puella
Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Change all the "Republicans" to "Democrats" and say the same thing. There is no party without mud to sling in this matter. But, it is important to you, now, simply for the fact that you are ideologically opposed to Republicans. It's nice, in theory, to wish for a system that is non-partisan. but, in fact, serving "at the pleasure of the President" is exactly how the system was designed to work, and works. All the other stuff is nice, but unless you wish to change the law, not pertinent. FirmKY Please stick to the topic and stop trying to make this about me, personally. You need to stop thinking of yourself as the definitive interpreter of is important to me, and what my personal ideals are based upon. You do not know me well enough to make such broad statements, and thus far you have a pretty poor track record in your pronouncements. I listed those Republicans, because they are involved in one degree or another in the situation which is currently being discussed in this topic. If you want to discuss other issues which embroil Democrats, you might want to start a separate thread for that. Maybe you can tuck it into the 'Clinton got a blowjob' thread, to save yourself the effort. Unfortunately, the issue of these prosecutors being sacked and replaced has no Democratic culpability. I never said that firing the prosecutors was illegal, but firing them for not going against their sworn oath to protect the Constitution and to uphold the concept of law being impartial and indiscriminate is unethical. Appointing new State's Prosecutors at the onset of a new administration is a common and understandable precident...just as understandable as the President appointing an entirely new cabinet, who also serves at his pleasure, btw. Firing hand picked individuals who had stellar job performance ratings, is completely unprecidented... add to that that they were also linked to congressional scandal investigations within the President's own party or the lack of proceeding in an investigation of the opposite party because there was no evidence to support it is not only unprecedented, it is an abuse of power, quite possibly criminal...that will have to be determined by the Judicial Committee. Here is an interesting entry in the Law Bog on the Wall Street Jounral. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/03/15/bushs-us-attorney-purge-vs-president-clintons-discuss/ To compound the issue, Senator Arlen Specter slipped in the provision under the Patriot Act (at the 11th hour when it has already been voted on) which allowed for this to happen, by releasing approval from the Senate of the Presidential appointees.
< Message edited by puella -- 3/21/2007 6:37:36 PM >
_____________________________
We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce "Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta
|