AG Gonzales Terminates 8th U.S. Attorney

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:49:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Margaret Chiara of the Western District of Michigan is the latest U.S. Attorney to get the ax from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Chiara was praised by the Judges of the District.

"This is a very classy, distinguished, highly regarded public servant," said Bell, who was appointed to the bench during the Reagan administration. "She's one of the best United States attorneys we've had in this district, and all of my colleagues agree. . . . To have her suddenly disappear without warning catches us all flat-footed."

So, why are these U.S. Attorneys being fired?

Nearly all of the dismissed prosecutors had positive job reviews, but many had run into political trouble with Washington over immigration, capital punishment or other issues, according to prosecutors and others. At least four also were presiding over high-profile public corruption investigations when they were dismissed.

The prosecutors' views on the death penalty may be a factor:

Chiara -- who had once studied to be a nun -- is personally opposed to capital punishment....Another of the fired U.S. attorneys, Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix, also clashed with Washington over the death penalty.

< Riverbend on the Rape of Sabrine | Canada Limits Detention of Terror Suspects >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

AG Gonzales Terminates 8th U.S. Attorney | 59 comments (59 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Democratic participation in CT primary is a purge (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:46:29 AM EST

Firing Congressionally-approved attorneys and unilaterally appointing flunkies in the place is...

The whole point of the Constitution, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:46:52 PM EST

and whole the point of the Bill Of Rights, and the whole point behind nearly everything Liberals say, including things like "Rage against the dying of the light", is about limiting the power of government. Not about acquiring the same level of power they fight against.

Becoming what you fight and rage against is no gain nor progress.

Those willing to sell their soul for power are usually paid for it with something equally worthless.

Actually... (none / 0) (#16)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:54:15 PM EST

...the point about a tremendous amount of what liberals say is about the DUTY OF GOVERNMENT to harness its inherent power to benefit the less fortunate. I'm unsurprised you didn't know that because I don't consider people like you "liberal."

People motivated by hatred and paranoia who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them are not "liberals" in my book.

No one else as far right as you are (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:03:28 PM EST

who calls themselves liberal calls me a liberal either Decon. You're not alone.

Which is why your attempts at disguising and misrepresenting yourself as a liberal don't work...


Thanks for bolstering my point., Edger (none / 0) (#20)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:08:50 PM EST

it is people like you who make the work of people who seek to counter and defeat the Right-wing more difficult.

I am a liberal. You are not, but the fact people like you get lumped together with real liberals to discredit them makes it easier for the Right to scare many people away from supporting responsible and liberal politicians.


It went (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:12:04 PM EST

right past, did it Decon?

;-)


well... (none / 0) (#22)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:27:28 PM EST

.. if you think you made some sort of sensible point rather than writing gibberish that I dismiss as the ravings of an extremely unintelligent and ignorant person with serious issues of warped perspective, then yes it did go right past me.


motivated by hatred and paranoia (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:29:33 PM EST

Decon?


I don't hate you. (none / 0) (#24)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:37:04 PM EST

I wish you would shut up because I dislike having people incessantly write incredibly foolish things that make it easier for those looking to discredit the responsible Left, but i don't hate you and i certainly don't fear you. Pity is about the strongest emotion I can muster for you other than frustration.


It sounds more like paranoia, decon. (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:40:51 PM EST

I'll take your word on the hatred part.


OK (none / 0) (#27)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:45:32 PM EST

you get the last word.


: Heh. (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:23:58 PM EST

Not bad. :-)

Wow (none / 0) (#40)
by squeaky on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 08:56:53 AM EST

you are one h*ll of a pretentious ego maniac.


He has to be (none / 0) (#43)
by Edger on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:27:03 PM EST

He's got nothing else to offer except pretending to be something he's not.


I agree (none / 0) (#44)
by squeaky on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:30:07 PM EST

Perhaps he is a "social liberal" like ppj. Evidentially ego-mania is a symptom of that disease.


Well, he claims to be a democrat. (none / 0) (#49)
by Edger on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:37:59 PM EST

He probably is a card carrying party member.


But there is a (none / 0) (#50)
by Edger on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:40:38 PM EST

dissonance.


Other than.. (none / 0) (#51)
by Deconstructionist on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:45:45 PM EST

directing people to additional diplays of the foolishness of you and your buddies was there a point to the links in the last two post?

I don't think we need any more reminders of your silliness.


