"WHY DEMOCRATS ARE RAISING A STINK," by Dianne Feinstein: Checks and balances, not politics!

[DeepModem Mom]

L.A. Times op-ed: Why Democrats are raising a stink
Congressional investigations into the firing of U.S. attorneys are about checks and balances, not politics, says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
By Dianne Feinstein, DIANNE FEINSTEIN is California's senior U.S. senator.
March 17, 2007

A FIRESTORM has been ignited over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, with new revelations about the Bush administration's abuses exposed on a daily basis. We now know that this isn't about some partisan "conspiracy theory" concocted by administration critics, as a Times editorial claimed on Jan. 26.

The record shows that this was a premeditated plan to remove U.S. attorneys and replace them indefinitely with others — who might not be qualified — without Senate confirmation. The means to accomplish this was a provision slipped into the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act with no notice. The end result is a clear abuse of power that reaches into the highest offices of the Department of Justice and the White House, touching Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers and presidential advisor Karl Rove.

The way to curb this abuse is to return to our nation's basic principle that checks and balances on power are necessary and desirable.

That's why I have proposed legislation to restore the process that was in place before 2006, which would require Senate approval of every U.S. attorney. This legislation would allow the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days when vacancies occur. If, after that time, the president has not sent a nominee to the Senate and had that nominee confirmed, the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would fall to a local district court. This was the process put in place under the Reagan administration.

This legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month with bipartisan support and will be debated in the Senate next week. Times editorials have called this legislation "misguided," but had it been in place, it would have prevented the abuses....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-feinstein17mar17,0,7993457.story?coll=la-home-commentary

[southerncrone]

1. I'd rather they repeal the Pat Act, but this is at least progress back to the future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I fear the USPA will die the daeth of a thousand

cuts

And having read it there was one section that needed revision (as it concered FISA, not that the President cared for it either, since it still required subpoenas)