Thread: U.S. Attorney: 'I was ordered to resign'

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Dixie

Well, if it is not Bush personally asking these attorneys to step down then it could be a political move. Secondly, it's quite possible that under Clinton's administration the Dems did the same sort of house cleaning late in his term.

Might have to get those judges out of the way so they don't block his illegal alien agenda. Is it possible that certain lawsuits developing around the country can be effected by these judges?

Dixie

[2] It's not only possible, it's a fact.

[2] I think that one of the things that most disappointed Conservatives about Bush during these two terms (other than the obvious problem with immigration) is that they felt that he had let them down by not clearing out more activist judges and other appointees and replacing them with strict constructionists and others more aligned with the political philosophies of mainstream America.

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, MOD EDIT
attacks & insults are not acceptable behavior
* plays nicely with others = F

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, which are little more than senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly, should cease. Immediately. You have no idea what you're talking about, almost ever.

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

Bama,

It's clear to me that you didn't read the thread. We are talking about District Judges. It would appear that you are not the expert you claim to be.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, which are little more than senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly, should cease. Immediately. You have no idea what you're talking about, almost ever.

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

Bama,

It's clear to me that you didn't read the thread. We are talking about District Judges. It would appear that you are not the expert you claim to be.

Dixie

District court judges are appointed by the president, for life, Dixie.

What appears to you is thus apparently not apparent.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Dixie

Well, if it is not Bush personally asking these attorneys to step down then it could be a political move. Secondly, it's quite possible that under Clinton's administration the Dems did the same sort of house cleaning late in his term.

Might have to get those judges out of the way so they don't block his illegal alien agenda. Is it possible that certain lawsuits developing around the country can be effected by these judges?

Dixie

[2] It's not only possible, it's a fact.

[2] I think that one of the things that most disappointed Conservatives about Bush during these two terms (other than the obvious problem with immigration) is that they felt that he had let them down by not clearing out more activist judges and other appointees and replacing them with strict constructionists and others more aligned with the political philosophies of mainstream America.

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, which are little more than senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly, should cease. Immediately. You have no idea what you're talking about, almost ever.

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

NO, BAMA
You can disprove it.

We're all waiting with baited breath for your cites.

Cough em up Or perhaps you need a course in anger management since you've difficulty restraining yourself.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by Dixie

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, which are little more than senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly, should cease. Immediately. You have no idea what you're talking about, almost ever.

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

Bama,

It's clear to me that you didn't read the thread. We are talking about District Judges. It would appear that you are not the expert you claim to be.

Dixie

District court judges are appointed by the president, for life, Dixie.

What appears to you is thus apparently not apparent.

Bama,

You were saying Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination in response to a conversation about District Judges. You didn't read the thread. You also had to leave the forum to look up a smart comment about District Judges. You had to seek out a legal education first.

Get this... Ever heard of judicial review? I'm sure you haven't.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by Dixie

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, which are little more than senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly, should cease. Immediately. You have no idea what you're talking about, almost ever.

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

Bama,

It's clear to me that you didn't read the thread. We are talking about District Judges. It would appear that you are not the expert you claim to be.

Dixie

District court judges are appointed by the president, for life, Dixie.

What appears to you is thus apparently not apparent.

Bama,

You were saying Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination in response to a conversation about District Judges. You didn't read the thread. You also had to leave the forum to look up a smart comment about District Judges. You had to seek out a legal education first.

Get this... Ever heard of judicial review? I'm sure you haven't.

Dixie

Yours is an amusing response.

Listen to me. The "district judges" of which you were speaking are "federal judges," though you mangled their name: they're more properly known as "federal district court judges." Not "district judges", as you called them. But my characterization, "federal judges," is an acceptable shorthand version.

As federal judges, they join their appellate and supreme court counterpasrts and are thus appointed for LIFE. In short, they are Article III judges and can be removed in only one of two ways: impeachment or resignation. Or, I suppose, death.

Maybe even more to the point, the "district judges" of which you were speaking better well have been "federal judges," horrible as your "facts" about them were.

For if the "district judges" were instead "state judges" Bush really Really REALLY has an inability to "clear them out". Federalism and all that, donchaknow. (Don't answer that.)

And no, I didn't need to go anywhere off this site to learn anything about my devastating correction of Ghost, though I understand that someone like you or he, who post 25+ times per day, could hardly fathom why anyone would ever leave this site. As a matter of fact, I didn't even learn it in the first place in either of my two law schools. I learned it in 7th grade government class, no kidding.

Rather clumsily, I'll here address a most curious interrogatory of yours: what on earth do you think "judicial review" has to do with anything that might inform us, as Ghost so errantly interposed, whether a president has the ability to "clear out" the judiciary to replace them with judges more palatable to the president's bent?

Answer?

Noth. Ing.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Dixie

Well, if it is not Bush personally asking these attorneys to step down then it could be a political move. Secondly, it's quite possible that under Clinton's administration the Dems did the same sort of house cleaning late in his term.