: You mean you need me to explain it to you? (none / 0) (#54)
by Edger on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:54:14 PM EST

Squeaky smears again (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:37:00 PM EST

Please stop displaying your ignorance.

Deconstructionist has already establisged that he is against the war and doesn't like Bush.


: Right (none / 0) (#58)
by squeaky on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:33:20 PM EST

And you claim to be a social liberal who served in naval avaition.
Any thing else you want to square up?

Remind me Again... (none / 0) (#2)
by jarober on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 09:01:12 AM EST

What did President Clinton do to the standing US attorneys when he took office?

: Every pres (none / 0) (#4)
by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:20:17 AM EST

tends to clean house upon election, and his replacements had to be approved.
None have ever changed the law so they have supreme appt power that lasts until the end of their term.
If's obiously being used to purge the ones going after their corrupt politcal cronies.

What cracks me up.. (none / 0) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 09:39:07 AM EST

...is that until these folks were dismissed it is a moral certainty that anyone lauding these Bush political appointees here would have faced a barrage of attacks from the same people now whining about their terminations.

Now that some think (with delusional optimism) that political advantage can be gained from the issue suddenly it is a great loss to society.

I'm quite sure that if they were not terminated now and a Demorat wins in 2008, that very few here would be making the case for the new President not to terminate these same people and appoint people who push our agenda.

At times, the discussion here is just laughably transparent.

The point is (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 12:13:09 PM EST

that this is not a new President. Most, if not all, U.S. Attorneys are expected to submit their resignations when a new President of the opposite party is elected. It's a political job. (Note, this doesn't apply to AUSA's who work under them. They are protected civil servants.)

Those taking the U.S. Attorneys job understand this when they agree to take the position. It's a political plum.

What's different here is that Bush is replacing his own appointments -- towards the end of his term -- not because of malfeasance on their parts but because their ideological views didn't mesh with his -- and to avoid the Senate confirmation process.


True, but that is no fun. (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:46:32 AM EST

Nice try... (none / 0) (#6)
by TomStewart on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 11:43:49 AM EST

Again, the problem is that the Bush Admin now has the power to appoint anyone they choose, with no approval and no oversite, something no other president has had.

Now, how loud would the repubs scream if Clinton, or any other Democrat, had pulled the same thing? How much rendering of clothes and gnashing of teeth if any Democrat got rid of someone in charge of investigating another Democrat charged with corruption?

It would be the yell heard 'round the world.


D'ya think (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 12:23:19 PM EST

Bush Admin now has the power to appoint anyone they choose, with no approval and no oversite, something no other president has had.

the next pres won't do the same thing?

I'll give you pretty good odds the next pres'll be a Dem, will you be as inflamed when (s)he does it.?

Probably not, of course, because, hey, Bush did it first, which'll make it OK for a Dem pres to do it. Tit-for-tat and all that. Fix what Bush messed up.

Please.

Way to stand on principle.


: Actually (none / 0) (#37)
by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 05:10:46 PM EST

Notice how there is a bi-partisan movement in congress, including the so called 'sponsor' of the bill, to repeal it.

Wrong, See Decon's comment #10 (none / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:47:36 AM EST

Calling (none / 0) (#9)
by jondee on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 12:51:51 PM EST

it someones "agenda" is a tired explanation that explains nothing. Underlying the allegeded explanation is the belief that we have nothing but factions vying for political advantage and power with no deeper moral or intellectual ramifications left to examine.

What is wrong with ... (none / 0) (#10)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 12:56:04 PM EST

... replacing political appointees, regardless of whom appointed them because their ideological views don't mesh with elected officer with appointment power?

Most people of all political persuasions prefer representative government to a government bureacratic elits beyond the reach of representative gobvernment processes.

That argument is simply phony and you (although perhaps not those you are intending to influence) know it.

Now, the second argument has some merit but you overstate the case to the nth degree. The President has long if not aleways had the power to make interim or acting appoinments in these and many other offices without Senate confirmation. The new tactic is merely allowing for an increase in the perios duch appointeed may serve without confirmation. It's not as if this maneuver will mean that these offices and others will not continue to be subject to Senate oversight.

In any event, you and your subordinates post as if this the termination of these people is some sort of scandal. Are you now suggesting you would have no beef if these very same people were remved but their nominated replacements were prpmptly submitted to the Senate for confirmation?

Re: What is wrong with..... (none / 0) (#30)
by Skyho on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:09:51 PM EST

Decon,

While the midterm replacement of political appointees is somewhat unique to this administration, I believe a major objection lies in the fact that Congress now has no oversight to such a replacement, as originally specified.

