Sooner or later, President Obama will get around to replacing the current occupants of the U.S. Attorney offices with his own people. A columnist over at Mass. Lawyers Weekly suggests that Mike Sullivan’s replacement should be Scott Harshbarger.
Interesting idea. Harshbarger certainly has the resume for it — Middlesex DA, Massachusetts Attorney General, and head of Common Cause to boot. But, of course, U.S. Attorneys must be confirmed by the Senate. Any chance that the Fells Acres controversy could come back to haunt his confirmation hearings?
Please share widely!
Are the people tired of what passes for law and justice in the Commonwealth? Why dredge up those that have a history of court manipulation and give them another go?
<
p>Wouldn’t it be a more positive act to clean up the courts rather than spread the dirt around?
who has enormous respect for Harshbarger, at least insofar as his advocacy on the issues. He’s one of the people in this Commonwealth who gets it.
Generally, as part of the advice and consent process, the POTUS first tips off the Senators from the state of a potential nominee to get their reaction. If Kennedy and Kerry are OK with him, then he’s probably fine. Just to be clear, this applies to political issues, but not legal issues like paying one’s taxes.
Standard procedure for US Attorneys is for the Senators to inform the President who they’d like to see nominated — especially when, as here, the Senators are of the President’s party. Kennedy and Kerry will have first shot at deciding who the next MA US Attorney is.
I was thinking about the right wing of the Dem. Party that torpedoed Harshbarger’s run gov. 10? years ago and how far they have fallen. Given that Scott was an early supporter of Patricks and how weak the right wing of the party has become, I think he has good shot at the job. What’s happened to the conservative dems who sided with Celluch. 10 years ago and helped him eke out a victory:
<
p>Finneran (admitted felon)
Bulger (Retired)
Glodis (living w/ his parents)
SEIU 254 (dissolved)
NAGE (lost more members than any union in MA history)
Ray Flynn (who?)
<
p>Looks like it light opposition now.
<
p>
As the guy in charge, he bears responsibility for the irresponsible prosecution and for the lack of any remorse or apology when the rationale for the case, if not the legal grounding of the conviction, fell apart.
<
p>So what’s his excuse? How personally involved was he in the case? Is it largely a matter of remaining loyal to the subordinates who actually made the calls? Or do you think he really believes the Amiraults were guilty, of some sort of abuse if not the specifics recounted by the child witnesses?
<
p>Jack McCoy on Law & Order will dismiss a case against someone he believes to be innocent maybe 99% of the time. (He let the Whitey Bulger analog confess to a murder that they knew had really been done by his academic twin brother. But there at least they knew as well that “Whitey” had offed an innocent cabbie in a crime they couldn’t get him for.)
<
p>I wish I had more confidence that real DA’s were as interested in the truth.
Harshbarger would be an excellent choice, imho. I’ve always admired his strength in taking on issues even when it wasn’t politically popular.
<
p>If I was a crooked, high-ranking politician (ahh, but I repeat myself đŸ˜‰ his appointment would certainly make me nervous. I don’t think Harshbarger would shy away from rooting our corruption, wherever it led.
<
p>I don’t know whether he’d be confirmed, but he’s certainly qualified, frankly he’s a bit overqualified. If he gets it I’d be thrilled.
<
p>