go through, man?
Hmm, depends on what I'm cooking that week. Why?
It ain't tin foil. The Neo-Conservatives are known for adhering to "the ends justify the means" in their actions, and that applies as much to domestic as to foreign affairs. Since you need power to act, whatever they deem fit to take and hold power is justified so long as they have the power to do so, and if that means using existing dodgy legislations--and making more of it--then they do it gladly.
Sounds alot like... POLITICIANS! Wow, imagine that.
I almost hope we get a Demo back in the white House in '08 so we can bash the donkies for a few years.
I am increasingly convinced that the best thing that the Shrub will do for humanity is show everyone just how much the "rule of law" relies upon men for it to do what its said to do. Positive law--that ink on the page, legislation--is just a tool folks; it does nothing until folks pick it up and use it, and like all tools it can be (and often is) misused, so just passing laws doesn't mean shit- you have to have men on the ground doing the work visibly and audibly for it to succeed. As for accountability, if it doesn't involved increasingly severe sanctions for increasingly powerful or important positions it too means nothing.
Would the Patriot Act be more widely supported if it were used to track down the most horrid of infidels: the fat joke makers?
Quote from: James McMurrayWould the Patriot Act be more widely supported if it were used to track down the most horrid of infidels: the fat joke makers?
No, I'd rather see the PC speech gestapo go after them like they'd go after someone who made black jokes.
A little "despise them until they help me" thinking goes a long way.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerIt ain't tin foil.
It is when you consider the stupidity of this particular discussion. The President, who will be replaced by Jan. 2009, is grabbing for power through...US Attorneys? Who can all be fired upon the next Administration taking office. Not to mention the fact that the President has already said the replacements for those fired will be subject to Senate oversight - even though by law they don't have to be. Not to mention if the Senate could actually pass legislation that only addressed one thing (which is virtually impossible - regardless of party), to change this loophole, I'd bet it would get signed into law - by this President.
So yeah, in this case, tin foil.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThe Neo-Conservatives are known for adhering to "the ends justify the means" in their actions, and that applies as much to domestic as to foreign affairs.
Whereas the Democrats would
never think of such a thing...sure...riiiight...
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerSince you need power to act, whatever they deem fit to take and hold power is justified so long as they have the power to do so, and if that means using existing dodgy legislations--and making more of it--then they do it gladly.
Ibid.
The point isn't that the Democrats are saints. It's rather that both sides are bad people, and we should do everything we can to defend our freedom against the superficially reasonable attempts to usurp it, no matter whether we have in the past supported one party or another. A strong executive benefits no free people.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe point isn't that the Democrats are saints. It's rather that both sides are bad people, and we should do everything we can to defend our freedom against the superficially reasonable attempts to usurp it, no matter whether we have in the past supported one party or another. A strong executive benefits no free people.
Nor does a strong Congress, nor Judiciary.
I'm just not sure how this little bit of hysteria applies...
Quote from: James J SkachNor does a strong Congress, nor Judiciary.
I'm just not sure how this little bit of hysteria applies...
Well, Congress is quite weak at the moment, despite being controlled by a party hostile to the President. And the judiciary under John Roberts is pursuing a minimalist line. So America has a weak judiciary, a weak Congress, but a strong executive branch which is taking advantage of the weakness of the other two branches to extend its own power. Once again, checks and balances are a good thing.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineWell, Congress is quite weak at the moment, despite being controlled by a party hostile to the President. And the judiciary under John Roberts is pursuing a minimalist line. So America has a weak judiciary, a weak Congress, but a strong executive branch which is taking advantage of the weakness of the other two branches to extend its own power. Once again, checks and balances are a good thing.
Your last line is, as I've pointed out, where we agree.
I'm not sure why you see the Congress as weak at this point. Wasn't the 2006 election supposed to be the paradigm shift?
And it's interesting that you see a "minimalist" Judiciary as weak. Are you equating "minimalist" with "strict interpretation of the Constitution?"
See, we can all agree that balance is a good thing. We just all define it differently.
Quote from: James J SkachYour last line is, as I've pointed out, where we agree.