Through overnight shenanigans, Congress gave up their power of oversight in the appointment process, something I would think Congress never intended.

So, now the process is, new crew with the elections, with a yea or nay from Congress, followed shortly thereafter with "friendly" replacements, allowing the executive to stack parts of Justice, something I would think not intended by our founders.

The doctrine of separation of powers has taken yet another hit.


Well we have Congress now (none / 0) (#31)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:20:52 PM EST

and it's simple enough to amend § 546 again to revert to the former language * would Bush veto it? Well, I doubt it, but if he did we should thank our lucky stars because that would be a lot easier to sell as a bad thing than the mere existence of the present law and even if the super-majority necessary to override could not be mustered, the same law could be passed again in 2009.

However, as I pointed out before on this topic, it's worth noting the President is not always Republican and Congress is not always Democratic. i see little real regard here for the systemic issues and a whole lot of emotion based on the transient political balance currently existing.

*although I have serious separation of powers problems with the former provision allowing judges to appoint prosecutors-- and practically speaking as a defense attorney I'd rather have my political connections a little less immediate than to the judge in fron of whom I have my case.


a point (none / 0) (#33)
by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:48:51 PM EST

I have serious separation of powers problems with the former provision allowing judges to appoint prosecutors

limited interim appointments only if the pres didn't nominate or the senate didn't confirm.


further ... (none / 0) (#34)
by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:52:20 PM EST

how about the sep of powers being violated because now the pres can bypass senate confirmation by firing the current USA's and not nominating anyone else?


yes,... (none / 0) (#35)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:54:22 PM EST

... but that does eliminate my belief it is violative of the separation of powers doctrine for members of the judicial branch to appoint executive officers-- espcially officers who appear in adversary proceedings before them.

Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where the President and Senate are in a stalemate over a vacancy for an extended period of time and the judicially appointed officer would serve for that extended period of time.

Other than that, I do prefer the former law but that does not blind me to the reason this keeps being brought up here which is that the President is now Bush.


: blinded by the right (none / 0) (#53)
by Sailor on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:51:03 PM EST

that does not blind me to the reason this keeps being brought up here which is that the President is now Bush.
wrong, it's just that bush is the only one who has done it. I would condemn any exec power grab by any party.

You're right Decon, (none / 0) (#11)
by jondee on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:12:51 PM EST

this is all about politics. Nothing at all scandalous, and all concerns about it "phoney", regarding that hack Gonzales's pathetic record expediting capital cases.

Of course thats all a completely seperate issue. Completely.

Well you know... (none / 0) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:23:29 PM EST

... Congress has the power to repeal the federal death penalty. Would it not be more fruitful to lobby Congress to do so than complain about the way the Executive branch enforces the duly enacted laws?

It strikes me as disingenuous to complain about an Executive, who was elected depsite being a well-known and open death penalty advocate, seeking to have subordinate offices filled with people who share his views, when those views could be mooted by a single Act of Congress.


It wasn't 'duly enacted' (none / 0) (#17)
by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:00:31 PM EST

it was slipped in w/o the knowledge of the bill's sponsor:

Senate Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Tuesday said he would support a bid to reverse a provision in the USA PATRIOT Act that helped facilitate what Democrats charge was the improper dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys.
Denying an accusation by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that the provision was "slipped into the PATRIOT Act in the dead of night" on his watch, Specter said he discovered it recently and agreed "We ought to change it back to what it was."

The duly enacted law... (none / 0) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:04:05 PM EST

to which I referred is the law establishing the Federal Death Penalty-- which was not snuck by anyone.

As for the amendment of the appointment provision it was duly enacted. In this day and age most bills have provisions within them of which many if not most of the people voting to enact are unaware. that's not a good thing, but it does not mean they were not duly enacted.

: the rest of us ... (none / 0) (#25)
by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:40:09 PM EST

... were talking about the topic of the thread.
the only way bushco could install their own and get rid of the prosecutors pursuing corrupt republican officials was by changing the law.
No president in power has ever done that, and none should have the power. Confirmation is a joke if you can make 'interim' a synonym for 'permanent.'

Point taken (none / 0) (#13)
by jondee on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:26:23 PM EST

but I reserve the right to complain about the enablers. Rage against the dying of the light and all that good stuff.

: Thomas... (none / 0) (#14)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 01:34:50 PM EST

was talking about raging against one's own mortality wasn't he?
Our mortality is a given but with politics rather than rage against impotency, it's better to get power and the rage can be counter-productive in that quest.

