The federal government has specifically waived “sovereign immunity” for malicious prosecution. Of course, in the hypothetical above, Bush would be immune from suit PERSONALLY. Maybe that’s what you meant?

Crump’s Brother:

You may be interested in this “The President’s Right to Fire”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec31mar31,0,3822929.story?coll=la-opinion-center

yeah jake, lucky for them they have this funky thing called “sovereign immunity”…

#2 Yes, I think it’s O.K. to fire them for not “prioritizing” cases against Democrats or ignoring cases against Republicans — that’s all within prosecutorial discretion anyways — I haven’t seen a case where I draw the line yet. I guess if Bush fired one because she refused to sleep with him (no other legitimate reason), that would be grounds for a sexual harrassment suit. But, if it LEGAL to dismiss them, I’m not sure where (or why) you are inserted some higher standard than that. Is that what you are asking?

“As long as law doesn’t explicitly and unabiguously forbid it, it’s OK.” Some “higher standard[s]“. Guess we know where Jake sets the bar for morality (and legality). But to give him his due, he’s just mediocre in that respect within the Republican cadres….

Cheers,

For the record, however, calling me a crash-test dummy is, in fact, a personal attack.

Comment by Jake on March 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm

George H W Bush was a Democrat? Or perhaps George W Bush was a Democrat for his first four years in office? Either way, there’re a lot of history books and national records that will require revision.

I think that I am on Jake’s ignore list for reasons that still elude me. I have responded to each of his points at least ten times each and I have never issued a disparaging remark against his persona.

That’s your retort. I guess your done being substatntive.

Again, judges aren’t the issue.

Of course I’m aware that federal judges are appointed mainly due to their judicial philosophy. Again though, but that’s a different thing altogether, because the President can’t fire if he doesn’t like their decisions. Only Congress can impeach them. And that can only happen for “bad behavior”. This was done specifically to keep politics out of that process as much as possible. The prosecutor purge is obviously different than that.

As far as your term limit argument. I understand you think that is a check on Presidential ability to turn a country into one ran by a single philosophy. But it isn’t. If you go back to the Nixon Presidency, Democrats (Once we get to 2008) will only have had nominating power for 12 of the last 40 years. Hardly equitable. The courts have been well stacked by those on the right.

Again though. I would hold that the prosecutor situation is substantively different than federal judgeships.

As I said, I have no problem with the system in place — including Impeachment if the Congress so decides — but you didn’t answer my question: you do know that FEDERAL JUDGES are predominantly from the President’s own party, right?

As you pointed out, they have to get Senate confirmation, so that’s a check and balance right there. Even if the Senate is the same party as any given President — how long has the White House stayed in the hands of one party in modern times? 12 years? There are two-term limits now on Presidents. I think that right there is enough of a check and balance too. Of course, our very first President lamented the rise of political parties — I wish we could all just be “Americans” too — there’s no way to unring that bell now though.

you said… “The key difference, obviously, with the Former Soviet Union is that we have TWO parties.”

Your getting close to my point. I see what is happening with the firing of these attorneys is the attempt to establish single party rule. Even through the use of the Justice system. I find that to be wrong. You obviously don’t. Rove has made no qualms about his desire to turn our country into a country ruled by one ideology. I see this as merely part of that agenda. This is the return of the prolitburo.

When James Madison debated this on the floor of the 1st Congress The essence of the debate was over whether Congress or the President would have the power to fire people employed below the level of a Cabinet officer in the George Washington and future administrations. The conclusion of the majority – and thus the way the law is today – is that Congress felt that the Senate’s approval of the hiring of federal officers was critical (a power the Patriot Act took away, and the Senate and house voted last week to restore), and that when it comes to firing them, the President has the power. However, if the President were to abuse that power to fire federal officials through the “wanton removal of meritorious officers,” he should be immediately impeached.

After Madison ackowledged that Congress could impeach such officers whether or not the President approved he said…

“The danger then consists merely in this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.”

You only have TWO parties, if one the parties doesn’t rig the elections – dum bass! At that point your *independent* vote is only useful for show. You’re a stupid child, aren’t you JakeOff?

It is most *definitely* unamerican – as are you, you nationalistic, fascist, authoritarian loving piece of nazi sh*t.

See what I mean? Waste of frickin’ time.

No, we don’t “ask our justice system to avoid taking a political stand” — you do know that FEDERAL JUDGES are predominatly from the President’s own party, right? The way it “balances” out (in theory) is that each side appoints their own judges — it is indeed the job of the DOJ to represent the People — at the same time, the President (again, elected via POLITICS) is the Chief Executive and Law Enforcement Official.

Prioritizing cases against an opposing political party for the sole purpose of political gain is not un-American — that’s how it’s been done for 200 plus years — if the President gets too blatant about it, he will be Impeached obviously. The key difference, obviously, with the Former Soviet Union is that we have TWO parties. Now, is it perfect, no. That’s why I am registered with a THIRD PARTY ; )