I'm not sure why you see the Congress as weak at this point. Wasn't the 2006 election supposed to be the paradigm shift?
I'm not a Democrat, so the whole "Democrats took Congress! Utopia tomorrow!" thing underwhelms me. They don't seem to've done much important, and I doubt they will. I suppose I can hope that with a divided government, it will be harder to do bad things, but that's kind of a shitty and lame thing to hope for.
QuoteAnd it's interesting that you see a "minimalist" Judiciary as weak. Are you equating "minimalist" with "strict interpretation of the Constitution?"
No. "Minimalist" is something else. John Roberts has openly stated (in a recent interview in the Atlantic Monthly IIRC) that he has two methodological principles he wishes to develop as chief justice.
The first is that he strives for the narrowest rulings possible. He likes placing conditions and supplements and plenty of exclusive criteria on rulings because this makes them less likely to be overturned.
The second is that he strives for unanimity amongst the court whenever possible, even if this means compromise decisions that do not satisfy either side.
These two principles, while certainly valuable and interesting in many respects, have weakened the judiciary in respect to the executive branch. In other times this wouldn't be too bad (I'm given to understand that the Rehnquist court had some similarities, though not explicitly stated) but the current executive branch holds to the idea of a very strong executive. As the judiciary retreats into minutiae and refuses to take strong stands because of a desire for compromise, the power of one branch grows at the expense of others.
Now, the USSC isn't a complete push-over, even now - they've smacked the administration more than once - but neither are they working particularly hard on behalf of freedom against the desire of the executive branch to centralise as much power as possible within itself.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI suppose I can hope that with a divided government, it will be harder to do bad things, but that's kind of a shitty and lame thing to hope for.
Why? It's what the founders wanted. I mean, that's the whole point of dividing the government - to limit it's power. Now, you have a Legislative branch with a slim Democrat majority, and an Executive in the hands of Republicans - what more could you want for balance? I mean, hasn't the narrative been, since the election, how weak the President is?
Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo. "Minimalist" is something else. John Roberts has openly stated (in a recent interview in the Atlantic Monthly IIRC) that he has two methodological principles he wishes to develop as chief justice.
The first is that he strives for the narrowest rulings possible. He likes placing conditions and supplements and plenty of exclusive criteria on rulings because this makes them less likely to be overturned.
The second is that he strives for unanimity amongst the court whenever possible, even if this means compromise decisions that do not satisfy either side.
I was of the impression that the latter was the goal, the former, one of the tools that might be employed to reach that goal. And if that's the case, then it could be a good thing for the SCOTUS as they can expect the rulings to hold. This will serve to remove the recent political wrangling over the court and return it to what it's supposed to do.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrinebut the current executive branch holds to the idea of a very strong executive. As the judiciary retreats into minutiae and refuses to take strong stands because of a desire for compromise, the power of one branch grows at the expense of others.
One of the intersting things about the US system of government is watching the branches fight over their powers. I would expect, and desire, the Executive Branch to believe in a strong Executive Branch. If they didn't, I'd wonder, and want to know, why.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineNow, the USSC isn't a complete push-over, even now - they've smacked the administration more than once - but neither are they working particularly hard on behalf of freedom against the desire of the executive branch to centralise as much power as possible within itself.
Really? I though the entire line that allows the SCOTUS any say in how the Executive handles prisoners taken in the battle field is a tremendous swipe at the power of the Executive by the Judiciary - not necessarily a bad one. How about the ruling that tells the Executive that the Legislative needs to define the way the military handles the Combat Status Review thingies (watch those technical terms!).
I think it's working beautifully. I don't agree with much of what any of the branches are currently doing, except that they seem to hate each other enough to call bullshit whenever the opportunity arises. That, in turn, tends to keep them in line.
Quote from: James J SkachWhy? It's what the founders wanted. I mean, that's the whole point of dividing the government - to limit it's power. Now, you have a Legislative branch with a slim Democrat majority, and an Executive in the hands of Republicans - what more could you want for balance? I mean, hasn't the narrative been, since the election, how weak the President is?
I'm not sure that dividing the government has meaningfully limited its power. I'm pretty sure that "the founders" - or at least George Washington - certainly would not approve of a government where the only check on government power was factionalism.
