Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Did Obama Administration Ask Judge To Increase Gov. Siegelman's Prison Sentence? [View all]eomer
(3,845 posts)221. Yes, they do. US Attorneys can be removed at will by the President.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=10&f=00&tt=2&bt=8&bts=8&zu=http%3A//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000541----000-.html
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=sulr
The rules you refer to are for civil service employees.
And because of a change in 2005 to the Patriot Act, if the Senate refuses to confirm the President's appointment of a successor then the Attorney General can appoint a replacement to serve until that confirmation occurs:
So the President could have fired all US Attorneys in 2009, as was customary for a new President, or he could have fired US Attorney Canary at a later time and there were no legal constraints on his ability to do either. The only limit on this authority of the President is the political ramifications.
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=sulr
The rules you refer to are for civil service employees.
And because of a change in 2005 to the Patriot Act, if the Senate refuses to confirm the President's appointment of a successor then the Attorney General can appoint a replacement to serve until that confirmation occurs:
In the course of reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 546 was amended to (1) delete the preexisting 120-day time limit that
had applied to the Attorney General's interim appointments (those necessary
to fill vacancies that arise); (2) permit indefinite tenure of interim
appointees so long as the President declines to appoint, or the Senate
fails to approve, a permanent successor; and (3) completely eliminate the
role previously played by the federal district court for the district in
which the vacancy exists.14 Thus, the Executive power ostensibly may
be used to remove a United States Attorney from a position which is then
filled, not by the President and Congress, but by the Attorney General,
and for a term bounded only by the President's willingness to advance
new appointees.15 Recognizing that it has been shut out of the process,
both Houses of Congress have responded by proposing bills to restore
the previous checks on the appointment and removal power and to limit
the Attorney General's participation in vacancy-filling procedures.16[/sup
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=sulr
§ 546 was amended to (1) delete the preexisting 120-day time limit that
had applied to the Attorney General's interim appointments (those necessary
to fill vacancies that arise); (2) permit indefinite tenure of interim
appointees so long as the President declines to appoint, or the Senate
fails to approve, a permanent successor; and (3) completely eliminate the
role previously played by the federal district court for the district in
which the vacancy exists.14 Thus, the Executive power ostensibly may
be used to remove a United States Attorney from a position which is then
filled, not by the President and Congress, but by the Attorney General,
and for a term bounded only by the President's willingness to advance
new appointees.15 Recognizing that it has been shut out of the process,
both Houses of Congress have responded by proposing bills to restore
the previous checks on the appointment and removal power and to limit
the Attorney General's participation in vacancy-filling procedures.16[/sup
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=sulr
So the President could have fired all US Attorneys in 2009, as was customary for a new President, or he could have fired US Attorney Canary at a later time and there were no legal constraints on his ability to do either. The only limit on this authority of the President is the political ramifications.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
237 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why Did Obama Administration Ask Judge To Increase Gov. Siegelman's Prison Sentence? [View all]
red dog 1
Oct 2013
OP
Last May, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) "Queried Eric Holder About the Siegelman Case"
red dog 1
Oct 2013
#4
Yes, I read early on in the Obama admin. that the Bushies left moles behind in several
brush
Oct 2013
#154
Who fucking put that RWer in the position to make this decision? It's Obama's choice to have all of
Chakab
Oct 2013
#127
Are we allowed to say that? I think that we're not supposed to notice. Or otherwise have an excuse.
AnotherMcIntosh
Oct 2013
#12
Since you view this as official corruption, do you think impeachment proceedings
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#36
$500K donation to his re-election campaign. That's what the conviction was for, nt
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#88
The editorial (article) isn't correct. Please read the excerpts I posted later in the thread. nt
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#16
What role do you think Obama had in the decision to prosecute Blagojevich? nt
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#56
You know who reminds me of teapartiers? People who are so politically deluded...
Gravitycollapse
Nov 2013
#207
kind of like people who gloat when US servicepeople get traumatic brain injuries
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#208
Certain people have only shut up because of the new 5 hidden posts no posting rule.
Gravitycollapse
Nov 2013
#212
Yep. And because the rules are too specific and juries get caught up in the details
cui bono
Nov 2013
#214
I call b.s. on that story. I'll reprint what I posted earlier, but Obama didn't ask for anything.
