Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
Rules work the same for both parties, but I think I was unclear, again. USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, but I think that it is improper for the administration to try to influence specific investigations for political purposes (such as pressuring a USA to indict the other party's candidate just before an election) or to pressure a USA to exercise the power of his office to further a partisan political agenda.
|
That's pretty close to how I feel about it, too. I guess the degree to which one is offended is somewhat related to the degree to which one believes that the justice system is fair.
In other words, the reason why we have elections rather than rely on courts to run society is that history has proven that courts unchecked by any external power, invariably lead to despotism, regardless of how pure they maybe in the beginning. Political power through democratic elections is a good and proper balance against rule by courts.
The dissolution of rule by democracy into despotism hasn't a history so long and colorful as court systems decay into despotism. It maybe that we have a vain hope that somehow democracy will be sufficiently dynamic to resist accretion and institutionalization of power into the hands of an hereditary leadership. This is one reason why I'd prefer not to have another Kennedy or Bush in the presidency. Or a Bayh or Gore in Congress, etc.