I'm not really interested in balance between the parties. Just as I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican. I'm interested in restraining government power and expanding human freedom and dignity.
QuoteI was of the impression that the latter was the goal, the former, one of the tools that might be employed to reach that goal. And if that's the case, then it could be a good thing for the SCOTUS as they can expect the rulings to hold. This will serve to remove the recent political wrangling over the court and return it to what it's supposed to do.
Not getting the cases overturned is the goal yes, but narrow decisions and unanimity are ways to get there. I'm not entirely sure that aiming to write decisions that will never be overturned is all that good. It's not evil or anything, but I'm rather fond of Tom Paine's line that "Government is for the living, not the dead." I'd rather they make bolder decisions (within reason, of course) and risk having them overturned than aim to avoid controversy.
QuoteOne of the intersting things about the US system of government is watching the branches fight over their powers. I would expect, and desire, the Executive Branch to believe in a strong Executive Branch. If they didn't, I'd wonder, and want to know, why.
Sure, but as a person who is not a member of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, I'm unsympathetic to their attempts to gain power anyhow.
There's a story about a philosopher named Diogenes of Sinope. Diogenes was notoriously poor, owning a lantern, an iron bar, a bathtub and a cup. One night, a thief tried to steal the bathtub, but Diogenes woke up and grabbed him before he could. In the other hand, he had the iron bar and was about to beat the thief when the thief spoke: "Please Diogenes, don't punish me, it's my nature to steal." Diogenes replied "And it is my nature to beat you."
QuoteReally? I though the entire line that allows the SCOTUS any say in how the Executive handles prisoners taken in the battle field is a tremendous swipe at the power of the Executive by the Judiciary - not necessarily a bad one. How about the ruling that tells the Executive that the Legislative needs to define the way the military handles the Combat Status Review thingies (watch those technical terms!).
No idea. I'm unfamiliar with it (because I'm not an American legal expert and haven't heard about the Combat Status Review business before). I can do some reading if you can recommend some sources.
QuoteI think it's working beautifully. I don't agree with much of what any of the branches are currently doing, except that they seem to hate each other enough to call bullshit whenever the opportunity arises. That, in turn, tends to keep them in line.
I'm just not sure that they're really doing that. I'd like to think that they were, but I don't trust them enough to do so.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm not sure that dividing the government has meaningfully limited its power.
Ya know, on this point at this moment in time, I'd have to agree. I think they missed a couple of items in the Bill of Rights that need to be there for the final process to be better. But it was definitely their intent to try everything they could to limit the power of the federal government, and three branches was one of the major methods.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm pretty sure that "the founders" - or at least George Washington - certainly would not approve of a government where the only check on government power was factionalism.
I'm sorry if it came across that the founders tried to design factionalism into the actual structure. I was referring only to their attempt, through dviding the branches, to limit power. I was extrapolating based on that strong desire that many of "the founders" desired a divided government as it limited it's power. But I'd have to dig to back that up. Might be an interesting little project.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm not really interested in balance between the parties. Just as I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican. I'm interested in restraining government power and expanding human freedom and dignity.
Agreed.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineNot getting the cases overturned is the goal yes, but narrow decisions and unanimity are ways to get there. I'm not entirely sure that aiming to write decisions that will never be overturned is all that good. It's not evil or anything, but I'm rather fond of Tom Paine's line that "Government is for the living, not the dead." I'd rather they make bolder decisions (within reason, of course) and risk having them overturned than aim to avoid controversy.
We may depart on this point. I don't care if they are "bold" or not, only that they adhere to the Constitution. If something is ruled unconstitutional, and the people don't like it, there's a process to change the constitution. I wish people would follow that process. Instead, the goal is to get the SCOTUS to essentially create law by rulings that view the Constitution in..well...an expansive way, shall we say? The aim might be "bold," it might even be right, but the reasoning is completely wrong. Follow the process, change the Constitution - don't render it moot by reading things into it that aren't there. Otherwise you get this god awful system where the SCOTUS is just another political fight and that's fucked.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineSure, but as a person who is not a member of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, I'm unsympathetic to their attempts to gain power anyhow.
