This story is archived

6 of 7 Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Had Positive Job Evaluations »

Posted by: TechnologyExpert 2 years, 8 months ago

Archived 19 0 drops

All but one of the U.S. attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department had positive job reviews before they were dismissed, but many ran into political trouble with Washington over issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty, according to prosecutors, congressional aides and others familiar with the cases. Two months after the firin

Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »

Submitted By:

TechnologyExpert

I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 12

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
SaintCheez
Feb. 17, 2007, 11:56 p.m.
My suspician is that bush booted lawyers in the justice dept who were not going along with his plans for setting up a dictatorship in the US. Really, why else would he get rid of them? It would be interesting to discover what bush proposals the lawyers were not supporting.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
bubba2
Feb. 18, 2007, 12:24 p.m.
On similar threads over the past couple of days, several people tried to 'counter' this situation by noting that Clinton had all of the U.S. Attorneys fired when he took office in 1993.
Problem is, that is NOT a valid comparison.
Clinton, like just about every other NEW President at the beginning of an administration that is a DIFFERENT party from the previous one, dismisses the previous appointees and puts their own in place.
ALSO, those appointees, INCLUDING U.S. Attorneys, are approved by the Senate.
In THIS case, the dismissal and replacements are occurring in the middle of a presidential term, and the replacements are being put in place by BYPASSING the Senate.
Bush is able to bypass the Senate because someone attached an amendment at the LAST MINUTE to the renewal of the Patriot Act last fall that allows Bush to do this.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
bubba2
Feb. 18, 2007, 12:26 p.m.
Along with what SaintCheez said, it has been suggested that Bush wants his own 'picks' as Attorneys because he knows that tough 'fights' are coming via Congressional investigations by the Democrats.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mbkijb
Feb. 18, 2007, 12:49 p.m.
Politics are a dirty filthy thing.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
SaintCheez
Feb. 18, 2007, 3:44 p.m.
Supposely an x-"supreme" court judge stated that the judiciary is the weakest branch of government and needed support by the people. I can only hope they all are supporting the Bill of Rights and Constitution, however their track record is not too good.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
SaintCheez
Feb. 18, 2007, 6:24 p.m.
OK, I am speculating here. If the executive branch is attacked over their policies, they will need both judges and lawyers to support their plans. They had to bypass the congress to do this. Bypassing the Constitution has been normalcy for this executive branch of the government. Well, I do not believe this is benign but rather malignant diagnosis.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
AmusedObserver
Feb. 18, 2007, 9:58 p.m.
Not to defend President Bush or his administration, as he has disappointed me on so many levels and on so many issues, however, this subject brings up a question:
How many of the U.S. attorneys dismissed when Bill Clinton entered the Oval Orifice (weren't they ALL dismissed?) had received positive evaluations?