|
Post by gailkate on Jul 11, 2007 22:48:08 GMT -5
Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. The part about timing went with the part about elections. Any president has the right to come in and replace fed. attys. Good grief, Clinton replaced 90 plus! (BTW, I think this should be changed, but then I think it's time for another Constitutional Convention. The executive branch shouldn't have such influence over the judiciary.)
The objection to the Bush changes is that they occurred when an election was coming up. The attys had been working - some with recent positive job reviews - for some time, many (all?) appointed by Bush. In one case, a legislator complained about a non-compliant atty and got him bounced. Such political manipulation has surprised and offended a number of people in both parties - I heard Sen. Graham, for example, quite heated on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 12, 2007 0:17:13 GMT -5
//The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of government.//
Wait. Let me get this down.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 12, 2007 9:22:25 GMT -5
.... I think it's time for another Constitutional Convention. WOOHOO!! A whole new document with all new vague and/or poorly written laws to misinterpret, misapply and generally ignore. The lawyers will love it. _E_
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 12, 2007 11:28:16 GMT -5
//The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of government.// Wait. Let me get this down. If you could watch C-Span 2, you would be amazed at the Senators who have spoen about the Department of Justice as if it were not under the President, as if it were supposed to be some sort of independent agency.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 12, 2007 13:26:49 GMT -5
I realize the Attorney General and all Cabinet members are presidential appointees, and thus part of the Executive branch, but does this really apply to all 5 - 10 million employees (Defense has over 2 million, DHS has almost 400,000, IRS/Treasury has however many, and then there are all the others) of those agencies as well? Are they all part of the Executive branch? And why is Vice-President Cheney saying he is not in the Executive branch, if all those others are? He is a presidential "appointee" as well.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 12, 2007 15:31:45 GMT -5
Where are you, K? In an airport somewhere?
Theoretically, the agencies that do the govt's business under direction of Cabinet members are part of the Exec. Branch. Because Joe worked for the IRS, he probably worked for Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and GWB. I worked for 4 different commissioners under 3 governors as part of State govt. But we weren't all appointees and had a degree of control over our work and a degree of security under our contracts. As an employee with a union and as a manager with a contract, I had protections.
When the US Atty I referred to above resigned and was replaced by the Bush administration, several senior employees left the department. They're still trying to sort all of that out.
Government must have continuity, as well as flexibility to change priorities with changing administrations. But we know that Bush has made changes all over the place - consider his diluting of environmental controls that go back at least as far as Nixon. His assumption of powers beyond the scope of the president is taking us down a very dangerous road. He has to govern within our laws. He can't say that a judicial priority is to sway elections by investigating or failing to investigate according to partisan preference, though his own election obviously gave him the notion that he could.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 13, 2007 10:33:08 GMT -5
His ( President Bush ) assumption of powers beyond the scope of the president is taking us down a very dangerous road. He has to govern within our laws. I would agree about everything except the dangerous road part. Every branch of government, at one time or another, has assumed powers beyond their scope, and the level of presumed damage was measured against the personal agreement with the action. The SCOTUS "writes" laws that do not exist, Congress conducts foreign policy, the states try to mandate national policy, the Feds interfere in state level matters ... the saga continues unabated. If you dislike the action, then it was "over-reaching by presumptive miscreants" whereas if like or benefit from the action, it is a necessary corrective action to "right a wrong" by thoughtful statesmen. Just wait long enough and the pendulum will swing the other way. _E_
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 13, 2007 21:24:30 GMT -5
Yes, from the perspective of probability theory, we can also look on the bright side. The Bush-Cheney Administration has been so horrendously awful in nearly every important respect (e.g., competence, honesty, openness, fairness, obedience to law, etc.) that the next president, whoever she may be, from whichever political party, will be a distinct improvement. The principle of "regression to the mean" tells us so.
Only 556 days left!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 14, 2007 0:22:41 GMT -5
556 days can bring a lot of trouble, but I suppose it's best to look on the "half-full" side. I decided to start watching Jericho tonight because it was saved from the axe by viewer outrage. The survivors have a map showing 6 stars for 6 "Capitols." The real prez is dead and six pretender/contenders have cropped up, each with an army, very likely to begin warring for supremacy. Kind of the way things are right now
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 14, 2007 4:06:37 GMT -5
//556 days can bring a lot of trouble, but I suppose it's best to look on the "half-full" side.//
Relax, Gail. Now it's only 555! And we're still here!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 14, 2007 22:22:38 GMT -5
BTW, in addition to everything else I've said, I should also mention, if I haven't already, that Dick Cheney seems to be no good as V-POTUS. The Nixonian impulse to resort to subterfuge ill serves the President and the country.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 15, 2007 9:36:36 GMT -5
Thank you, Joe! All of us, no matter the party differences, should share a common sense of principled, honorable behavior.
What I think of as the Atticus Finch test.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 16, 2007 12:21:19 GMT -5
... the next president, ... will be a distinct improvement. The principle of "regression to the mean" tells us so.Only 556 days left! Pretty much sums up the feeling I had exactly eight years ago ... and may have again four or eight years out if I am fortunate to survive. The pendulum swings away and then back, yet the time stream continues in a straight line. _E_
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 16, 2007 19:05:03 GMT -5
... the next president, ... will be a distinct improvement. The principle of "regression to the mean" tells us so.Only 556 days left! Pretty much sums up the feeling I had exactly eight years ago ... and may have again four or eight years out if I am fortunate to survive. The pendulum swings away and then back, yet the time stream continues in a straight line. _E_ With respect to performance (not ideology), it's a Bell curve. And eight years ago we were in the middle range of the curve and nowhere near the tail of god-awfulness in which we now find ourselves mired. That's why any Democrat or Republican (as if!) running would perform better. The rules of the universe demand it!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 16, 2007 19:34:26 GMT -5
I think Bush might have done better without Cheney and Rummy giving bad advice.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 16, 2007 19:36:04 GMT -5
But that's 20/20 hindsight. Back in '01 I thought they were reliable voices of experience.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 16, 2007 22:21:59 GMT -5
With respect to performance (not ideology), it's a Bell curve. And eight years ago we were in the middle range of the curve and nowhere near the tail of god-awfulness in which we now find ourselves mired. That's why any Democrat or Republican (as if!) running would perform better. The rules of the universe demand it! Fascinating commentary. Can I see your copy of "The Rules of the Universe"? I seem to have a version that does not have a section titled "Myoptic Partisanship for Dummies". _E_
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 16, 2007 23:07:57 GMT -5
But that's 20/20 hindsight. Back in '01 I thought they were reliable voices of experience. When I heard Cheney and Lieberman debate, I thought they were both knowledgeable, solid and judicious, possessed of the gravitas we want in leaders. Frankly, I thought they'd be better presidential candidates than the ones we had. Thank God we didn't end up with Cheney at the helm, though some think we actually did. A droll example often given in statistics classes: some newspaper reported with great solemnity that studies show 1/2 of our presidents have been above average. I think history will definitely show where the past 8 years fall on the Bell curve.
|
|
|
Post by Brit on Aug 1, 2007 12:46:48 GMT -5
Not having an inkling about what or who "scooter" meant, in an idle moment, to attempt to get an idea of what you are all talking about, I ventured googlewise. www.mydamnchannel.com/channel.aspx?episode=47Hey UP! Is this what y'all yakking about?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 1, 2007 14:20:42 GMT -5
Precisely!
|
|