Am I coming across as sympathetic? I'm only pointing out how it's the nature of things in the US government. Congress did exactly what it should do - call bullshit. The problem I have is that people are using words like "abuse" to characterize a loophole that wasn't even used, for god's sake. What they are really mad at is the firings, but they know, deep down inside, those firings are perfectly legal and normal - even if they are completely political! So they need to find
something, anything to make the situation look eeeevil.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere's a story about a philosopher named Diogenes of Sinope. Diogenes was notoriously poor, owning a lantern, an iron bar, a bathtub and a cup. One night, a thief tried to steal the bathtub, but Diogenes woke up and grabbed him before he could. In the other hand, he had the iron bar and was about to beat the thief when the thief spoke: "Please Diogenes, don't punish me, it's my nature to steal." Diogenes replied "And it is my nature to beat you."
I think that's exactly what I'm saying. Executive Branch reaches for Power, Legislative call them on it. Result: Executive backs down. In a weird way, it's the Legislative's fault - they passed the damn law.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo idea. I'm unfamiliar with it (because I'm not an American legal expert and haven't heard about the Combat Status Review business before). I can do some reading if you can recommend some sources.
I'll see what I can dig up. Can't promise timely response, but if you are still interested and I haven't responded, bug me in PM. Honestly, I'd be happy to provide what I can.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm just not sure that they're really doing that. I'd like to think that they were, but I don't trust them enough to do so.
I'm a pessimistic optimist, or an optimistic pessimist. Depends on the day.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O019200&show_article=1
Senate votes 94-2 to remove the provision from the Patriot Act allowing judges to be appointed without Senate confirmation.
Verily, we are on the cusp of a ChristoNeoConFascist State. Are you with me, Brothers?!
Quote from: Werekoalahttp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O019200&show_article=1
Senate votes 94-2 to remove the provision from the Patriot Act allowing judges to be appointed without Senate confirmation.
Verily, we are on the cusp of a ChristoNeoConFascist State. Are you with me, Brothers?!
You meant US Attorneys...
And I think my favorite quotes from that AP story, and the problems with the entire issue are this:
Quote from: AP StoryThe Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.
OK - the "Bush Administrations ability to unilaterally fill..." Are you fucking kidding me? It's
any adminstrations ability. Unless you're trying to tell me the law was written just for the current administration?
And look at the non-sequitor - they are taking away the ability for the Executive to
fill the positions without consultation because of a backlash over the
firing of eight US attorneys.
Could you get a more partisan-charged paragraph into a "news" story?
Quote from: AP StoryWith a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists.
The Justice Dept. might have authored it, but you fucking idiots passed it. Didn't you read what you were passing? I'm shocked, shocked! to find the Executive attempting to stretch it's power. Jesus, what a bunch of hypocrisy.
And again, we have the non-sequitor. The Bush adminstration "abused" the hiring powere when it fired someone. Are you fucking kidding me? And who would the White House consider for replacements, Democrats? If they had, would everyone say, "Oh, nevermind, he can replace them without Senate consent." Because, ya know, it's OK to appoint Democrats.
They are political appointments, people. Every adminstration fills them with their own people. The Senate confirmation is to ensure they are qualified and there's no conflict of interest. Even if they are die-hard Republicans facing a Democrat Senate (or vice versa), as long as they are otherwise qualified they are confirmed - ideology is not a reason.
It's just amazing to me that people can look at a story like this and think there's any objectivity left at the Associate Press.
Quote from: James J SkachYou meant US Attorneys...
Oh, I guess I was predicting the next genius idea from the BusHitlerBurtExxonCo. Powergrab Consortium (PC, LLC, PDQ, KFA).
(okay, so it was a mistake, so sue me)
QuoteThe Justice Dept. might have authored it, but you fucking idiots passed it. Didn't you read what you were passing?
There were some big changes in the last election. It was a largely different group of idiots that passed it.
Quote from: James J SkachThey are political appointments, people. Every adminstration fills them with their own people. The Senate confirmation is to ensure they are qualified and there's no conflict of interest. Even if they are die-hard Republicans facing a Democrat Senate (or vice versa), as long as they are otherwise qualified they are confirmed - ideology is not a reason.
