The NYT has more info on the BushCo Patriot Act pushing out their “enemy” US Attorneys. Sen Feinstein reports on two in California, Carol Lam and Kevin Ryan. As I posted here on Sunday, Atty Lam prosecuted Randy “Duke” Cunningham, and Atty Ryan was successful in going after Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative.
During his tenure, Ryan oversaw high-profile prosecutions on stock options fraud and steroids in sports, which led to the convictions of five people linked to the Burlingame-based Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative.
Sen Feinstein has introduced legislation, and more on that is available on her website. I’ve e-mailed my senators, and Dick Durbin has responded already. I’m v. happy to see more publicity for the Patriot Act stipulation that Durbin and Feinstein wish to correct.
From C-Span’s Capital News: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Attorneys-Resign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I also liked the coverage on NPR today. The legislation is being introduced by Feinstein, Pryor, and Leahy to correct the clause in the Patriot Act which allows the Attorney General’s appointments of successors to U.S. attorneys to be indefinite. Previously, such appointments were temporary. Senate approval was required of the President’s permanent appointments.
The change in the Patriot Act allows, in effect, an end run around the Senate.
Who will believe the Administration’s denial of political motivation with the dismissals of such popular and effective U.S. attorneys as John McKay of Seattle? If Bush’s history of appointments reflected a serious appreciation for the judicial branch, instead of a repeated list of controversial and unqualified candidates, Gonzales’ explanations might be greeted with something other than skepticism and guffaws.
Thanks latanawi, I listened to the NPR clip above. The reporter mentioned there are only 93 US Attorneys in the US. If 10 or more have been told to resign, that’s getting up in percentage. We have no reason to believe the explanation that there is no evil intent on the part of the Justice department in making these changes. From what has been mentioned so far about interrupted investigations of white-collar crime, it looks as if the administration wants to bring these to a halt. AND to install a replacement tailored to suit their purposes, vetted like those sent to Iraq’s civilian CPA.
Sen Durbin sent me his stand on the pre-election revisions to the Patriot Act in 2005 and 2006. This paragraph is germane:
With the new members in the House, we can expect the next conference committee to have greater success in ridding the act of bad provisions.
It is dismaying to read the news that a successful US Atty like John McKay is being forced out and that he has not been given the seat on the federal bench as he had hoped. Yet, he had been appointed in 2001 by Bush! What is going on?
I’m in the middle of reading John Dean’s The Rehnquist Choice, so the impact of presidential intervention and deception in pushing out judges or attorneys is heightened for me right now.
An Arkansas paper reported
It looks as if (1) vacancies are filled as political rewards AND (2) U.S. attorneys were fired not for incompetency, but to create the vacancies in the first place.
Books Alive, we should keep an eye on this. The more details that emerge of current Republican knifing-the-public-in-the-back, the greater the interest among BT readers.
(My bolding.)
A former Rove deputy, what dreadful news. I can just imagine that Bush will have Gonzales work on all 93 positions to install their cohorts across the country. I hope that the Judiciary committee can get to work on this soon! I thank Sen Feinstein for publicizing this, and After Downing Street as well.
Nixon’s efforts to pack the Supreme Court with strict constructionists, selecting young male lawyers who would serve for decades, unfortunately bore fruit in the decision against Al Gore in 2000. Between June 9, 1970 and January 7, 1972, Nixon had named one Chief Justice (Burger) and three associate justices (Blackmun, Powell and Rehnquist). The Republican majority prevailed when the Florida case went before the court.
From the Fort Smith article that you cite, this one line intrigues me because 1986 is the year that the Chief Justiceship passed from Earl Warren to Warren Earl Burger, so this must describe the Warren court position. Less chance of patronage rearing its head with this method, I suppose.
>>Before 1986, the district courts within which vacancies arise had authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys.<<
Chalk that error up to reading such small print!