Video: Bachmann calls for probe into WH judicial appointment

At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[175] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President’s party.
In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision. There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle period of the presidential term in office. The few examples of forced dismissals available are based on misconduct, not political considerations.

So? They are still political appointees who can be fired at any time for any reason. The fact that it did not happen or did happen previously does not change that inconvenient little fact. So your point is idiotic.

With that said, nobody is going to be able to prove whether Obama nominated this guy b/c of his brother or not. I really don’t see this going anywhere and, aside from pointing out the hypocrasy of the left, not worth much time.

Monkeytoe on March 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Man you little robots come in waves, with the exact same talking points. At least you didn’t use the “shoes” line.

Anyway, see above, I neatly debunked your point. Really, if you used any news source other than FNC or Hotair you would have known the truth long ago. Let it be a lesson to you.

crr6 on March 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Again, your “debunking” is that, according to you, Presidents have not in the past fired sitting U.S. Attorneys. And? that does not change the fact that they are politically appointees serving at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time for any reason. Precedent means nothing. Yes, the dems were able to make political hay out of it, b/c as always, the media carried their water and never pointed out that the president is fully within his rights to fire the U.S. attorneys for any reason.

If they are fired to interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution, then congress, or the next U.S. attorney can look into it and get to the bottom of it. And there can likely be a political price to pay. Note, that nothing came from the U.S. attorney firings, aside from allegations that it was “inappropriate”.

With that said, both sides do this type of quid pro quo appointing. Most aren’t so blatant about it. And, as I said earlier, the Media and dems (and you, CRR6) would go nuts if a republican president did this.

With that said, I still doubt this story has much legs. At most it would be a problem for the congressman if he does vote for the bill. But, he is already likely to lose if he votes for the bill, so I don’t know how much he will care.

Monkeytoe on March 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Crr6,

I’ll jump in. The president can nominate whoever he wants for a judgeship.

Now, will you admit that the mere appearance of impropriety that this nomination has, being made at this moment, would send the left (including you) into outrage if a republican president did it?

Monkeytoe on March 4, 2010 at 3:15 PM