Just FYI, a report by the Congressional Research Service (http://www.cq.com/flatfiles/editorialFiles/temporaryItems/2007/attorneys.pdf) (link to PDF of report) has revealed that of the 468 U.S. Attorneys confirmed by Congress over the past 25 years, only 10 have ever left office involuntarily.
For those keeping score at home, that means that the Bush administration pushed out almost as many U.S. Attorneys in December as had been let go over the past 25 years.
So no, it's not really an "all administrations" kinda thing. This was a political hatchet-job, pure and simple.
I mean, fer chrissakes, Fitzgerald, they guy who at the time was in the middle of investigating the CIA leak, was rated as "undistinguished," and placed on the list below Attorneys rated as "loyal." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902036.html)
Come on. If it walks like a duck.....
So what if it was political? It wasn't illegal. If people have a problem with the way politicians conduct business...
Well, really, need I say more?
Quote from: GMSkarkaJust FYI, a report by the Congressional Research Service (http://www.cq.com/flatfiles/editorialFiles/temporaryItems/2007/attorneys.pdf) (link to PDF of report) has revealed that of the 468 U.S. Attorneys confirmed by Congress over the past 25 years, only 10 have ever left office involuntarily.
I'll have to look at what criteria they are using to define the term "left office voluntarily."
Ot I could just point you to all of the information regarding Clinton firing all 93 at the start of his term.
Yup...if it walks like a duck...
Quote from: WerekoalaSo what if it was political? It wasn't illegal. If people have a problem with the way politicians conduct business...
Well, really, need I say more?
The establishment doesn't like easily-available and effective accountability measures. Then they'd have to worry about the consequences of their actions.
Quote from: GMSkaraJust FYI, a report by the Congressional Research Service (link to PDF of report) has revealed that of the 468 U.S. Attorneys confirmed by Congress over the past 25 years, only 10 have ever left office involuntarily.
Umm, your characterization is a bit misleading. The title is actually "US Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006"
Quote from: CQ ReportThe recent dismissal of seven US attorneys has raised interest in patterns in departures of US attorneys not related to completion of a four-year term or a change in presidential administration.
So this report has nothing to do with US Attorneys leaving involuntarily. It completely leaves out, for example, the bloodletting of Clinton's 93 firings when Janet Reno was brought in. While most of those could probably be chalked up to change of administration, there were at least two of which I am aware that seemed odd. I forget – was there uproar then? I mean, I wasn't quite as tuned into politics as I am now, but I don't seem to recall one.
The hyper-partisan nature of the debate is in overdrive. It's impossible now to figure out what exactly is going on. For instance, I heard a report on NPR on one of the eight. Her superiors wanted her to up her rate of prosecution for illegal immigration. She wanted to focus on bigger fish. She ignored her superiors. Would you fire her?
Oh yeah, she was the one who investigated (and indicted, I believe) Duke Cunningham.
So now what do you do? You fire her and have everyone say pithy little remarks like "if it walks like a duck..." when you're really firing her because she won't do what you tell her? Or do you let her stay and walk all over you even though she's supposed to be doing what you want her to – all because she brought the indictment against Duke Cunningham? I mean, if you were really firing her for what seems to be assumed (revenge for the indictment and conviction of Duke Cunningham), wouldn't you make sure your nefarious motives are covered better? Oh wait. I forget that somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.
This is the problem with the entire situation. It doesn't fucking matter why she or any of the others were fired. It's the President's prerogative to do so – even if it's completely political.
So when you point this out, people say "well look at the loophole in the Eeeevil PATRIOT Act!!!" So you point out that it was the Legislative Branch that passed the act, and that they could change that (and it looks like they are going to do so – want to bet on whether or not the President signs it?) and that the President had already agreed to Senate confirmation for the replacements.
Oh yeah, it must mean that these 8 were investigating the super secret cabal that
really planned 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom so that BushHitler could control the world's oil supply through the evil robot overlord menace of VP Dick Cheney's company, Haliburton. Did I hit all the high points?
