So, Bush gets a little known caveat put into the Patriot Act reauthorization allowing him to fire and replace US Attorneys without the Senates authorization. He then fires 7 US Attorneys with no reason given, probably to appoint with more cronies and henchmen. The attorneys that he fired included ones that prosecuted Republican congressmen for corruption. So is this what democracy is? You task our justice system to eliminate corruption in government and we fire the people who do their jobs?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070302/pl_nm/usa_congress_prosecutors_dc_2

3/8/2007 2:37:02 PM

US Attorneys are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the President. It's been that way for like 200 years. The confirmation process is little more than an afterthought.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 2:45 PM. Reason : 2]

3/8/2007 2:40:00 PM

it's a shame that Bush and his cronies are the only criminals in DC

3/8/2007 2:40:23 PM

US Attorneys are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the President. It's been that way for like 200 years. The confirmation process is little more than an afterthought.

3/8/2007 2:48:42 PM

Quote :

"The confirmation process is little more than an afterthought."

Then why did bush feel he had to sneak in a way around it?

3/8/2007 2:49:02 PM

One of the attorneys was fired for not indicting a democrat in New Mexico right before the election in november. We do not need the judiciary turned into a political hack machine.

3/8/2007 2:49:32 PM

the only real fishy part of this is that some of them claim they were either too tough on republican politicians or that they weren't succumbing to pressure to indict democrat politicians. they were fired though their job performance had been reviewed positively.

now, i don't know that anything illegal happened, since they serve at the president's pleasure. i just think it's a little crappy.

3/8/2007 2:51:26 PM

Quote :

"Then why did bush feel he had to sneak in a way around it?"

Sneak? The fucking bill was voted on.

That's not fucking sneaky... Sneaky is Nancy Pelosi leaving out the American Samoa from the minimum wage bill (THAT DID NOT GET A FUCKING SENATE VOTE) while she holds stock in Del Monte (owner of Starkist Tuna... which employs 75% of the fucking American Samoa).

Do you even know the fucking definition of sneaky?

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 2:52:27 PM

let's not forget about the guy who was fired because he took too many days off and the days off were spent serving in the Navy Reserve and with those dates removed he was below the average amount of days off. Thank you for serving your country, now you are fired.

3/8/2007 2:53:14 PM

Its true that they serve at the "pleasure of the president" but the real problem with this is that he can bypass the Senate oversight process, effectively eliminating checks on the executive branch's Judiciary appointees. One more step down the road to totalitarianism.

3/8/2007 2:56:59 PM

Quote :

"Sneak? The fucking bill was voted on."

So provisions and earmarks are never voted on site unseen? I'm just asking, I don't know if that is the case in this instance.

3/8/2007 2:58:22 PM

Quote :

"Sneak? The fucking bill was voted on."

virtually every bill that is voted on has a last minute addendum or some other revision tacked on at the very end.....I would say that is the epitome of sneak.

and, why the need to push the topic to someone else.....nobody was talking about pelosi here

3/8/2007 2:58:44 PM

I'm just saying that this bill had a vote. Some of pelosi's bills did not have votes. It is not sneaky if you get to vote yea or nay.

3/8/2007 3:00:03 PM

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : fuck it, n/m...]

3/8/2007 3:00:35 PM

Quote :

"It is not sneaky if you get to vote yea or nay."

Of course it is. What other name did you post under before, speaking of sneaky?

3/8/2007 3:02:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm just saying that this bill had a vote. Some of pelosi's bills did not have votes. It is not sneaky if you get to vote yea or nay."

they can't be passed without votes. Christ you suck as civics.

3/8/2007 3:03:16 PM

point is, it is always bad imo to bypass checks and balances that have worked well for many, many years, and bush seems to always try and do just that....

....i'm just waiting for him to announce his running for a 3rd term.

3/8/2007 3:06:32 PM

the patriot act was a farce, and this is yet another example of why.

3/8/2007 3:10:09 PM

I <3 supporting evidence.

3/8/2007 3:22:00 PM

Quote :

"....i'm just waiting for him to announce his running for a 3rd term."

announce?

More like, "oh hey, the Iraq War Authorization Bill? Yeah, that lets me be President for Life. You didn't know?"

3/8/2007 3:24:42 PM

shut the fuck up

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : :eek:]

3/8/2007 3:25:58 PM

3/8/2007 3:34:12 PM

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2007 3:36:12 PM

Quote :

"Bush gets a little known caveat put into the Patriot Act reauthorization allowing him to fire and replace US Attorneys without the Senates authorization"

Its a shame everyone who voted on the bill must have failed to read what they were voting on

Heaven forbid they actually know what bills they are signing

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 4:16:49 PM

you're right

for a little perspective:
the bill was introduced oct. 23, 2001 in the house. passed the house the following day and the senate the next and signed into law on the 26th.

this bill is 131 pages of legalese.
it's a shame that a rush to action prompted our congress to not deliberately consider what they were doing.



[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 4:17:38 PM

And I don't think the fact that a bill is hundreds of pages should change that...from what I hear, Senators and Reps (Democrats and Republicans both) seem to take a buttload of vacation time...so its not like they are so swamped with work that the length of a bill should ever be an excuse...especially with the small percentage of bills that actually go through based on the total number of bills proposed

3/8/2007 4:21:26 PM

I've had to read 100 page essays in the same amount of time...

