Posted on 03/20/2007 9:35:16 AM PDT by sonsofliberty2000
Developing...
The AP is reporting President George W. Bush has issued an executive order today eliminating the advise and consent duties of the Senate with regards to Judicial Nominees.
President Bush stated "..this action was just as reasonable as the Senate dictating actions within the executive branch."
The Dems complaints are two fold:
1. Attorneys have rarely been "fired" in the middle of a term, as opposed to housecleaning at the start of the term. See my previous post.
2. The Patriot Act allows the Executive branch to bypass Senate confirmation any time they choose, so they can put anyone they want in these positions.
Better yet, blaming the voters for not electing GOP is like CBS blaming viewers for not liking Katie Couric.
Arrogance.
Nothing illegal happened, but the firings were handled badly - especially the firing of Bud Cummins in Arkansas. It appears that the guy who replaced him - Rove's assistant Tim Griffin - actively sought the removal of Cummins in order to gain the appointment for himself. Then the White House and DOJ could not get their story straight about why Cummins was fired. Some mid-level people were saying he was fired for "performance" problems, which apparently was not the case - and there were some implied threats against Cummins if he disputed the reasons that he was being trashed over.
The people who were making these decisions were too young and inexperienced politically, and too ambitious. They made a mess of it.
I will be surprised if the President takes this to court. For starters, it's not a guaranteed win at the SCOTUS. Another loss at the High Court would make his administration look bad. Also, it doesn't seem like Bush has wanted to put up much of a fight lately. I don't think he'll ask Gonzales to resign, but I don't think he'll challenge this either.
back to the status quo -- much ado.
Clinton, Carter and Nixon have done it. The rarirty is 8 at once.
How unusual is it for a U.S. attorney to be fired?
It's very unusual. Richard Nixon fired one when he was in office. [Jimmy] Carter fired a U.S. attorney who was making an investigation of a Democratic House member that he wanted to keep in office. Bill Clinton fired one. But it's really very rare for this to happen.
In this case it was eight attorneys.
That is close to unprecedented. … I did a book on the Justice Department, and I just have never seen something like this.
Now, that being said, when a president comes into office, historically, all the U.S. attorneys leave. And he appoints a new set of thesse individuals — there are about 90 of them.
Article II, section 2 of the Carmin TP roll might be a problem for Senate
"I also cant believe the amount of damage "they" did by staying home and not voting"
Gee, just when you thought that BS had been put to bed.
The folks that didn't vote were/are sick of the way this country is being run. (I voted)
You think people were not voting in Nov, wait and see what happens if Rudy is the nominee.
Bush's mistake was in not doing what Clinton did and simply firing them all on his first day of office. The result was that he's spent the last 6 years dodging bullets fired in his direction by Clinton holdovers. Then he fires a few near the end of his administration, and the obvious question is why he would do that now, given that he was willing to live with these guys for 6 years.
As an aside, Giuliani will have no problem dealing with this kind of thing. Having been there and done that himself, he'd hand the Dems their heads if they pulled this on him.
After the sheer nastiness of the Clintons in Washington, Bush wanted to be a "uniter". I remember the discussions on FR about Bushes statement. Some thought that he'd be eaten alive in Washington and it proved to be true. He has the cajones to face down opponents. Remember that debate where Gore pretended to be an alpha male and stalked up to Bushes podium? Bush nodded, looked away and started speaking again making Gore look foolish. Where in the world is that man? He has disappeared.
The "stay at home purist" bit is just a runaway myth, parroted by terminally ill-informed RINOs hell-bent on blaming conservatives for everything. Republican turnout was actually strong in 2006. Unfortunately, so was the Independent vote, and that broke 65/35 against the GOP. That's what did us in.
But, like you said, if they really want to see what huge numbers of stay-at-home conservatives can do to an election, just give Giuliani the nomination and watch.
Bush let them play him for a sap. I doubt that Giuliani would have gotten himself in this fix in the first place, but he certainly would not have backed off like Bush has.
LOL...or a bumper sticker.
"The "stay at home purist" bit is just a runaway myth,"
I can't stand people using useless cliche. To me it's the same as someone saying your against immigration when your really against *illegal* immigration. These Rudy supporters are going to learn a HARD lesson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.