Democratic & Republican Senators Oppose Policy on U.S. Attorneys

[Doondoo]

Congressional Democrats and some Republicans are trying to change part of the USA Patriot Act that allows the Bush administration to fire and replace federal prosecutors indefinitely without Senate confirmation.

Freshly briefed by the Justice Department on the forced resignations of some of the seven U.S. attorneys since the act took effect, Senate Democrats planned to bring a bill to the floor Thursday that would impose a 120-day deadline on the amount of time a replacement could serve without Senate confirmation.

After that, an interim replacement would be named by a U.S. District Court, a policy Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and some Republicans say could lead to the appointments of prosecutors for reasons other than their qualifications.

Democrats say that's just the problem with the policy under the terror-fighting law that went into effect in March.

Since then, seven U.S. attorneys have been fired, some without cause, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats contend that prosecutors were forced to resign to make way for Republican political allies, and that the White House slipped the provision into the Patriot Act to permit such indefinite appointments.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021500197.html

[Lasher]

1. Senator Arlen Specter slipped this provision into the Patriot Act

It was Specter who did this, pursuant to White House instructions.

He likes to talk big in public like he's an independent-minded free thinker, but when the talking's over he's one of the biggest lapdogs in the Senate. That's Specter every time.

[salin]

2. Didn't he initially try to say that he hadn't seen the provision

suggesting an aide slipped it in - then backed off that statement?

He is a big lapdog. Remember his outrage about the nsa warrantless spying? But when bushco was trying to trump up a "We Are The Security Party" theme for the midterm elections (kicked off on 911 anniversary and completely fizzled out by the end of Sept) wanted the senate to pass leg. to legitamize the program - he complied. He is pathetic.

[Lasher]

5. Yes, he finally admitted to slipping it in.

And remember when he introduced that failed amendment to change the torture bill so that habeas corpus would not be compromised?

I think he did that on instructions from the White House too. Junior won't like it if he loses his get out of jail free card for his warranties NSA surveillance crimes, which as also included in the legislation. I think if the issue comes before the SCOTUS on account of habeas corpus, it will be ruled unconstitutional - which would negate the whole torture bill and then Junior loses his free pass.

Anyway, my theory is that Junior had Specter offer the amendment for this reason.

For what it's worth, I don't think the retroactive immunity would hold water on its own either, if challenged. You can't legitimately pass legislation to retroactively declare something legal if it was illegal before.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Totally shameless.

He can show us that he disagrees with it by firing the staffer who snuck it in.

[Lasher]

7. Update: Specter Admits Role in Expanding WH Powers

January 17, 2007

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) confirmed that as Judiciary Committee chairman last year he made a last-minute change to a bill that expanded the administration's power to install U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval.

Seizing upon the new authority granted by Congress last March, the White House has pushed out several U.S. Attorneys, and begun to replace them without the Senate's consent.

"I can confirm for you that yes, it was a Specter provision," a spokesperson for the senator wrote to me in an email earlier today, responding to repeated inquiries. Earlier we reported that Specter had been fingered for the last-minute change, made in a select Republicans-only meeting after the House and Senate had voted on earlier versions.

Still, a mystery remains: Why Specter wanted the change, which arguably weakened the Senate's role in selecting federal prosecutors.

The senator made no public comment on the provision at the time of the bill's passage. A congressional report which accompanied the final version of the bill said that Specter's change "addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of United States Attorneys." It's not clear, however, what exactly that inconsistency was.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002357.php

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. In the tpmmuckracker?

Not good enough. I want to see it in the mainstream press and I want the following pursued:

"Still, a mystery remains: Why Specter wanted the change, which arguably weakened the Senate's role in selecting federal prosecutors."

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Oh, snap.

That's about as close to showing Bush how much they disagree with what he's doing. Undoing his dirty work, so soon after it was aired.

[enough]

6. k&r

[DeepModem Mom]

9. K&R