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#14
I wonder if Siegelman wants a pardon, or wants a new trial. If he's granted a new trial (Obama's
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#37
What Seigelman continues to endure pisses me off to no end but I really appreciate
arthritisR_US
Oct 2013
#62
I've been reading a lot today to catch up on what is going on w/Seigelman's case and I've found
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#114
There are a lot of people here who have no understanding of the difference between
grantcart
Oct 2013
#66
Uh oh. You're in trouble. You've introduced facts into a year old smear campaign.
Tarheel_Dem
Oct 2013
#101
i have a lot of updating to do and will post an op later tonight. There have been some changes and I
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#108
No, the article YOU cited is hardly a reliable account of what has transpired since 5/12/09
red dog 1
Oct 2013
#121
It's not the Obama administration, this article/editorial is full of crap. Obama didn't ask for
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#21
There is a lot of history to this case.....a lot. Big time gop operatives were behind this from the
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#146
How about Mimi Kennedy's article from the Huffington Post?.. Is it not "Well-sourced"?
red dog 1
Oct 2013
#126
This is consistent with the selective prosecution of Gov Blago after he took issue with the B of A.
AnotherMcIntosh
Oct 2013
#42
Huh? Blago was the only crook in Illinois politics? Or the only "cheap" crook in Illinois politics?
AnotherMcIntosh
Oct 2013
#159
In the "best Chicago style," even well-liked politicians don't tick off the big-money people.
AnotherMcIntosh
Oct 2013
#165
Yep, Repubs have grown up warped and Libertarians just refuse to grow up..
arthritisR_US
Oct 2013
#67
Was there a shortage of Anti-Obama talking points this morning so you dredged this....
George II
Oct 2013
#75
The OP is highly misleading, quiting a recent DailyKos article about an action
grantcart
Oct 2013
#148
I didn't respond to the treatment of Seigleman compared to Governor ultra sound
grantcart
Oct 2013
#153
Just really unfortunate that he appointed Scrushy after he had faced Medicaid fraud charges
grantcart
Oct 2013
#160
While he was acquitted on criminal charges he paid massive fines to the SEC and had to repay
grantcart
Nov 2013
#219
I applaud you for your enthusiastic and highly speculative defense of Scrushy
grantcart
Nov 2013
#224
The responses in this thread are hilarious. "Fire the prosecutor". Anyone remember the DOJ purge..
Tarheel_Dem
Oct 2013
#103
"new presidents are expected to fire the last admins attorneys". LINK?????
Tarheel_Dem
Oct 2013
#128
I did answer it, but I guess all you can understand and absorb are simple yes/no
cui bono
Nov 2013
#205
"Are you ever polite in discussions?" There's no rule saying we have to interact.
Tarheel_Dem
Nov 2013
#206
"He is a huge disappointment and has moved the country farther to the right"
Tarheel_Dem
Nov 2013
#215
Well when you just put a link to an OP that has a heading that isn't about our topic
cui bono
Nov 2013
#229
I'm not. You said you haved moved on from liberals. You stated in a post above you don't think of
cui bono
Nov 2013
#231
I did not say that I've "moved on". I said, perhaps "the party" has moved....
Tarheel_Dem
Nov 2013
#232
So after all that we end up where we started. You not being able to have a mature discussion.
cui bono
Nov 2013
#236
Something is extremely wrong here. What could possibly be the justification for this? nm
rhett o rick
Oct 2013
#117
This is a story about something that happened in 2009 a few weeks after Holder was
grantcart
Oct 2013
#161
Why is Gov Siegelman still in prison? Cant the President get him out? This is clearly
rhett o rick
Oct 2013
#167
The question of a pardon for Siegelman would be a reasonable premise for an OP.
grantcart
Nov 2013
#171
Maybe the President will pardon Gov Siegelman at the same time he pardons Bush
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#181
Pardon/commutation are unrealistic without informed public outrage far greater than now
EagleViewDC
Oct 2013
#143
Please clarify who requested the sentence increase. It's pretty sloppy journalism
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#177
Because a right-wing Bush appointee named Alexander of the NSA puppets the president
Jeffersons Ghost
Nov 2013
#228