Let's see now, the republicans are claiming that it's OK for ttheir prez to fire major players in the justice system of the united states "because he felt like it" and that the democrats are making politics over it.
Now, when a democrat president got a blowjob in the oval office it ended up being inestigated and finally lead to an impeachment.
Which affects america more? A blowjob or stacking the justice system with ideologs who will slant the system towards the neocon right? Which is more worthy of attention and, if need be, correction?
I'm surprised this thread lasted this far - from what people tell me and what I've seen in quote boxes the OP didn't have the facts straight.
Again, could anything talked about in this thread be used in an RPG campaign context ?
OR for maybe for a one night role-playing one-off adventure scenario?
- E.W.C.
Quote from: Dominus NoxLet's see now, the republicans are claiming that it's OK for ttheir prez to fire major players in the justice system of the united states "because he felt like it" and that the democrats are making politics over it.
Actually, you claimed the sky was falling because a 8 US attorneys were fired and that the firing somehow proved abuse involving the PATRIOT Act. When some posters here pointed out the errors of your chicken little announcement, you turn to, um, blowjobs?
Quote from: Dominus NoxNow, when a democrat president got a blowjob in the oval office it ended up being inestigated and finally lead to an impeachment.
Which affects america more? A blowjob or stacking the justice system with ideologs who will slant the system towards the neocon right? Which is more worthy of attention and, if need be, correction?
Again, your facts are, at best, misleading. President Clinton was not impeached because he had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern. President Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal jury (I can not remember if it was a grand or petite jury). Whether like me you think the investigation was a waste of time, effort and money, or not, that's what the impeachment was about.
Now, lying to a jury is a criminal offense. I was on a federal Grand Jury for 15 months. I personally asked for charges to be filed against a witness for lying. Firing US attorneys, on the other hand, is not a criminal offense - in fact it's a power the Office of the President has. So the comparison is meangless in this context.
Looks like you'll have to go back to your magnadoodle and try again, Nox.
Quote from: Dominus NoxLet's see now, the republicans are claiming that it's OK for ttheir prez to fire major players in the justice system of the united states "because he felt like it" and that the democrats are making politics over it.
Now, when a democrat president got a blowjob in the oval office it ended up being inestigated and finally lead to an impeachment.
Which affects america more? A blowjob or stacking the justice system with ideologs who will slant the system towards the neocon right? Which is more worthy of attention and, if need be, correction?
As some as stated, it wasn't the act that got Clinton into trouble, it was the purjury. If you ask me, he should have been removed from office, and charged criminally.
So, what affect America more --
A President who is firing US Department lawyers who already serve at the pleasure of the President (ie he doesn't have to have a reason to fire them), something that is perfectly legal even before the Patriot Act came into being?
Or a President who ignores the basic rule of law, and commits a felony while in office?
Yeah ... the latter is worse. The President WANTS lawyers that has the same viewpoints as he does, that will want to go after the same things as he does. I do not understand why this is even an issue.
Quote from: James J SkachActually, you claimed the sky was falling because a 8 US attorneys were fired and that the firing somehow proved abuse involving the PATRIOT Act. When some posters here pointed out the errors of your chicken little announcement, you turn to, um, blowjobs?
Again, your facts are, at best, misleading. President Clinton was not impeached because he had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern. President Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal jury (I can not remember if it was a grand or petite jury). Whether like me you think the investigation was a waste of time, effort and money, or not, that's what the impeachment was about.
Now, lying to a jury is a criminal offense. I was on a federal Grand Jury for 15 months. I personally asked for charges to be filed against a witness for lying. Firing US attorneys, on the other hand, is not a criminal offense - in fact it's a power the Office of the President has. So the comparison is meangless in this context.
Looks like you'll have to go back to your magnadoodle and try again, Nox.
No, I'm not going to try again. The clinton impeachment was a political hatchet job over something that had no effect on the country.
What W is doing affects the country by stacking the justice system against everyone who isn't a neocon.
BTW, I would like to se congress move to nullify (overturn) the clinton impeachment as it was nothing but a hatchet job
Quote from: Dominus NoxNo, I'm not going to try again. The clinton impeachment was a political hatchet job over something that had no effect on the country.
