What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
8 Comments
- DeadElephantORG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11So the Republican "talking-point" attempting to stem the tide of public outrage about the political firings of the Attorneys General is that they "serve at the pleasure of the President". Not only is that incorrect, it is treasonous.
The Attorneys General, like all constitutional officers, are sworn to defend the constitution - not to defend the President, or Karl Rove, or Alberto Gonzales, or Randall Duke Cunningham, or Tom Delay, or "Kenny boy" Lay, or Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff, or the Republican Party. In other words, they serve us - the people - not the President. This is precisely what is meant by "a government of laws, not of men". And no man is above the law.
On no other issue - not even the policies of torture, and rampant spying - have the neoconservatives made their contempt for the rule of law, and for the citizens of this democracy, more overt than this. Unless you are among the very few who are glad to see the entire apparatus of American Justice subverted and used as a weapon against "enemies" of the Ruling Party, the time to resist is NOW.
Impeach! - garretro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@InfamousAtheist
This is about as apples to apples as you can get. It seems to me that either the president has the authority to fire U.S. attorneys or he does not. It is very clear based on past history that the president DOES have this authority. Unless congress changes the law, this will continue to be the case. This is a complete non-issue. - InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@garretro,
Does the phrase "comparing apples and oranges" mean anything to you?
I'm not going to bother explaining it to you *again*. This article does the job for me nicely: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/15/couricandco/entry2572510.shtml - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Gonzales is done. Rove? He's like the terminator, he'll always come back :p
- garretro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Yes, the time to resist is now. Resist the Clintons! Bill not only "discussed" firing 90+ U.S. attorneys, he actually did it and Hillary is giving every indication she will do the same if she takes office.
- gamasutra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.,"
So the requirement for being a U.S. attorney is whether you're a "Bushie"? It's no wonder strong conservatives are abandoning ship. - DeadElephantORG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1well... in the first place, they used the Patriot Act to circumvent the "advice and consent" of Congress.
But there is a much more important difference between what Clinton and other past presidents have done, and what Bush did here. These US Attorneys were selected to be fired and smeared because they either wouldn't speed up the harassment of Democratic office holders just prior to the election, or wouldn't drop charges against Republican crooks such as the convicted felon Duke Cunningham.
The claim that "Clinton did it too" is another ***** Republican talking point. Apples don't equal oranges. It is standard practice, and appropriate for any President, when taking office, to bring in new US Attorneys who share that President's values, so long as he then allows them to execute their duties to the constitution independently.
BUT, it's a criminal abuse of power to hold a gun to the head of a US Attorney and say "you better stall for republican crooks and go after democrats hard, or we'll kick you out and smear you."
Nixon resigned facing articles of impeachment for abuse of power. He, like Bush, used the power of our government to attack his personal political enemies. I wonder how many people remember his "enemies list". - Auerbeck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@InfamousAtheist
That article was worthless. The big distinction it makes is that Clinton did his mass-firings at the beginning of his term while Bush is doing his firings midterm. Apples and oranges indeed.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is