3/8/2007 4:37:02 PM

And not to bash your 100 page essays , but I think Bills that will go into law are a little more important...ie they sure as hell should be reading them

I mean shit how hard is it to get with a dozen of your Senate friends, divy up the pages, go over your pages and report your findings at a meeting...do SOMETHING

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 4:41:35 PM

^ Especially in the wake of 9/11


There is absolutely NO excuse.

3/8/2007 4:47:35 PM

even if they had read them (which i'm sure many did) they were obviously rushed through. voting against anything in this bill would have been political suicide for most in those times.

and again:
i think this is a shame. i wish i could expect more from congress.

at least the bill was sunsetted.
unfortunately, some of the changes that were implemented in 2006, bush decided he didn't have to follow in a signing statement (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/)

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 4:49:18 PM

^ I fail to see your point. Political suicide? Well if you're worried about getting voted out of office or standing on principle, then I suppose you don't really need that vote anyway.

I know that's idealistic, but if you can't hold people accountable for their voting records, what can you hold them accountable for?

3/8/2007 4:51:22 PM

Quote :

"voting against anything in this bill would have been political suicide for most in those times. "

I agree at the time the psyche of the country was on alert since 9/11 had happened so recently...but its still their job to pass legislation, which includes knowing what they're voting for or against...the political suicide thing is almost like saying peer pressure is an acceptable excuse for hastily rushing a bill into effect that you dont know about

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 4:52:04 PM

i am holding them accountable. i think that the patriot act was an embarrassment to the entire congress.

3/8/2007 4:52:55 PM

alright then, sneaky or not, this bill was passed into law by your elected officials.


Tough it was sneaky. They got a vote.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 4:53:45 PM

i didn't vote for the senators that voted for them. i did vote for a house member that voted for the bill. i let him know that i didn't appreciate the decision.

3/8/2007 4:55:31 PM

sadly i doubt he cares about your dislike of him signing it, that is if he even saw your email/letter in the first place

maybe if you had contributed thousands of dollars to him he might care

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 5:14:20 PM

actually, i've gotten good responses from him before (unlike burr and dole)

and for the most part i've agreed with what he's done in congress.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 5:15:02 PM

wow...its actually refreshing to hear that you have actually heard back from someone in washington with as many constituents as they all have

3/8/2007 5:19:37 PM

There are over 12,000 congressional staffers in Washington, many who work on nothing but constituent services. It really takes a special situation to have your cause responded to by the actual member. Otherwise its mostly cutting and pasting and form letters.

3/8/2007 5:25:47 PM

i've heard back from burr and dole as well. but they were obviously form letters. i guess it's not too surprising, since their constituency is much larger than a house member. but the burr and dole form letters didn't even really address what i had said.

basically i said "i don't agree with your stance X"

response:
"i feel very strongly about X. thanks for your interest."

3/8/2007 5:27:40 PM

^Very much true.

y'all would actually be surprised at how responsive most members of the house are. Sure some in leadership positions will not get back to you, but the rest are fairly available.

3/8/2007 5:44:30 PM

Quote :

"sarijoul: you're right for a little perspective: the bill was introduced oct. 23, 2001 in the house. passed the house the following day and the senate the next and signed into law on the 26th. this bill is 131 pages of legalese. it's a shame that a rush to action prompted our congress to not deliberately consider what they were doing."

This was never part of the original Patriot Act. It was part of the "Patriot II" reauthorization from March of last year, when Democrats were scared as shit of losing the midterm elections (passed the House 257-171-0-6, and passed the Senate 89-10-1-0).

They all had plenty of time to review it.

---

As for the topic, this didn't substantially change anything relating to "checks and balances" etc etc etc. The 120 day time limit on interim prosecutor appointments had only been in place since 1985 (after a Reagan-era prosecutor was fired for leaking classified information), and the President has *never* needed Senate authorization to fire a US attorney (see Myers v United States, 1926) 

3/8/2007 6:20:40 PM

So where does that leave us in this thread?

We are debating the legislation and the law, but is that really the problem?

Is it not still suspect that he fired 7 that might not have held views similar to his?

3/8/2007 7:51:36 PM

WE SHOULD JUST PULL CONVICTS OUT AND LET THEM RUN THE COUNTRY...


AT LEAST WE WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM HIRING FUCKING HALIBURTON FOR EVERYTHING

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 8:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 8:08:52 PM

Here is what I don't get

Clinton comes into office in 1993...fires ALL US Attorneys and replaces them ALL

Bush, fires 7 after 6 years in.....and is bashed for it


give me a break

3/8/2007 8:59:22 PM

You think Bush didn't clear house when he came into office in 2000? I'm sure he fired every single Democratically appointed US attorney. Hell the ones he did fire recently WERE republicans!

give me a break

its normal to appoint new people to new positions on an administration change. its not normal to fire excellent, well performing prosecutors because they aren't right wing extremists and did their job to prosecute corrupt congressmen.

you have no idea what you are talking about

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 9:11 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 9:04:57 PM

pot <=> kettle

3/8/2007 9:35:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure he fired every single Democratically appointed US attorney."

I'm sure you're wrong

3/8/2007 9:44:32 PM

he fired most but not all.

hiring a fresh set at the beginning of an administration is the norm.

Quote :

"he did fire recently WERE republicans!"

i know at least one was an independent.


[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

and the fishy thing is that he kicked them out because of ongoing cases or not indicting dem. politicians.

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 9:46:01 PM

set em up

3/8/2007 10:05:51 PM