# How does eliminating Senate approval of new US attorneys protect us from terrorists?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-eliminating-senate-approval-of-new-us-attorneys-protect-us-from-terrorists/396756>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 20, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-eliminating-senate-approval-of-new-us-attorneys-protect-us-from-terrorists/396756 "2007-03-20T19:49:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\
**Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-eliminating-senate-approval-of-new-us-attorneys-protect-us-from-terrorists/396756/21 "2007-03-21T16:53:05Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=dropzone]  
That’s the thing–there were ways to get around the old law and a new law would likely be passed by the last Congress, so why do the end run via the Patriot Act? It’s as if Rove et al are so hung up on having wheels within wheels to cover their shenanigans that they were blind to the fact that here they didn’t NEED any shenanigans.  
[/QUOTE]  
Not only that, but they didn’t even really need recess appointments. They simply could have asked for resignations without saying the dismissals were based on “performance” which pissed of the dismissed US Attorneys. Then make a normal nomination and at the hearing the Congress would, in an overwhelmeing number of cases, have waved them through because that’s the usual procedure with US Attorneys.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-eliminating-senate-approval-of-new-us-attorneys-protect-us-from-terrorists/396756/22 "2007-03-21T19:31:37Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=David Simmons]  
Are you sure? Thse sites certainly don’t sound that way.

[Attorneys replaced in early 2007.](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy)

[Carol Lam was replaced 19 Feb 2207 by interim appointment.](http://solongjohn.blogspot.com/2007/02/carol-lams-interim-replacement.html)  
[/QUOTE]

But the replacements haven’t been in office long enough for the new law to be relevant. Putting in an interim replacement after a USA was fired or resigned was always routine, wasn’t it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\
**Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-eliminating-senate-approval-of-new-us-attorneys-protect-us-from-terrorists/396756/23 "2007-03-21T20:10:39Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]  
But the replacements haven’t been in office long enough for the new law to be relevant. Putting in an interim replacement after a USA was fired or resigned was always routine, wasn’t it?  
[/QUOTE]  
ok. I guess their having installed appointees and agreed among themselves to invoke the Patriot Act isn’t enough.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-eliminating-senate-approval-of-new-us-attorneys-protect-us-from-terrorists/396756.md?page=1)