Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Bush cans 7th highly-qualified US attorney

By

The bill is intended to prevent political cronyism by

by allowing the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. If after that time someone had not been nominated and confirmed by the Senate, authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would fall to the district court.

source  Not that anyone could ever accuse the Bush Admin of cronyism or nepotism.  Oh heavens no.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Except for the guy from Arkansas, all the fired attorneys are from western states.  Random chance?  Are there strategic reasons for stacking the deck regionally?  I’m not familiar enough with the system mechanics to know.

    • The only thing that comes to my mind is that most of the cited attorneys, except for the New Mexico and Arkansas attorneys, are in the Ninth Circuit, which is famously ultra-liberal. It could be a move to try to tone down that circuit’s actions and effects on the national scene…

  2. Dems control the House and the Senate.  Nix that part of the Patriot Act (and while you’re at it, feel free to nix some other parts)…

    <

    p>
    dare the president to veto it.

    • They should go after this part and only the most egregious other parts so that the wingers don’t have any defense.

      <

      p>
      If they went after this alone and tied up the senate for a couple days arguing about it, the top national story would be Bush abusing his power and replacing good attorneys with stooges.  If he vetoes it?  Even better, we’ll see how many members of the minority vote to override/sustain.  And remind their constituents.

  3. If I recall correctly, didn’t Janet Reno, shortly upon become Attorney General, fire all 93 US attorneys?  If this is true, then you’re all wicked hypocrites.

    <

    p>
    Oh, and wasn’t the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming Democratic support?  Then you’re all double wicked hypocrites.

    • Clinton fired all (but 1 IIRC) attorney, within 3 months of entering office.  Supposedly this isn’t uncommon, but I have no idea of Bush the elder, Reagan, etc. did it.

      <

      p>
      GWB, on the other hand, is firing attorneys that he hired and a full six years in.  That’s not clearing house to set up your own administration — that stinks of a cover up.

      <

      p>
      And again, while the PATRIOT ACT passed with overwhelming Democratic support, that doesn’t mean that (a) it was a good idea or that a Democrat isn’t allowed to question an action that Democrats participated in, or (b) that the ACT was created or presented in good faith.  It was big, ugly, and shoved through Congress under the auspices of national urgency.  That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be revisited now.

      <

      p>
      Hopefully a Democrat wins the presidency, and Congress immediately strips the president of a whole list of powers the PATRIOT ACT handed over to the Oval Office.  Bush, handing off to a Democrat, just might sign off on it.

      • …the fact is that the US district attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.  The fact that Clinton requested the resignations of the DAs from the outgoing administration was not unusual.  Clinton might have re-appointed them, or he might not have.  That is not the issue

        <

        p>
        What is unusual in this case regarding the Shrub malAdministration is that Shrub has requested the resignations of district attorneys who he himself had appointed, and who were pursuing criminal cases against Republikaner office holders.

        <

        p>
        I’m sure that you can understand the difference.  Although, maybe not.

        • is really the same thing as not writing that part of the phrase at all.

          <

          p>
          I don’t know if you’re illiterate (see how annoying that is), but your points include EXACTLY what I wrote directly above.  I quote…

          <

          p>

          GWB, on the other hand, is firing attorneys that he hired and a full six years in.  That’s not clearing house to set up your own administration — that stinks of a cover u

        • …I believe the conversation was about US Attorneys, not District Attorneys.  Maybe in other parts of the country Bush has some magical powers to appoint DAs, or where ever it is that you are from US Attorneys are reffered to as “DAs” and I didn’t know about such practices (if so, I guess that makes me the ignorant one here), but here in Massachusetts DAs are elected by county resisdents.

          <

          p>
          As for calling someone stupid, you don’t exactly come off as Einstein by conflating US Attorneys and DAs and then restating stomv’s position as your own.

          <

          p>
          To quote from “Billy Madison”, “I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

          <

          p>
          Bravo.

          • …they are US attorneys for the XXX/YYY District of whatever section of the US they’re appointed for.  Call them what you want.  I’ll call them District Attorneys, because they are attorneys who are responsible for particular districts.

            <

            p>
            Do you understand?

            • Your tone and your attitude of treating people like shit makes perfectly clear the type of person you are.

              <

              p>
              I also understand making up terms and condescendingly expecting your audience to know what you mean is poor practice and confuses the reader. Also, restating someone’s argument as your own, in some circles, is called plagiarism. But I wouldn’t have to tell you because you claim to have so many degrees and all.

              <

              p>
              And calling President Bush “Shrub” isn’t that clever.

              <

              p>

              • …my reference to Bush II as “Shrub” was not original with me.

                <

                p>
                Go educate yourself.

                <

                p>
                BTW, “plagiarism” is an overused term.  The mere fact that I don’t cite to every source that I ever reference is irrelevant.  Call me a “copyright infringer” if you want to, but calling me a “plagiarist” is just plain dumb.

                <

                p>
                If you want, I can cite you to every word that I ever use in every post.  It would be to the Oxford English Dictionary, but it wouldn’t enlighten you, now, would it?

                • …for my little mind. Obviously I suck becuase I can’t get some obscure reference reference about a shrub and and I don’t call US Attorneys DAs.

                  <

                  p>
                  Go educate myself? Sure, buddy, I’ll get right on that.  It’s definately important for me to educate myself about all your hilariously witty references.

                  <

                  p>
                  I didn’t actually call you a plagiarist. But you did call stomv stupid and theb restate his argument as your own. I’m not educated enough to come up with a word for that.

                  <

                  p>
                  And as for your offer to cite evry word that you ever use, I’ll take you up on that offer.

              • …all that inane banter. Please rate any those comments as zeroes; I would be happy to have this exchange exponged from the rocrds.

    • as i understand it, previous post-housecleaning replacements had to be ok’d by the senate.  this would include the clinton appointees.  so bush is the first to clean house and then willy nilly plug in whoever he pleases.  nepotism currently works wonders for this administration.  expect to see even more.

        • as far as i know.  what is different now is that senate confirmation is no longer required for the new appointees.  the ‘appoint anyone you want’ provision just was introduced into law last year via the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. 

        • …The Senate’s approval isn’t required for dismissals from the executive department.  The Senate’s approval is required for appointments to offices in the executive department, except as provided for by statute.

  4. …Shrub is replacing federal prosecutors who are going after corrupt Republican congressional office-holders and other Republican officials, with people who obviously won’t go after those people.

    <

    p>
    Why it doesn’t matter is quite simple: the pResident’s pardon power.  Regardless of whether any of these people are actually indicted or (shudder!) convicted, Shrub will pardon them before he leaves office.  I’ll give an example: Irving (Scooter) Libby.  Aside from the fact that the trial is a charade (it has nothing to do with the real issue–the divulgation of the name of an undercover CIA officer) the likely fact is (20-20 foresight) is that he will be pardoned if he is convicted.

    <

    p>
    The power of a pResident to pardon need to be seriously reigned in.  But it won’t be, because both of the corporate parties like it the way that it is.  So, why bother discussing the matter?

    <

    p>
    Buy Euros, learn a foreign language, and be prepared to emigrate.

    • Buy Euros, learn a foreign language, and be prepared to emigrate.

      Also, innovative was “Republikaner” in place of the more blog-tradiction “Rethuglican”.

Archives