What law change? (none / 0) (#28)
by roy on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 02:53:26 PM EST

I'm either blind or ignorant, but curious...

What's all this about the law being changed? I see comments to that effect, but I don't see where the idea came from.

: short version (none / 0) (#29)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 03:03:20 PM EST

As amended on March 9, 2006, Section 546 of Title 28 authorizes only the President and the Attorney General to appoint a United States Attorney for the district in which the office of the United States Attorney is vacant. See 28 U.S.C §§ 541, 546.
The amendment also authorizes that individuals appointed by the Attorney General to serve as the interim United States Attorney will continue until such time as the Attorney General takes further action or a Presidential appointment is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 541, thereby eliminating the provision of a 120-day term for United States Attorney appointments by the Attorney General, as well as the appointment authority for federal district courts. See USAP 3-4.213.003

What's the problem? (none / 0) (#36)
by Jason Van Steenwyk on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 05:06:53 PM EST

All political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. It was ever thus. It's supposed to be thus. It's part of the accountability of the executive branch of government. The President should have the power to hire and fire his political appointees. He can certainly fire them at any time, and does not need the consent of Congress to do so, even for cabinet-level officials.

This is as it should be. Our executive branch leaders should be held accountable to the President, who his himself accountable to the voters every four years. Otherwise, our executive branch would be more beholden to the public employees labor unions than to the elected chief executive.

No, thanks.

Hang 'em high, Mr. President.

It was not 'ever thus' (none / 0) (#38)
by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 05:14:46 PM EST

These 'presidential appointees' were not appointees, they were subject to the 'advice and consent' of the senate.

'nuff said ... here's your cookie.


shockingly, you miss his point (none / 0) (#39)
by Deconstructionist on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 08:54:45 AM EST

He's not talking about the ability of the President to appoint but about the power of the President to FIRE officeholders without advice and consent. Yes, many offices inclding Cabinet officers must have nominees for appointment submitted to the senate for advice and consent but the Senate has nver had any role in consenting to the removal of presidential appointees even though it has previously confirmed the nomination.

District and Circuit judges and Ssupreme Court justices get lifetime appointments because we want to insulate the judiciary from politics and establish it as an independent co-equal third branch of government, but EXECUTIVE offices are different. The insinuations here that it is wrong for the Presidernt to terminate his own appointees to executive offices for political reasons is transparently false. The questions relating to the appointment of interim replacements who serve extended periods without being submitted to the Senate are valid ones and reasonable people can disagree about those, but the complaints about the firings are hollow, disingenuous and made solely for partisan purposes.


: shockingly?? (none / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:53:24 AM EST

That's the best line of the year...
Thanks for the laugh, and for the readable, understandable pointed comments.
May your tribe increase.

And yours (none / 0) (#45)
by jondee on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:31:57 PM EST

decrease.

that might be in the running ... (none / 0) (#47)
by Deconstructionist on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:34:36 PM EST

for best line too.


: Nope, that was just a typical (none / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:40:12 PM EST

snarky attack by Jondee, edger, squeaky, sailor, et al...

Btw, (none / 0) (#46)
by jondee on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:34:00 PM EST

Decon, shockingly, you missed that there was more than one point there.

: Well what are the other points ... (none / 0) (#48)
by Deconstructionist on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:36:14 PM EST

in Jason's post beyond his assertion the President should be allowed to unilaterally dismiss his appointed subordinates?

I love the (none / 0) (#52)
by jondee on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:51:03 PM EST

repeated flippant "solely partisan purposes" thought-bite. Come up with that, in a moment of inspiration, solely on your own did you?

Again, the underlying paradigm that you cant seem to get beyond or beaneath, is two factions "solely" vying for power; with no deeper moral ramifications to be considered.

: I come up with all my thoughts (none / 0) (#55)
by Deconstructionist on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 01:04:21 PM EST

on my own informed by years of study, observation and consideration of competing ideas and arguments.
I realize that is a novel concept here so it is understandable you were unsure.

Just Partisan Hot Air? (none / 0) (#59)
by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:27:37 PM EST

The U.S. attorney from New Mexico who was recently fired by the Bush administration said Wednesday that he believes he was forced out because he refused to rush an indictment in an ongoing probe of local Democrats a month before November's Congressional elections.

War & Piece
I guess he was fired for performance related reasons. He was too busy obeying the law and forgot whose pleasure he was serving.