What W is doing affects the country by stacking the justice system against everyone who isn't a neocon.
BTW, I would like to se congress move to nullify (overturn) the clinton impeachment as it was nothing but a hatchet job
Only if they overturn Libby's too. After all, he was convicted of the same crime. If it wasn't for Bill, it isn't for Scooter.
Quote from: James J SkachUmm, your characterization is a bit misleading. The title is actually "US Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006"
..........
So this report has nothing to do with US Attorneys leaving involuntarily. It completely leaves out, for example, the bloodletting of Clinton's 93 firings when Janet Reno was brought in.
*Sigh* I figured that I'd have to explain it to you -- you're so busy parrotting Rove's talking points you missed the crucial bit:
Indeed, Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Reagan replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of their administrations as part of the normal turnover involved in the alternation of power.
The report that I linked to talks about the only circumstances where U.S. attorneys failed to finish their four-year terms -- in other words, those that were fired or otherwise dismissed
during their terms -- i.e. NOT as part of the normal turnover process.
None were fired for political reasons.
In brief, Bush's firings were unprecedented.
Quote from: GMSkarka*Sigh* I figured that I'd have to explain it to you -- you're so busy parrotting Rove's talking points you missed the crucial bit:
Indeed, Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Reagan replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of their administrations as part of the normal turnover involved in the alternation of power.
The report that I linked to talks about the only circumstances where U.S. attorneys failed to finish their four-year terms -- in other words, those that were fired or otherwise dismissed during their terms -- i.e. NOT as part of the normal turnover process.
None were fired for political reasons.
In brief, Bush's firings were unprecedented.
Yes, the reason we didn't connect is because while I was parroting Roves you were parroting Code Pink's.
You see, I was simply pointing out that your characterization of the report to which you linked was wrong. You are equating leaving involuntarily with not serving a four-year term. This is, of course, incorrect. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that Clinton got all 93 to resign? No, he fired them - thus they left involuntarily - which was his prerogative. And all 93 that Clinton, or Reagan, or Bush the Elder fired were all fired
for political reasons.
I read an interesting piece this morning wherein a claim is being made that the Hummer is actually more eco-friendly than a Prius. Why? The Nickel in the batteries. Apparently it's a nightmarish situation in the place in Canada that's the main source where the Nickel extraction has decimate everything for miles around due to acid rain that results from the process. Add it to all of the stuff that is required to get the Nickel to it's final form and it essentially travles around the world. Taken all together, the normally easy 'green' calculation of Prius > Hummer is not so clear.
Anyway, the point of the piece was not so much whether the answer is yet to be proven true, it was to show that its relatively common to be able to focus in or out on a situation to find the right resolution that supports your point of view.
In this case we disagree on whether or not firing all US attorneys due to the political reason of a change of office is significantly different than firing 8 of them for political reasons in the middle of the term. In both examples I compare, Clinton and GWB, there are questions about the real reason people were fired. In the case of the former, there was barely a blip in media coverage or outrage. In the case of the latter, it's a firestorm.
Now maybe that's due to the difference of this being the middle of a term versus the relative beginning of a term. But I hardly think the current firings warrant cries of "Investigation!" and "Abuse of the PATRIOT ACT!" any more than I believed Clinton's firing of attorneys that were investigating Rostenkowski warratned cries of "Investigation!" or "Abuse of Presidential Power!" It's the prerogative of the President to fire these folks - whenever in their terms it happens to be - for political reasons.
The term unprecendented means there's no previous example. The report, which only covers 1981 - 2006, clearly indicates that Presidents have fired US attorneys before. So what you're really saying is that it's only worthy of discussion because 8 were fired? I mean, if he had done 2 at a time over 8 months (given a month in between), it's not unprecendented? I mean, I guess I'm really confused as to what is the exact issue that is worth this much consternation.
Unless, of course, you are implying that these 8 attorneys were investigating the President in serious matters, say, in the realm of the bloodletting by Nixon. You're not suggesting that, are you?
And I'm at a loss as to how one leaps from the firing to the abuse of the PATRIOT Act...
Quote from: James J SkachAnd I'm at a loss as to how one leaps from the firing to the abuse of the PATRIOT Act...
