Sounds like a good joke, but sry, I don’t get it, Marlowe. Could you pls explain for someone who obviously still isn’t really awake???

I remember hearing about a year ago that the top prosecutor for the Abramoff case was offered a judgeship, when the case got too hot—anyone know if that’s true??

Ah Gray! You’re defending Scooter Libby!!!

I knew you would see the light eventually, and join the forces of righteousness against the criminalization of politics in the United States.

I recently read the allegations with regard to the New Mexico attorney and prosecution of democrats. If that is true, then I condemn it wholeheartedly. As more information comes out, it looks like there might have been nefarious political intent with some of the firings but not with others. Normally, I’d support an investigation, but in the Congress “investigation” is more often political grandstanding. Still, the allegations should be looked into.

When the party affiliation of the accused is becoming a main reason for indictment or not, this is a travesty of justice and absolutely NOT legal. There’s no way to spin that into a valid policy.

Generally, you’re right. But in this case, this disregards the lying about the motives and the behind the scene intriguing of the interested parties. Also, pls note that the Patriot Act allows bush to switch attorneys without confirmation, but that this was intended to be a streamlined process in case of emergency. Bush still could have confirmed the surrogates with the Senate, he deliberatel chose not to do that. Now we know he was trying to hide the fact that his Attorney General is making a farce of the impartiality of Justice. 7 times more Dems investigated than Reps, how do you explain this?

“For a moderate blog, this site has plenty of left-leaning contributors but few, from what I’ve seen so far, from the other side of the spectrum.”

That’s not true. We libruls just try harder!

Gray, I actually agree with you on the confirmation side of it. I think attorneys should continue to be confirmed as they always were.

However, I stand by my contention that firing a few attorneys that Bush appointed is really no different from the house-cleanings at the beginning of a Presidency. What you’re essentially saying is that once a President appoints an attorney, he/she can’t be replaced. That’s just silly. These attorneys serve as the pleasure of the President. If attorneys are so important, and their job is not political, then why would a President replace all of them at the beginning of his/her term? I suspect a large part of the reason is that there are a few or perhaps many attorneys an incoming President doesn’t like, so rather than pick and choose which to fire, and trigger a political firestorm like we’re seeing now, it’s easier and provides more political cover to just replace all of them. In addition, it allows a President to put friends and political allies in those positions – people who support THAT PRESIDENT’S POLICIES. How is that not political? Perhaps, though, if Bush had followed Harriet’s advice, there might not be the hubub.

Really the only thing that bothers me about this story is that Bush claimed the firings were due to performance, which apparently isn’t the case judging from their performance reports. The real reason seems to be policy differences, such as what types of cases should take priority over others. That’s a valid reason to replace an attorney in my view.

And please, people, don’t label me as some Rove robot who spews RNC talking points. You don’t know anything about me and extrapolating from one or a few posts or positions will not give you an accurate pictures. For the record, I’m a true non-partisan. The only time I’ve ever registered with one political party or another is to vote against someone I particularly hated in a primary. I loathe the two-party system and both the democrats and republican collusion to maintain their duopoly on power.

So it is with much amusement that I see partisans like Shaun and Gray rail against politicians they don’t like being “political” while rarely, if ever, acknowledging when the shoe is on the other foot. For a moderate blog, this site has plenty of left-leaning contributors but few, from what I’ve seen so far, from the other side of the spectrum. There are some great and truly moderate/independent contributors here though, which is why I read.

“But at least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases. That stands in contradiction to administration claims that the firings were related either to job performance or policy differences. A fourth U.S. attorney was told by a top Justice Department official that the dismissal in that attorney’s case was not necessarily related to job performance.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/13/coulter/

Of course, the Bush gang didn’t want their real motives to be known, so they just declared the attorneys were fired because of bad job performance, not caring a little bit that this put a severe stain on the carreer opportunities of those lawyers. That’s more than shameful.

Expertly said. Thank you for the tutorial. Too bad it was necessary, but then if you asked 50 people at a shopping mall what habeas corpus is, five would think it an obsence sex act and 44 wouldn’t have a clue.

Clinton didn’t fire “all the judges.”

Judges can’t be fired.

Judges can only be impeached or (if they’re elected) voted out.

That’s what “an indepedent judiciary” means, for cryin out loud.

As for “Well, he fired all the attorneys!” – again, an elementary level of knowledge about how the federal government actually works would come in handy here, y’know?

Because Presidents can and do, ROUTINELY, fire the US Attorneys who were appointed by their predecessor. US Attorneys are political appointees. It’s standard procedure for new Presidents to replace the previous Administration’s US Attorneys with their own appointees. There’s nothing sinister or illegal or unprecedented about it. Got that?

What makes this story a story is that 1) the US Attorneys were already Bush appointees; 2) they were replaced without Congressional confirmation, even though Gonzales said/promised they would face Congressional confirmation; and 3) they were fired for not using investigations to help Republicans politically. All of which is different from what Clinton did, and from what most every other President has done.

If you keep arguing otherwise, you don’t come off as a clean government advocate. You come off as an idiot who doesn’t know anything about your own government.

“[D]omajot” said:

> Politicizing the judiciary is a dangerous thing even if my aunt Polly does it.

For years we have had left-wing judicial activism and even political favoritism and many on the Left have no problem with it or even approve of it (because they have impatience with and contempt for the legitimate way to change or write new law, namely the legislative process performed by the legislature).

So far, to better people the Dems have nothing to gripe about — yet. Now: What would be the criteria for rehiring the judges or hiring new judges? Refusal to legislate from the bench, outstanding. But willing to be more or simply to be pro-business, etc? It’s time to find out. The Dems then have extra points to score between now and 11/08.

> There should be procedures in place whereby no president can remove judges
> at whim without showing cause.

This is where impeachment should be applied. If there is cause, removal is in order.

Bush has the identical!!! pursed lip expression in EVERY SINGLE picture with every one of his appointees.

You can check this. There are so many pictures of almost identical scenes online.

I swear, it is truly bizarre! Every time I see it, I wonder at what is in his mind…or maybe it is just a cardboard cut-out of Bush propped up at these media appearances.

The identical pose. The identical pursed-lip expression. Only the tie changes.

How can Bush do it?

Politicizing the judiciary is a dangerous thing even if my aunt Polly does it. There should be procedures in place whereby no president can remove judges at whim without showing cause.