quiet.american
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 10:40 AM
Original message |
"*I* did not want the Judiciary deciding who would be on *my* staff." |
|
Is that an outrageous statement by Gonzales or what?!
That was his answer in response to Sen. Feinstein's question about who decided to slip in the amendment which does an end run around senate confirmation being required to place interim U.S. Attorney's. Notice he still did not say whose idea it was, but he was in favor of it because "*I* did not want the Judiciary deciding who would be on *my* staff."
That statement alone should be enough to dismiss him from his post.
|
fooj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I'm in FULL agreement. I couldn't believe the audacity! |
|
He's a real piece of work.
|
quiet.american
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Thank you. I could not believe that statement was not followed up on. |
|
Edited on Thu Apr-19-07 10:55 AM by quiet.american
The DOJ is a public office funded with taxpayer dollars. The senate is ostensibly representative of the people -- "the American people" Gonzales loves to pretend he cares about. So, his statement indicates he doesn't believe "the American people" have the right to choose who will represent them in the DOJ, but they do have the right to pay his salary and those of his minions.
The DOJ is not "his" corporation, and DOJ staff are not *his* staff, but public servants. Outrageous.
|
ChairmanAgnostic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. not audacious. to the contrary, |
|
they tested and practiced until he learned to say that - showing that all 93 are "his staff" and subject to his personal orders.
THAT is their defense. It has Rove's putrid odor all over it.
|
LiberalFighter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message |
4. If he doesn't like the judiciary deciding then he should work harder |
|
at finding nominees that would be accepted for Senate confirmations.
If I remember right the Attorney General gets to appoint someone on an interim basis for 120 days or until the Senate confirms. If the position was not filled at the end of the 120 days then the District Court appoints someone for 120 days or until the Senate confirms. That was pre Patriot Act.
|
Bake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. If he doesn't like the confirmation process |
|
Then he should be in private practice instead of feeding at the public trough. Period.
Bake
|
ljm2002
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I was appalled at that too. Wonder if our senators or media will follow up on that one... Oh, oops, time to stop daydreaming.
|
gratuitous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-19-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Gonzales no doubt believes the Constitution to be a "quaint" document |
|
Hardly fit to serve an administration full of manly he-men who take decisive action and bore full speed ahead, regardless of the circumstances, the facts, or any other considerations. That whole constitutional "advise and consent" thingy is just an antiquated relic of a by-gone era for Gonzales and his cohort of manly he-men.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 02:27 PM
Response to Original message |