DOJ having issues of there own

[zyqwert]

[ QUOTE ]

You are JFK. United States Attorney in Birmingham is not being agressive enough enforcing the Civil Rights Act. Your position is that it would have been wrong for JFK to replace him. Is that your position? If not, then what is wrong with Bush replacing a small group of USAs who are not enforcing certain laws or policies?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]


It's worth noting the 'performance reasons' appear to be entirely republican vs. democrat. I would have more sympathy if, for example, a US Attorney in San Francisco refused to prosecute medical marijuana cases and was fired for that. That would still be firing due to disagreeing with the US Attorney's judgement, but it's better than "party before all".

This is a bad precident. Today's outrage becomes tomorrow's standard operating procedure, and the country is the poorer for it. I can think of other cases where tradition has been broken to win a political fight and the losers have felt cheated and determined to get revenge by any means:

<ul type="square">[*]The threat to eliminate the filibuster.[*]Blocking a qualified supreme court nominee for partisan reasons. Among the fallout: stealth nominees who refuse to state the obvious.[*]Death penalty abolitionists using the courts in bad faith for their "greater good", inspiring the conservatives on the court to make absurd and unwise decisions to shut them down. (Here a former clerk describes how increasing politics damaged the court.)[*]The republican congress decides to toss out all traditions that include the minority party in discussing and amending legislation. Can the democrats resist revenge?[/list]
My point is the choice of political weapons should be constrained by tradition to promote trust and civility, and the total warfare approach often comes back to bite the innovator. I do think Bush is within his rights ("at the pleasure of the president"), but unwise.