Senate passes legislation to end AG authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without their consent

Drudge ^

[sonsofliberty2000]

Developing...

[TxCopper]

Judges can be impeached & removed from office.

[DJ MacWoW]

so is the Legislative branch trying to run the Judicial branch of goverment?

US Attorneys are from the Executive branch with the Justice Dept. They have nothing to do with the Judicial Branch.

[NonValueAdded]

Applies to Hillary too. Interestingly enough the word is hire and not fire. Perhaps that is the loophole for their next Queen. She can clean out all the Bushies and assume a friendly Senate will rubber stamp her appointments.

[DJ MacWoW]

I think you're right. I don't think it will pass the constitutionality test. Seems like this proposed law would impinge on executive branch authority.

The law has been since 1789 that the Senate gets to approve appointments. See post 33 and the comments in 48.

[Brilliant]

"With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists."


I don't see how he could abuse the power to appoint by exercising the power to fire, which is something that the President clearly has the power to do.

[Eagle Eye]

((((sigh)))))

One more time now...it it idiotic to blame voters for refusing to vote for candidates they dislike.

Blaming the voters is as silly as blaming consumers for refusing to buy an inferior product just to keep an inferior company afloat.

[Mr. Lucky]

Read post #5; they can't be fired by the President.

[italianquaker]

Ok, thats fine with hillary harry and nancy

[phillyfanatic]

92-2 is not a veto time for the Prez. He already has badly handled this small potatoes thing into a media scare and scandal. He would lose, see above vote. Pubs do not defend themselves anymore and the Evil Party loves it. So does the media. W should have cleaned house in 2001 on all carry over Clintonistas in both Justice and State. But, being a nnnnniiiiccce boy, he forgot which Party he got his votes from!

[Brilliant]

1. What does the Patriot Act actually say?

2 What does the Senate amendment actually say?


A lot of paraphrasing, and interpretation, but if the Patriot Act only states that the President has the power to appoint US Attorneys when the Senate is not in session, then it's only stating what the Constitution itself already says, and there is nothing that Congress can do to repeal it.

[DJ MacWoW]

I don't see how he could abuse the power to appoint by exercising the power to fire, which is something that the President clearly has the power to do.

Honey that's the Lefts spin, blacken Bush and get Gonzales fired. Then they'll point to all the "criminals" in this administration. The public isn't up to speed on what the law is and the press isn't telling them. It will look like the Left is "cleaning house". And Bush sits there, silent.

[MEGoody]

I can't believe the amount of damage this administration has done during its second term.

It's not that the administration has done any more than any other administration. It's that the Dems are so bitter over losing the election in 2000, they will set up hearings over anything they can.

[George W. Bush]

Bush should veto this. And begin immediately to take it to the Supreme Court.

There is nothing in 'advise and consent' that grants veto power as a prior restraint on the executive. It is plainly unconstitutional.

It's the old Dim playbook for use against Republican presidents. I hope Bush goes after it.

Fire these attorneys now. Bring all the records of underperformance and incompetence into public hearings before the Senate. If they won't resign quietly, then expose them. If their careers are ruined, then so be it.

Gonzales' deputy is apparently instigating much of this to try to gain the AG office himself. He should be fired immediately. No president of either party should reward such careerism and office politics in a key agency.

A president who can't fire his own executive branch staff is not an American president. They serve at his pleasure.

[George W. Bush]

Judges cannot be fired, either at will or otherwise.

But they can be impeached and removed. Just as corrupt Alcee Hastings was in the Eighties by the Dims.

[Mr. Lucky]

Since 1797, at grand total of seven judges have been removed from office.

[Brilliant]

Here's what the statute actually says:

§ 546. Vacancies

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.

(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.



So I guess the Dems complaints are what? 1) It gives the power to the AG, instead of the President. 2) On its face, it's not limited to when the Senate is not in session.

In my view, it doesn't add a lot to the President's Constitutional recess appointment power. I'm not sure why the Dems think repealing this is going to prevent some gargantuan abuse. The statute wasn't even in effect when Clinton fired every single US attorney in the country, and appointed his flunkies to replace them. So apparently, it's not the statute that's the problem.

[Eagle Eye]

(Note to self when working with mentally challenged...use more pictures and smaller words)

Evidence would indicate that you are of the "we're the GOP and you vote for who we say you vote for, or else" school of thought.

Message to GOP koolaid drinkers: when the GOP gets sloppy, corrupt, weak, strays from values and then runs crappy candidates the GOP will lose.

And don't blame the voters for YOUR incompetence.

[DJ MacWoW]

See post 71. This is all posturing on the part of the Dems.

[conservative in nyc]

This is a total non-issue, with 0% chance of a Bush veto.

I'm not sure that this is a total non-issue to the administration. All things being equal, they would like to keep the law the way it is. The administration has concerns that the prior law (which was in effect since 1986) is unconstitutional. This theory is based on an article in the Minnesota Law Review.

The main reason the law was changed was due to a standoff in South Dakota in 2005. The Democrat-appointed District Court judges in South Dakota wanted to name an outsider to take over as temporary U.S. Attorney after the initial 120-day period had lapsed for President Bush's temporary appointment. This would have posed a problem because he would have had to undergo a background check in order to run the office, and one had not been done in time. The President had the prior temporary appointee step down before his 120-day period ended, creating a vacancy, and named someone else who had the necessary clearances.

The ultimate problem with any temporary 120-day period is that is unrealistic. According to some of the documents released by the DOJ yesterday, it usually takes about a year from the time a vacancy occurs to get a nominee through the Senate. So the change in law essentially puts temporary appointment power back in the hands of the judges. And some district courts have refused to exercise this authority in the past.

That being said, I can't get too worked up about the change.

[zendari]

Let me clarify.

The President can dismiss any attorney he chooses. They were political appointees in the 1890s, when Grover Cleveland fired an attorney, and still are now.

Previous to 2006, any new attorney must be confirmed by the Senate. These attorneys are appointed for 4 year terms, which coincide with Presidential terms. Typically, a new President appoints a new batch of attorneys when he comes into office, as the old batch expires.

Clinton did that. Bush I and II did it. Reagan did it.

After the 4 year term ends (for example, in Jan. 1993, Bush I's attorneys would be nearing the end of their 4 years), attorneys stay in their position until their successor is named and confirmed. It took Clinton a bit of time to fill all 90+ vacancies, so a few of Bush I's appointments were "held over"

This was similar to cabinet appointments: They can be fired at will, but need Senate confirmation to be hired.

The President, or AG, could also make a "recess appointment" for attorneys, which bypassed the Senate. These appointments used to last 120 days.

The Patriot Act changed this, so a "recess appointment" lasted indefinitely, effectively removed the Senate confirmation process. That part of the law was writted by Senator Specter, but he claims he doesn't know how it got there. Most of the Democrats apparently didn't read the law they passed.

Now they are complaining about Al Gonzalez doing what they passed as legal barely a year ago.

The new Senate amendment reverts "recess appointments" back to their 120 day status.