US Attorneys - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #31 03-16-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I would like to amend my previous answer. My understanding is that the law does not require the President to have a reason to fire a USA, but he has a duty to the country to always try to do what's best for us. Having said that, if an astrologer tells the President that the alignment of the stars requires that a particular USA be fired. The President can act on that advice without suffering any repercussions other than what the voters might think about it.

To answer the question quoted here, there is a difference between firing a USA for no reason and firing one for bad reasons. Firing a USA because he is black, for example, is clearly impermissible.

I completely agree with your first paragraph.

When you say in your 2nd paragraph that it is completely impermissible to fire a USA because he is black, does this mean it is illegal? If so, that implies that there is a law covering the hiring and firing of the USA. Does that law only apply to color or does it also apply to other reasons?

B

Honus · #32 03-16-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...When you say in your 2nd paragraph that it is completely impermissible to fire a USA because he is black, does this mean it is illegal? If so, that implies that there is a law covering the hiring and firing of the USA. Does that law only apply to color or does it also apply to other reasons?

B

Civil rights laws prohibit the Federal government and others from firing someone based on race, so, yes, firing a USA because he is black is illegal. Likewise, Bush would be prohibited from firing USAs based on religion or gender. I am aware of no such legal protections for people fired because of their failure to be good Republicans. So, I don't think it is illegal for Bush to fire USAs for partisan political reasons, but it would be unethical, immoral, and, in an extreme case, the sort of thing that could justify impeachment. I'm sure I will get ridiculed for that last part, but I am not advocating that anyone be impeached over the USA thing. I only mention it to help draw the distinction between acts that are illegal versus those that are improper. Even though it takes a "high crime or misdemeanor" to warrant impeachment, I believe that term has been interpreted to include abuses of power that are not technically illegal.

Honus · #33 03-16-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

US Attorneys, unlike Assistant US Attorneys (the line deputies) serve at the will of the President.

No reason needs to be stated for firing them.

Just a handshake and a thank you and please don't let the door hit you on the way out is sufficient.

They know that going in...they should remember it going out.

That is all true, so long you have a President who feels entitled to do anything he wants so long as it doesn't violate any laws. While it's not for me to say, I would prefer to have a President who does better than just being a non-criminal. A higher bar is appropriate, IMHO.

Mistress · #34 03-16-2007, 04:08 PM

It's nice to able too read about both sides of this problem. Thanks guys.

Botnst · #35 03-16-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Civil rights laws prohibit the Federal government and others from firing someone based on race, so, yes, firing a USA because he is black is illegal. Likewise, Bush would be prohibited from firing USAs based on religion or gender. I am aware of no such legal protections for people fired because of their failure to be good Republicans. So, I don't think it is illegal for Bush to fire USAs for partisan political reasons, but it would be unethical, immoral, and, in an extreme case, the sort of thing that could justify impeachment. I'm sure I will get ridiculed for that last part, but I am not advocating that anyone be impeached over the USA thing. I only mention it to help draw the distinction between acts that are illegal versus those that are improper. Even though it takes a "high crime or misdemeanor" to warrant impeachment, I believe that term has been interpreted to include abuses of power that are not technically illegal.

Okay, so if not being a good republican fails the sniff test, does not being a good democrat also fail the sniff test? I mean in terms of ethicality, if not legality.

B

Botnst · #36 03-16-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That is all true, so long you have a President who feels entitled to do anything he wants so long as it doesn't violate any laws. While it's not for me to say, I would prefer to have a President who does better than just being a non-criminal. A higher bar is appropriate, IMHO.

Who was that Greek mythological character doomed to eternally wander the night looking for an honest man?

B

BENZ-LGB · #37 03-16-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That is all true, so long you have a President who feels entitled to do anything he wants so long as it doesn't violate any laws. While it's not for me to say, I would prefer to have a President who does better than just being a non-criminal. A higher bar is appropriate, IMHO.

How about a President who thinks it is OK to lie under oath at his deposition. And not because he thought that it is legal to lie under oath--after all this particular President is (or was) a member of several bars and ought to know better. This President lied lied under oath (aka perjury) simply because he thought he could get away with it. (Gotta be careful where you spill your DNA, huh?)

Yeah, I guess we can all dream.

BENZ-LGB · #38 03-16-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Who was that Greek mythological character doomed to eternally wander the night looking for an honest man?

B

That would be Diogenes...he'd kill himself if he had to look in Washington D.C.

And it was no Greek mythology. Diogenes really existed.

Botnst · #39 03-16-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

That would be Diogenes...he'd kill himself if he had to look in Washington D.C.

And it was no Greek mythology. Diogenes really existed.

Weeellll yeah so did Homer, sort of. Important folks in history accumulate mythology. Sometimes the mythology overwhelms the history, like Arthurian legends. Would you think Diogenes is more like Homer or Arthur?

It's all in fun.

B

BENZ-LGB · #40 03-16-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Weeellll yeah so did Homer, sort of. Important folks in history accumulate mythology. Sometimes the mythology overwhelms the history, like Arthurian legends. Would you think Diogenes is more like Homer or Arthur?

It's all in fun.

B

I think that Diogenes would approve of Homer Simpson...

davidmash · #41 03-16-2007, 08:08 PM

This whole USA thing did not make sense till today. I just read that due to the lovely Patriot Act, interim appointments tot he DOJ do not need congressional approval. I also read that the terminations were already being planned prior to Gonzales going through his confirmation hearings where he claimed not to have any knowledge of the terminations. So, if he was kept in the dark, the Bush administration does seem to have a habit of keeping those who need to know in the dark, or Gonzales was lying through his teeth to Congress. Either way, something stinks.

Honus · #42 03-16-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Okay, so if not being a good republican fails the sniff test, does not being a good democrat also fail the sniff test? I mean in terms of ethicality, if not legality.

B

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.

BENZ-LGB · #43 03-16-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Either way, something stinks.

Hypocritical, sanctimonious pols stink the worst!

Botnst · #44 03-16-2007, 10:41 PM

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.

BENZ-LGB · #45 03-16-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

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.

You have that a little backwards B.

Election results are the ultimate expression of "majority" rule. (Let's forget the popular vote vs. electoral college argument for now).

The majority decides who governs the country. thus the expression "majority rule."

So where does the minority fit in? (And I am referring to numerical minority, not ethnic minorities).

To protect the rights of the minority whose voice does not find expression in the election's results we have a judiciary that is supposed to act independently from the legislative and executive branches of government. It is the judiciary's function to block the executive and legislative branches from running roughshod over minorities (numerical).

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

In our system of government, the real desposts are found in the executive and legislative branches of government. And that is the reason why we have elections--to be sure that the whole bunch of scoundrels cannot hang around long enough to do any harm.

Yes, the President appoints all federal judges, so this takes away a little bit of their "independence." As history has shown, however, many Presidents have been surprised (not pleasantly so) by the 180 degree turn that some of their appointees to the bench have made after being appointed.