User talk:Bdushaw/Archive1

Interim USAs and separation of powers (court appointments)

I thought these arguments http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/EOUSA151-159.pdf by the DOJ, lobbying to keep the USA Patriot Act Re-authorization, Section 502 amendments in place would interest you. Hmm. -- Yellowdesk 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly food for thought. The repeated 120-day appointments were a product of the need for nomination+Senate approval. That lengthy process is bound to cause problems; one can perhaps place blame on the President/Senate to some extent for lack of timely action. The change in the Patriot Act re-authorization did seem to fix the problem, but it created even worst problems: the administration's powers were expanded again and the administration then plotted (c.f. Sampson e-mail) to abuse the law. And if repeated 120-day appointments were o.k., then why was a change in the law even required? Seems to me that if political appointments such as these are to be made, then Senate confirmation is a good thing, but there are problems that will arise in that lengthy confirmation process that just have to be dealt with in some way. I am not a political person really, so I have been rather shocked by the distortions, if not outright lies or cynical manipulation, of some of the officials involved, as compared to the documents that have surfaced. So, here is a memo from Monica G. with a particular spin on the matter....am I really to believe that? Is this made in good faith or is it an attempt to spin? There is evidence the administration wanted to avoid the confirmation process prior to the Patriot Act reauthorization change. A sad state of affairs. Bdushaw 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copy edits

This phrase in the issues in brief, I think yo uadded it. Could you stand to see it depart? (Or help persuade me the examples are useful here) -- Yellowdesk 02:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(such as the prosecution of Randy Cunningham by Carol Lam or the investigation of Rick Renzi by Paul Charlton).

'twasn't me who added that phrase. That is similar to the Dominici/Wilson links that I moved down. In the brief issues section, I don't think it is needed. Do we want to go into the most likely reason(s) each attorney was dismissed in the article? Do we need to make specific identifications like this to support the statement that, e.g., some were fired for prosecuting Republicans? I suspect not, but I'll think about it and/or leave it to your better judgement. Bdushaw 03:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been Sholom's additions. I'll let my recent revisions cool and look again at in tomorrow. -- Yellowdesk 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for interfering. I was going through to get cites on the two "citation needed" items. I see now you were dealing with Griffin when I put down the cite for his decision to not get a presidential nomination. -- Yellowdesk 06:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current interim attorneys status section. I'm about to take it apart and put it together. But it's not visible. Are you working on it. (That would be OK)

It appears Gonzales only promised to get presidentially nominated USAs, not to get them in 120 days. This changes the whole tone of the section.

This cite I would like to get into the section also use, Maclatchy on May 25 2007 says there are 22 interim or acting attorneys now. <ref name='McClatcy-Talev-2007-05-25'>{{cite news | first=Margaret; | last=Talev | coauthors= Marisa Taylor and Lesley Clark | title=U.S. Attorneys: Fewer candidates apply for positions as U.S. attorneys | date=May 25, 2007 | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url =http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/usattorneys/17280974.htm | work =McClatchy Washington Bureau | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }}</ref>

-- Yellowdesk 20:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am done for the day (I have other more pressing things to do, such as mowing the lawn). Knock yourself out! (letters that cross in the mail... :) ) Bdushaw 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the draft outline, and one line of thinking, the elections/voter caging, "fraud" and so on, Rustovo has a thought. Testimony from Schlozman and Graves coming next week. cheers. -- Yellowdesk 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well...I may be otherwise engaged for the next week or more. The priorities of real life intrude... Bdushaw 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the critque/reason by Eleemosyinary on removing the "serve at the pleasure" AG item in lead was reasonable. Any idea if there exists a citable attribution for that reason for Gonzales's statement? -- Yellowdesk 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about that today. One thing I recalled was that Leahy in his statement to the Senate had acknowledged that the U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure", but that that wasn't the issue (see ref. 20 of Main: "It is true that Presidents have the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys. That is not in question. What is raising concerns is the apparent abuse of that authority by removing U.S. Attorneys for improper reasons...."). The issue is one of policy. On the one hand you have actions which are technically legal, while on the other hand you have actions which are very poor policy. My understanding is that most everyone agrees that the USAs "serve at the pleasure", but that the issues are policy. For example, it is legal to initiate legal actions against voters or politicians just before an election, but it is just bad policy. I was also trying to maintain NPOV (insofar as that is possible) by accurately portraying Gonzales' position - and the "serve at the pleasure" mantra is part of that position (that exact phrase is used in the reference that follows the sentence; its the USA Today statement by Gonzales'). I note that that article later states that the USA positions are political, hence they "serve at the pleasure". (what an annoying phrase, "serve at the pleasure"). Happy to discuss the issue further. I've been editting Brett Tolman - a quick copy edit by you would be appreciated. Note the photo. :) Bdushaw 07:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This same issue is at the heart of the Schumer/Gonzales exchange: Chuck_Schumer#U.S._Attorney_controversy - see the end of that section. Gonzales is clinging to what is strictly legal, whereas Schumer demands a better, higher standard. Bdushaw 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry, I just saw that an IP address removed almost an entire page of work and assumed that the rest of that persons edits were vandalism as well. I will have a look at what I have done. AdamJWC 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Change is mostly done now - if people hate the change then I'm willing to revert. But I think the change makes more sense, and now gives a logical place for discussions of the present status of interim USAs. I'll give an entry on the Talk page with greater explanation. The page has been so quiet I didn't think anyone was watching! I was naive... :) Bdushaw 04:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you see an edit summary like this (Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy‎; 13:43 . . (-6,703) . . 24.41.62.243 ) from an unregistered user, you would automatically assume that it was vandalism. AdamJWC 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My browser logs me out automatically, but then shows me that I am still logged in...I even checked that I was still logged in this time (but I wasn't). Hopefully no harm done, just a bit of excitement... Bdushaw 04:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/OpenPsion

The article on OpenPsion has been nominated for deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 04:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup; perhaps I can rally the troops to defend the article. Bdushaw 05:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to thank you again for being civil in this AFD discussion. You're certainly correct that the original nomination could have been clearer, and I can respect your desire to present this information, but I'm not sure it meets the standard of Wikipedia. Still, you've been very polite and reasonable, and that's something that's worth commending. Thanks again. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On being logged out by your browser

I once deleted all of my browser's cookies, and found I was logged out without my knowing it. It seems to be fixed for me by marking the check box, wheh logging in "remember this computer" or similar words. Same vicinity as where you would enter your password when logging in. Also the "remember me" check box is on your preferences page, Special:Preferences.. -- Yellowdesk 10:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]