22 – it’s not simple or one dimensional, as you point out, but it’s a legitimate avenue of thought.

The Plum Book 2008 shows that Hertz occupies the position held at the time of publication by Gregory Katsas; it is a presidential appointment with advice of the Senate (PAS). The others are “career appointments” in the Senior Executive Service pay plan.

Hertz was Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division in the Bush administration. In the Plum Book, he is not named but there is one Deputy Assistant Attorney General position listed as “Career incumbent”. No indication from the 2004 Plum Book that he has burrowed into the position.

FindLaw says that Letter is a staff attorney for the Civil Division Appellate staff. Hertz is just listed as US Department of Justice.

That’s all I’ve found on the Google.

I’m about ready to concede that Holder (or Obama) has fouled up on this one.

why would they have done this? Can you please explain what possible positive results this will have for an Obama White House?

How dare they do this! Why? I just can’t understand it.

I recently read a piece that compares baby-boomers to GenX and GenY, their attitudes toward work and life. Both of my friends are GenX (I am a baby-boomer in my mid-50s). My thought here is that perhaps we are seeing a more universal attitude about justice in general that there is nothing constructive to be gained in pursuing criminal issues against Bush and Cheney.

That does not mean that I like it at all. It really chaps my rear-end. Sadly, the fact that this president seemingly does not want to pursue the criminality says to me that a younger generation is taking the attitude that justice does not matter.

I have seen a similar shift in attitudes in the workplace. Older workers insist on doing things “right.” Younger ones just want to do what is expedient in the situation and worry about correcting things later. Sound familiar?

Sad day for all of us…

Not much you can do about it now that the statute has run, but it is interesting to consider the justification for the rule in the first place.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009324story_24-3-2009_pg3_1

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it…

Learned Hand

Let’s see now. Let’s compare Pakistan and the U.S. In which country does Liberty thrive?

In Pakistan, for a number of years, lawyers have taken to the streets to re-instate the Chief Justice, who had been removed from office by one President, and kept out of office by the next. The current gov’t finally relented and re-instated the Chief Justice.

In the United States, the President and Vice President from 2001-2008 committed war crimes, violated the Constitution, turned the DOJ into an arm of the Republican Party, and broke numerous other laws, including warrantless government surveillance of citizens, and the arrest of citizens without habeas corpus proceedings, arrest warrants, or trials. In response, Congress has emasculated itself, and most of the public seems unconcerned.

In which country does liberty thrive?

Just askin’ (and yes, I know that the answer is not simple or one dimensional.)

Bob in HI

Bob in HI