Beats me. That's Nox's bag, not mine.
I think that what we're looking here was a purge of Attorneys who were investigating Republican corruption cases which might lead back to the White House (the Cunningham-Wade-MZM boat deal seems to point back to the WH, for example, and Lam was in the middle of investigating that when fired), or who had refused to investigate trumped-up charges against Democrats when pressured by Republican congressmen.
With subpoenas now on the table, I don't think it will be long before somebody says something to confirm something like that....at which point it becomes more than just politcally-motivated firings, and becomes Obstruction of Justice, which is a chargeable offense.
More bad news for Qoltar's favorite president: Now it turns out that his attourney general has been accused of ordering federal prosecutors in the recent big tobacco case to, basically, sabotage the government's case against big tobacco.
Quote from: GMSkarkaBeats me. That's Nox's bag, not mine.
Oh, well, ya know, I only point this out as it was the point of the original post, at which all of my calm, rational thought was directed.
Quote from: GMSkarkaI think that what we're looking here was a purge of Attorneys who were investigating Republican corruption cases which might lead back to the White House (the Cunningham-Wade-MZM boat deal seems to point back to the WH, for example, and Lam was in the middle of investigating that when fired), or who had refused to investigate trumped-up charges against Democrats when pressured by Republican congressmen.
Ahhh. So you are of the opinion that this was a masacre like Nixon. It may turn out to be such. I've heard not a peep that this was the case. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that if such were the case, we'd have heard about it at this point. I mean, most people arent' aware that these firings happened some time ago. I would assume if one of these attorneys had that kind of investigation going, the press would be having a party informing us. Maybe they are all just playing cat an mouse with us? Ya know, building up the narrative for maximum effect?
I'm more of the opinion that this was a purge of attorneys who were not playing nice with the politicians who held the power of the attorneys' appointments in said politicians hands. Political? Most definitely. Sleazy? They are politicians - what else would be expected? Criminal? I've yet to see indications other than innuendo and speculation.
Quote from: GMSkarkaWith subpoenas now on the table, I don't think it will be long before somebody says something to confirm something like that....at which point it becomes more than just politcally-motivated firings, and becomes Obstruction of Justice, which is a chargeable offense.
It'll be great! It'll be like the 70's all over again. Our next President can tell us to wear sweaters and turn down the thermostat and we'll have a malaise index. Can't wait!
If true - if there is proof that Bush directed Gonzales to fire US attorneys who were investigating the President - he deserves everything he gets. I'm afraid for those of you who are waiting with baited breath, you'll find that these guys will fall on the sword for this guy (why remains a mystery to me). So Gonzales will take the final hit, if necessary, and the WH story will be that the President had no knowledge that this was being done on his behalf.
These attroneys were not investigating Republican Corruption and therefore fired. Duke Cunningham is currently in Federal prison, so if they were trying to derail that case, it worked REAL well, didn't it? But then again, that seems to be the whole story of the Administration. Evhul RepubliCristoFacistPetroCrats launch all these grand schemes that invariably end up dashed on the rocks. Either they really are evil shcemes bent on world domination, and the system is working as intended to prevent it, or Liberals have gotten themselves into that very special place where every single thing that happens, from the sun rising to Cheney not dying, is a huge evil plot. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a few nuts on the internet - but its infected the so-called leadership of the Congress and Democrat party as well.
This will, once again, be a ton of sound and fury and will result in nothing. But hey, that's what we're in for for the next 2 years - one long game of accuse and investigate after another. I predict that nothing will come of any of it except to continue to wear down the public. Democrats had BETTER come up with a big skin, or they're doomed in '08.
To flip this whole topic on its head - one independent study said that the "Patriot Act" may not have been used often enough.
Several Law Enforcement groups could have used it to bust up groups that had links to terrorist groups but were "gun-shy" to do so because they were nervous about invoking the Patriot Act's new rules - when they probably should have.
Just because a new law gives enforcers "permission" to do something - doesn't mean they always remember they have that permission or that they know how to use it effectively. They might all be a bunch of NPCs that flubbed their dice rolls.
- E.W.C.