[mburbank]

I don't disagree that the initial replacement of DA's when a new party comes into office is the modern norm. That isn't what's happening. The W boys already did that when he first came into office. This is a second round, a purge of people they hired who turned out not to be "Bushy" enough, AND this round of replacements went with no congressional oversight.

DA's replaced during a second term with no oversight. THAT is what's unprecedented. It's happened before very rarely, and in cases of Da's biting strippers.

And it's a problem because it sends the message that it's not enough to be of the Presidents party, you need to be using prosecution to actively advance the Presidents agenda or you are in danger of being fired.

But no one is seriously questioning the legality of replacing the AG's. President's pleasure and all that. And now that a near unanimous vote has taken away W's power to just name any bozo (see, I think I said before that not reading bills before signing them into law is a nauseating practice and it boggles the mind that we don't expect at least this from our elected representatives) this won't happen as blatantly in the future.

But I think if you want to fire a perfectly good AG with a good performance evaluation who you hired in the first place so you can replace them with someone who'll be more slavish, nd hold that over the head of other AG's, than the public should know that's what you're doing, so they can decide if they want people who do that running the country. Yes, you are legally allowed to do it, but lets call a spade a spade. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, they played the game very badly and now they are getting a public spanking, which is good. They aren't just corrupt and cynical, they are corrupt, cynical and lazy. That's a potentially dangerous combo platter, and they need to get bitch slapped for it.