Might have to get those judges out of the way so they don't block his illegal alien agenda. Is it possible that certain lawsuits developing around the country can be effected by these judges?

Dixie

[2] It's not only possible, it's a fact.

[2] I think that one of the things that most disappointed Conservatives about Bush during these two terms (other than the obvious problem with immigration) is that they felt that he had let them down by not clearing out more activist judges and other appointees and replacing them with strict constructionists and others more aligned with the political philosophies of mainstream America.

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, which are little more than senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly, should cease. Immediately. You have no idea what you're talking about, almost ever.

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

NO, BAMA
You can disprove it.

We're all waiting with baited breath for your cites.

Cough em up Or perhaps you need a course in anger management since you've difficulty restraining yourself.

Your post is incomprehensible.

Who can disprove what?

You can't seriously be urging a cite for the proposition that federal district court judges are appointed for life.

Please try again.

I believe that you are the one that is incomprehensible, sir, as has been proven by your own endless diatribes.

I believe that you are merely a disruptive, do nothing who desperately should seek help, for as you stated, you're having difficulty in restraining yourself. Or perhaps, you've another agenda? Hmmmm?

Now, sir, YOU disprove whatever information you feel is incorrect.
You call em and you can disprove em.

Other than that, shhhhhhhh. You're bordering on boredom.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Yours is an amusing response.

Listen to me. The "district judges" of which you were speaking are "federal judges," though you mangled their name: they're more properly known as "federal district court judges." Not "district judges", as you called them. But my characterization, "federal judges," is an acceptable shorthand version.

As federal judges, they join their appellate and supreme court counterpasrts and are thus appointed for LIFE. In short, they are Article III judges and can be removed in only one of two ways: impeachment or resignation. Or, I suppose, death.

Maybe even more to the point, the "district judges" of which you were speaking better well have been "federal judges," horrible as your "facts" about them were.

For if the "district judges" were instead "state judges" Bush really Really REALLY has an inability to "clear them out". Federalism and all that, donchaknow. (Don't answer that.)

Reading you two write about the law is like watching two tennis players volley without a ball.

Or a racket.

Or a net.

Or a court.

(Especially the court.)

And no, I didn't need to go anywhere off this site to learn anything about my devastating correction of Ghost, though I understand that someone like you or he, who post 25+ times per day, could hardly fathom why anyone would ever leave this site. As a matter of fact, I didn't even learn it in the first place in either of my two law schools. I learned it in 7th grade government class, no kidding.

Rather clumsily, I'll here address a most curious interrogatory of yours: what on earth do you think "judicial review" has to do with anything that might inform us, as Ghost so errantly interposed, whether a president has the ability to "clear out" the judiciary to replace them with judges more palatable to the president's bent?

Answer?

Noth. Ing.

Just for the record, I don't participate on the forum for your amusement. I'm a very serious person that just happens to have a sense of hummor.

Not my problem if you lack clarity in your rambling and extensive post. Plain and simple, you said Federal Judges, not District Judges. There are many District Judges that are not Federal Judges. More precisely, you jumped in to this conversation to go on and on about Federal Judges, when the discussion is actually about Former U.S. Attorney John McKay who had led the Justice Department's Western Washington office.

Once again Bama, your participation on this forum is not to discuss illegal immigration but to disrupt the fluidity of this conversation.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by Dixie

[1] Care to back this up, in Clinton's case?

[2] I've restrained myself but must now say that your discussions of law, which are little more than senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly, should cease. Immediately. You have no idea what you're talking about, almost ever.

But for the moment, pray tell how Bush could possibly "clear out activist judges" and "replace them with strict constructionists."

Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination.

Bama,

It's clear to me that you didn't read the thread. We are talking about District Judges. It would appear that you are not the expert you claim to be.

Dixie

District court judges are appointed by the president, for life, Dixie.

What appears to you is thus apparently not apparent.

Bama,

You were saying Federal judges are appointed for life, Ghost. Precisely to avoid this sort of machination in response to a conversation about District Judges. You didn't read the thread. You also had to leave the forum to look up a smart comment about District Judges. You had to seek out a legal education first.

Get this... Ever heard of judicial review? I'm sure you haven't.

Dixie

Actually, I was referring to the topic of the thread, which is U.S. Attorneys. They are prosecutors, not judges. Federal magistrates are also not appointed for life. Rather, they are appointed to limited terms by judges, though those appointments may be controlled by a President in an unwritten quid pro quo for appointment of a federal judge. "Clearing out judges" refers to the process of replacing retiring judges with those of the administration's ideology and increasing the number of judgeships so that those new posts could be filled with ideological matches. The current bill that is attempting to increase the number of judgeships is S. 389. There were also 8 new positions created in 2001. Clinton got nine new judgeships at the end of his second term, but was largely thwarted at using them to increase Liberal representation on the courts when the creation of the seats was held up by the impeachment to the point that he was largely unable to get his appointees seated.