Politics has influenced the legal system as long as there have been politicians, lawyers and judges. The office of United States District Attorney was created the same year George Washington became president. Ever since, each President has had the privilege of appointing a nationwide network of district attorneys -- really, federal prosecutors -- who in the modern era preside over large staffs of lawyers.
Most states have two federal prosecutors. Smaller ones have only one; California has four. Michigan now has one district attorney for the eastern district, Stephen Murphy III. And until her forced resignation takes effect today, Margaret Chiara was his counterpart for Michigan’s western district.
Now the law makes it very clear that while these attorneys are appointed for four-year terms, they serve at the President’s pleasure, and can be removed at any time. Yet they are normally never removed till their term is over. Not, that is, until the current administration began politicizing the nation‘s legal system like no administration since John Adams.
Here’s something that will put what’s been going on in perspective. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired eight district attorneys on Pearl Harbor Day last year. Eight in one day.
In the twenty-five years prior to that, nearly five hundred district attorneys were appointed by various presidents. Of them, only five were fired before their four-year term was up. I know why one of them was let go: He bit a stripper. I don’t know about the others.
But what I do know is that what is going on now -- the wholesale firing of U.S. attorneys for blatant political reasons -- is a dangerous and reckless cheapening of justice. This is, remember, happening under a President who tried to nominate his non-practicing personal lawyer to the United States Supreme Court. Ironically, this is the same President who was installed in office by one of the most controversial rulings in the history of that court.
But what is happening with the district attorneys point out a problem that transcends the Bush Administration. There should be no place for partisanship in the administration of justice. The law that created U.S. District Attorneys, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was written in an innocent age before we had political parties. It needs to be amended.
Presidents should still appoint federal prosecutors, but to a fixed term of five years. The attorneys could then be renewed, but not removed, during their time of service. The only way to do that should be impeachment. There should be some provision to suspend them for mental illness or judicial misconduct, but that power should not be given to the President.
Imagine how awful it would be if a President could fire a member of the Supreme Court if he didn’t like one of his or her decisions. What we need at every level of the legal system is what it says on that building: Equal Justice Under Law. If we give up on that, we are doomed.
On balance, it seems to me that Mr. Lessenberry's interview with Ken Kolker was a good one, a fair one, and an informative one.
It is my understanding that Ms. Chiara, the Westrern District USA, has stated that she never felt any political pressure from the White House with regard to any of her pending cases or investigations. If that is in fact the case, it seems to me to have been an important point, perhaps the most important point, that ought to have been brought up in the interview.
Mr. Lessenberry's comments (and his general views on the Bush Administration are well known to anyone who reads his column in the Metro Times) about the nature of the US Attorney replacements are not nearly as balanced as the interview would warrant.
Ms. Chiara "doesn't know" why her resignation was requested. Another way to read that is, she has no reason to think that she was put on a political chopping block. Combine that fact with her own perspective that she was never pressured on any of her cases, and you have the makings of, well, a real non-story.
But the debate over executive control of the US Attorney appointments is worth having. Our Consitiution sets forth the current method of operating the Department of Justice. As the Wall Street Journal editorial staff has been pointing out for several days, there is good reason for that system. An uncontrolled, term-appointed DoJ would be a lot LESS accountable to the electorate. If you don't like this Department of Justice, what you should to is vote for a different President next time. Just the same as if you don't like the current commander-in-chief, the current Secretary of State, or the current Surgeon General. A separate, freestanding Department of Justice ought to be a frightening prosepect for civil libertarians on both sides of the political divide, who either did not like Ken Starr, or Patrick Fitzgerald in their roles as 'special prosecutors.' Imagine a whole department of 'special prosecutors.' What Mr. Lessenberry seems to propose is a Department of Justice that is much like the federal Judicial branch. Perhaps even a wing of the federal judiciary. A frightening violation of the separation of powers if ever there was one. And yet, I am willing to bet that Mr. Lessenberry is not quite satisfied with this administration's selection of judges to lifetime federal appointments. I suspect that Mr. Lessenberry would not regard the Bush judicial appointments as pure and balanced and judicious as his imaginary 'DoJ dream team' might look on paper.
To term-apointed US Attorneys, I say, 'No thank you, very much, Mr. Lessenberry.'
Posted by: Anonymous | March 16, 2007 at 06:49 PM
Hello!
I was wondering if you might be able to tell me the name of the district attorney who was fired for biting the stripper. I can't seem to find anything about him.
Thanks so much!
Alice
Posted by: Alice | March 25, 2007 at 09:37 PM
Fired With Cause
Meanwhile, amid the controversy over the administration’s firing of the eight federal prosecutors, little attention has been paid to the fact that President Bill Clinton, after first sacking all 93 U.S. attorneys appointed by Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush, also fired or “resigned” three or four of his federal prosecutors.
One was Larry Colleton, who resigned shortly after he was videotaped grabbing Jacksonville, Fla., television reporter Richard Rose by the throat. Unclear why that was such a big deal.
Another Florida federal prosecutor, Kendall Coffey, resigned “amid accusations that he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big drug case.”A third Clinton firing, noted by a Congressional Research Service report, was of San Francisco prosecutor Michael Yamaguchi, who seemed to have crossed swords with local judges and Justice Department officials. Clinton replaced him with Bush I Justice Department chief of the criminal division, a fellow named Robert Mueller, whom Bush II appointed FBI director
Posted by: Jack Lessenberry | March 26, 2007 at 06:07 AM
Fired With Cause
Meanwhile, amid the controversy over the administration’s firing of the eight federal prosecutors, little attention has been paid to the fact that President Bill Clinton, after first sacking all 93 U.S. attorneys appointed by Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush, also fired or “resigned” three or four of his federal prosecutors.
One was Larry Colleton, who resigned shortly after he was videotaped grabbing Jacksonville, Fla., television reporter Richard Rose by the throat. Unclear why that was such a big deal.
Another Florida federal prosecutor, Kendall Coffey, resigned “amid accusations that he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big drug case.”A third Clinton firing, noted by a Congressional Research Service report, was of San Francisco prosecutor Michael Yamaguchi, who seemed to have crossed swords with local judges and Justice Department officials. Clinton replaced him with Bush I Justice Department chief of the criminal division, a fellow named Robert Mueller, whom Bush II appointed FBI director
Posted by: Jack Lessenberry | March 26, 2007 at 06:08 AM