US Attorneys - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

John Doe · #16 03-15-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Really? They fired specific USAs who refused to prosecute members of the opposition or insisted on prosecuting members of their own party? And gave questionable testimony to Congress about it? And sent emails like the one quoted in the following piece from today's Washington Post?That last sentence is just classic. It's as if these people have given up all pretense of integrity.

Snot why they got fired--I could see why you would think that as a democrat, but not as an attorney that practices in federal court. They got let go so there would be 16 republican us attorneys that could come into the new gene pool for future possible selection as federal district judges.

Honus · #17 03-15-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Snot why they got fired--I could see why you would think that as a democrat, but not as an attorney that practices in federal court. They got let go so there would be 16 republican us attorneys that could come into the new gene pool for future possible selection as federal district judges.

i'm not following you. You're saying that Gonzales fired 8 USAs in order to expand the number of Republicans eligible to become future judges? If so, someone should have clued them into the plan because they do not seem very happy about the way they were fired. And if you are trying to get someone set up to become a judge, why would you say that they were let go for performance reasons?

BENZ-LGB · #18 03-15-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammertime

I got an ashtray full of toenail chips...cheap...

Yikesssssssssssssssssss

BENZ-LGB · #19 03-15-2007, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammertime

C'mon JD..we just finished putting out the flames on Benz-LGP and talked him in off the ledge and you go there again...sheez..what's next a avatar animation discussion?....

Ledge? Not me...

If I ever get too upset here I just go to court and kick the snot out of some defense attorney and his client.

Then I feel oh so calm...

And for the weenies here...I was speaking figuratively you know...tongue in cheek...so relax you all.

BENZ-LGB · #20 03-15-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

C'mon man. I'll pm you the guys name so you can check him out--I am just telling it like it is.

I don't need no names...

Here in California's Central District it is a tradition that U.S. Attorneys go to work at Latham and Watkins or Manatt Phelps or O'Melveny and Meyers. Some get cushy appointments wiht the L.A. City Council or wiht the L.A. city Attorney's Office or L.A.D.A.

OTOH AUSA don't always go on to rake the big bucks or get the cushy jobs. some are career prosecutors.

Come to think about it, I believe that AUSA do have some sort of civil servant protections. It is the USA who don't.

Hammertime · #21 03-16-2007, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Ledge? Not me...

If I ever get too upset here I just go to court and kick the snot out of some defense attorney and his client.

Then I feel oh so calm...

And for the weenies here...I was speaking figuratively you know...tongue in cheek...so relax you all.

For a moment it seemed like there was a bustle in your hedgerow...

BENZ-LGB · #22 03-16-2007, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammertime

For a moment it seemed like there was a bustle in your hedgerow...

So you are a fan of Led Zeppelin and Stairway to Heaven.

Excellent..........

Botnst · #23 03-16-2007, 07:23 AM

Must a president have a reason for either not rehiring or for firing a D.A.?

B

t walgamuth · #24 03-16-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammertime

For a moment it seemed like there was a bustle in your hedgerow...

i always wondered what that line means.

closet homosexual?

tom w

Honus · #25 03-16-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Must a president have a reason for either not rehiring or for firing a D.A.?

B

I say no. But that's not the issue. These 8 weren't let go for no reason, they were let go for improper reasons, according to the allegations. I don't think they broke any laws, but if the allegations are true, then they damaged the Constitution, again.

Botnst · #26 03-16-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I say no. But that's not the issue. These 8 weren't let go for no reason, they were let go for improper reasons, according to the allegations. I don't think they broke any laws, but if the allegations are true, then they damaged the Constitution, again.

If a reason is not necessary then why is it necessary that the reason given meet a certain standard?

B

BENZ-LGB · #27 03-16-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Must a president have a reason for either not rehiring or for firing a D.A.?

B

D.A. as in District Attorney?

In California D.A.'s are elected by the people they serve.

A Deputy District Attorney (DDA) is hired by the D.A. He or she is protected by civil service status.

Elected D.A.'s come and go (some quicker than others). DDAs stay on.

We are the ones who provide prosecutorial stability through chenging administrations.

While in law school I clerked at the local U.S. Attorney's Office.

The AUSA there (Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the equivalent of DDAs) were all hard working, dedicated men and women. I learned much from them.

The USA (U.S. Attorney) were all political hacks. Regardless of who is in the WH, the USAs are political animals who got their job because of political connections and, as JD suggested, are there to be groomed for a possible appointment to the U.S. judiciary.

Now, talk about a cushy job. State judges must be elected (or appointed by the Governor). They must, however, run for confirmation every 6 years.

US judges are appointed for life (like tenure at a college or university) and can only be removed through impeachment!

In theory this protects their integrity, since they don't have to answer to the electorate. In reality it often creates a system where the judges are disconnected from the people they serve.

Some judicial decisions are proof of this disconnect.

Honus · #28 03-16-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If a reason is not necessary then why is it necessary that the reason given meet a certain standard?

B

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.

BENZ-LGB · #29 03-16-2007, 12:38 PM

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.

Mistress · #30 03-16-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammertime

C'mon JD..we just finished putting out the flames on Benz-LGP and talked him in off the ledge and you go there again...sheez..what's next a avatar animation discussion?....

Damnit I still can't make em bounce.