Congress wastes a lot of time on useless posturing, but sometimes they actually pursue policies that seem designed to harm American citizens. Most recently, the Senate just passed a bill 94-2 declaring that no new US attorneys will be approved......

If the argument is that you don't like this provision, then by all means write your congress member to change it, but the reality is that these are political appointments and they don't come with job security, and the president isn't required to prove just cause to ask somebody to leave, even if the reason is that he wants to appoint some other person he likes better.

It was more that just not nice, it was the abuse of a new power, in my opinion. The power was in place to supposedly make managing terrorism cases more efficient and instead it was used to give the job to a political ally. That is problematic in my view.

Sighhhhhhhh ... YES. And, the Senate can decide that the President isn't to be trusted, and that it should therefore resume confirmation hearings on nominees, to prevent this kind of b.s. from happening.

Honestly, other than the fact that this action wasn't exactly "nice" I don't think it is neccessarily wrong. USA's are not civil servants, they technically have no job security, and the president can decide for any reason that they want to replace them.

So, when Rove, Meyers, Gonzalez, whoever, started discussion the idea of replacing USA's in (I think the latest info is) early 2005, it was just the beginning of Bush's second term - a reasonable time to consider renewing or replacing the expiring crop of USA's.

But then, the discussions went on, and no removals actually occurred until late 2006. Which means even if they had followed the old procedures of appointment, the new USA's would have at most 2 years in the office before the next President came to office. In other words, the trial balloon that these firings were part of the 'normal cycle' of USA replacement just doesn't fly...

Then, having kept the justice off the bench (suspended w/ pay) and thus not voting for over a year, and failing to get a conviction, the USA then brought a SECOND trial against him, on tax charges that also went nowhere -- instead of having them brought in the 1st trial -- and thus kept one of the court's 3 consistent liberals from voting "the wrong way." Mission accomplished, as they say.

I daresay that's the kind of thing that's been winning brownie (Brownie?) points at DOJ under Bush.

In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely.

Thanks, I read the same thing just a few minutes ago at Steven's site. Yep, it does sound suspicious and that "Clintion fired all 93" doesn't really work given the specifics of the two situations.

I admit I haven’t been following this issue that closely, but I have heard that Clinton fired 93 (all of the USAs?) when he came into office. Is that true, and why is this situation different other than the mishandling of the PR aspect of it?

Income presidents, especially when party changes, routinely replace all (or almost all) of the US Attys then serving. Clinton's replacement was notable because (a) it happened all at once (the explanation for which, I read recently, was that some had indicated they wouldn't be resigning) rather than gradually; and (b) it hadn't happened in 12 years as there had been no party switch since 1980. GWB did the same thing when he came into office but didn't do it all at once.

The present situation of firing US Attys who were happy to continue in their job in the middle of a presidential term appears to be eitehr unprecedented or highly unusual - with or without the PR blunders and/or suspicious circumstances.

I admit I haven't been following this issue that closely, but I have heard that Clinton fired 93 (all of the USAs?) when he came into office. Is that true, and why is this situation different other than the mishandling of the PR aspect of it?

Update: Nevermind Steven, I found this post which answered that question.

Indeed, in a generic sense I expect persons to try and exploit a given set a rules to their advantage.

However, in this case I find the attempt to exploit the rules to be sufficiently unseemly as to require further scrutiny.

I haven't personally called for anyone's ouster, but have rather simply pointed to this story as one worthy of deeper attention.

Although, it won't surprise me if Gonzalez goes, insofar as he appears to have made incorrect comments to Congress that either indicate lying or managerial incompetence.

Beyond that, I have to confess that I do not trust Gonzalez after his evasiveness in regards to the FISA warrants and the wiretapping business, hence making me more suspicious of this situation from the get-go.

Yep, I don't disagree with any of that. It's just a further extension of the "Politicization of Everything" trend that's been going on the last 15 years or so.

Such things as "kicking him out of his job so a guy who worked for the RNC could get the job" are unseemly, I think, but not "improper" in any sense under current rules. I'd be happy to go back to the old rules, though.

(Note: I'll be away from the computer for a couple hours, so no one should take further non-responsiveness as a sign of anything.)