Wash Post: Bush Abolishes One of 3 Branches of Goverment- Page 2

[Chita1933]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:46pm

I'm staying out of this one because I can't match wits with PJ and SG, but I do wish the disagreement about this was more civil.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:46pm

Actually, it was first invoked by Washington, and Eisenhower is the one that gave it the name "Executive Privilege".

And, it is a violation of public policy for one branch of government to politicize another. It is a violation of the separation of powers and each branch's inherent, indepent role under the Constition.

We have three branches of government, and each is supposed to operate indpendent of the other.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:47pm

can't do it then, huh?

The man has used signing statements more than any other president COMBINED. he does everything in his power to avoid following the law and will of the people he is supposed to serve. You don't see ANYTHING wrong with that?

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:52pm

I'm sorry if I came across as condescending at all; I wasn't trying to be. And, again, some of what I said in the first post I made on this thread was wrong, so I'm sorry for that, too.

What I'm saying is that I'd like for this to be civil, too. And... I hate talk radio.

broadwayguy: I can, but it's hard to keep up with all of you as it is. I'd rather not open yet another can of worms.

YouWantItWhen: Oh, thanks for correcting me on the Washington thing. I clearly don't know as much about this as you, so I can't really argue with what you said. I just think that people are overreacting.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:54pm

Spork--the crime that is being investigated is the Hatch Act. Come back when you know what that is.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:01pm

Maybe I don't know as much about the Hatch Act as you do, but I do know that there's a difference between salaried government employees and political appointments.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:04pm

Educate yourself.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:08pm

But the Hatch Act is not even in question here, let alone your misapplication of it. Here is the issue: can the executive fire his own appointees? The answer is yes.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:13pm

Spork, if you don't know the Hatch Act, how can you say it isn't in question.

The firings were politically motived and were executed because the attorneys, who should not serve for polical purpose, would not pursue his political agenda. Bush tried to compromise our court system and did it.. several times over. THAT IS ILLEGAL, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. It is a democracy governed by law and no one is above it. Not even GWB

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:16pm

I've read through it.

Why would Bush wait 6 years to get rid of people whose politics he didn't like?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:18pm

Check your incorrect timing!

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:19pm

No, the issue is more complex than that.

Again, if he had fired them without trying to influence their activities politically before doing so, you may be right.

But here, the Executive was trying to use the resources of the Judicial Branch to influence elections, investigate political opponents, and prosecute based upon political objectives.

This could be a violation of the Hatch Act.

Here is a link to some info - I know it is a liberal web site, but it is a story involving one of the fired Attorneys



Iglesias Files Hatch Act Complaint Updated On: 7/20/07 at 06:19 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:26pm

Whether or not you think the firings were politically motivated, it has to do with the president--the chief executive--firing US Attorneys who would not prosecute cases (or, in other words, enforce the law) the way the chief executive wanted the law enforced. It has to do with a prioritization of cases. In this case, Bush wanted terrorism-related cases dealt with at a higher priority, and for years these US Attorneys were dragging their feet. So, finally, Bush fired them.

How did Clinton not violate the Hatch Act when he fired nearly every US Attorney, but Bush violated it when he fired a handful of them?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:32pm

You can repeat it over and over again, it still will not make it so.

This has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with trying to get a political advantage at election time.

And, I will repeat, for the last time - that Bush can hire and fire - but the motivation cannot be related to failing to following the political agenda of the Executive Branch.

Once hired or appointed, US Attorneys, Judges, and everyone in the judiciary is supposed to serve the best interest of the people, not one political party.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:42pm

The motivation was not related to following the political agenda of the president. It had to do with the cases (not) being prosecuted. Basically, the boss did not like how the workers were doing their jobs, and has the right to fire those workers, particularly when they are at-will employees.

I'm seeing a double standard here, though. Clinton fired every single one of the 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his first term. I can't imagine that he'd fire every attorney unless it was politically motivated. The only difference is that there was no investigation by Congress, which was a Democrat majority at the time.

[Chita1933]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:46pm

I thought the issue with Clinton and his firings had been resolved?

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 6:56pm

Not really, because it wasn't investigated in the first place. Why is it that Clinton can fire every US Attorney and not be questioned, but Bush can fire 8 of them and face a firestorm?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 7:11pm

Just because you repeat it over and over again does not make it so.

It is not the firing, it is the motivation. If they were fired because they would not follow the political pressures of another federal employee, then the Hatch Act is an issue.

But I am done trying to explain the subtleties of the issue.

Believe what you want to.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 7:11pm

You've already heard the answer to that question. If not, go Google it, because it's not a real question--it's just a deflection.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 7:14pm

New presidents routinely replace the previous administration's appointees with new attorney, as Clinton and RONAL REAGAN did. Those attorneys are confirmed by Congress and serve at the "pleasure of the president" but are far, FAR from political hacks who serve at the pleasure of the president's PARTY.

There is a longstanding issue of INTEGRITY in the Department of Justice: the PRINCIPLE that the Rule of Law prevails over partisan politics. This INTEGRITY and PRINCIPLE has been upheld by decades and decades of prosecutors--both Republican and Democratic.

Until Bush. And Rove. And Gonzales.

For a president to do what Bush did--replace prosecutors because they WEREN'T PROSECUTING ENOUGH DEMOCRATS is disgusting to every lawyer in the country.

It is not only disgusting. It is anti-American.

I take back all the nice things I said about you yesterday. You're just another Republican TOOL.

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 07:14 PM

[kjklo]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 7:17pm

It is customary for a new president to replace the former administration's U.S. Attorneys with his own appointments. It's very much a red herring to try and compare that situation with Bush's politically motivated firings.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 8:02pm

Whatever, I give up. I'm tired of being hated and attacked on every side. I was foolish to think that I could take on so many people; I've been burnt out on politics lately, anyway. Believe Bush is Hitler all that you want. And this "Republican tool" thanks you for the discussion--I have learned from it.

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 08:02 PM

Posted: 7/20/07 at 10:08pm

Anyone remember the very first Clinton scandal? The people in the White House travel office (A non-politcal position who are basically the travel agents for the President's staff) were overheard saying some hateful things about the first lady. The President decided that he really didn't want people who were openly demonstrating contempt for him & his wife working in his home so he fired them and hired a new staff.

Try to guess how many MONTHS this was investigated. How many HEARINGS were held. How many documents were examed? How many ANGRY Editorials ran in the right wing press? How many weeks Rush Limbaugh and his ilk harped on it.

And in this case, Bush's politcal guru fired 6 US attorneys because THEY REFUSED TO POLITICIZE their prosecutions and you think we shouldn't talk about, shouldn't investigate it and shouldn't be allowed to look at the pertinent evidence?

IMPEACHMENT? As John Adams famously said "GOOD GOD WHAT IN HELL ARE THEY WAITING FOR????????"

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 10:12pm

Well, if it was that easy, I suppose we didn't need them.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 2:54pm

I've been burnt out on politics lately, anyway.

Maybe you're burned out on politics because you're exhausted from getting intelligent people to believe your stupid lies.

I hope you wake up someday soon.