From: "Rich Gauszka" 

I accept the basic belief in the rule of law although their are far too
many laws in this society.  I also accept the principle of jury
nullification.. I just don't put my blinders on and accept the misuse of
law nor do I blindly follow the dictates of any political party

"Gary Britt"  wrote in
message news:45eed04a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> If congress thinks its a bad law then congress can change the law.  Its
> the law and I thought you believed in the rule of law.  This is one of the
> rules in the law so deal with it.  Congressional approval of prosecutors
> is not something I'm all that concerned about.  The approval process is so
> laden with politics that anyone Bush appointed any interim replacement
> would be approved by a republican senate and most if not all would be
> approved by a democrat senate but only after a lot of preening and useless
> political grandstanding.  You seem to want the political grandstanding on
> prosecutors and I've had my fill of that over the past 30 years for
> supreme court appointments, so I don't really care if I get more of the
> same bullshit.
>
> However, right now its the law.  If congress didn't pass the law it
> wouldn't be the law.  In effect when the senate passed this legislation it
> gave blanket approval to every one of these replacements so in that very
> real sense each one of the replacements has the blessing and approval of
> congress by congress passing the law allowing this.
>
> I'm not as enamored of congress as much as you are.  The American people
> give them a lower approval rating that President Bush and always have.
> Why you are so anal about such a low priority just for the TV cameras
> bullshit approval from a group of dullards held in the lowest of esteem by
> the people is beyond me.
>
> Gary
>
> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>> The problem is that these new cronies - err employees of Bush - are being
>> replaced with no oversight as the Patriot Act took out the 120 day limit.
>> An easy way for a President to appoint prosecutors that the Senate will
>> approve,  subsequently fire them and appoint anyone else at the
>> President's choosing without the need for Senate approval until a new
>> President is elected
>>
>> I see a problem with that no matter the administration - think Hillary
>> and you may see my point clearer
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>> news:45ee40e3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> That's not something that's new Rich even if true.  Prosecutors are
>>> employees of the President.  What employee doesn't have to bend to the
>>> his boss's goals and desires.  This is as old as the existence of the
>>> Country.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>>>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>>>> Nope they will need Senate approval.  The law only
applies for interim
>>>>> appointments under certain conditions until the next
presidential
>>>>> election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45edff97{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> Eh, a bunch of nothing. He can fire them at
will and probably should
>>>>>>> have sooner. If the congress didn't want
whatever clause you're
>>>>>>> referring to in the PA, they shouldn't have
passed it that way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hillary or Barack will be firing all of them
in less than 2 years
>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>> And appointing new ones without senate approval
apparently (how
>>>>>> comfortable will you be with that?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geo.
>>>> Interim appointments that were conveniently created
because you fired
>>>> prosecutors who didn't bend to your whim.
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5