Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Monday, March 26, 2007

why is this news, part 1

On March 23, 1993, Janet Reno fired all 93 Unites States Attorneys. Why are we still talking about firing eight?

According to Drudge, Hillary Clinton thinks that her husband's actions through Reno are different than Bush's actions through Gonzales. She argues that it is a President's perrogative to clean house upon arrival, but not to interfere with ongoing investigations.

Two things.
1) No president had ever fired all AUSA's, ever. Clinton was the first. Some perrogative.

2) AUSA's serve 4 year terms, ergo all of the attorneys fired by GWB were GWB appointees. Clinton cleaned out all the Elder Bush's appointees and filled every spot with his own. It is a stretch for me to believe that a president can fire all of someone else's appointees but cannot fire his own. Which one sounds more political?

a welcome with a bit of explanation

Oliver Wendell Holmes once compared many people's view of the law as "a brooding omnipresence in the sky." He rejected the idea that the law is something "out there" that we discover-- instead, he saw it as something people make to solve the problems of society.

I don't know if he was right or wrong, but I really like the way he phrased the problem. I see the brooding omnipresence everywhere. I see it in law everyday. I see it in art. in philosophy. in life itself.

Are we discoverers or creators? I don't know. But I definitely know the brooding omnipresence, the sense of Something Out There that seems to appear in the small details of life.

My goal in writing this blog is to get at that Omnipresence by talking about the details. I think that if I tried to talk about It directly, I'd blow it. So here's to beating around the bush.