Two articles today in the Argus Leader, here and here, focus on the appointment of a new United States Attorney for South Dakota. You'll note that the first article, a Dave Kranz specialty, quotes our esteemed colleague Prof. Blanchard. It is also curious that neither article mentions Piersol's ties to the Daschle-Thune lawsuit in 2004. Be that as it may, the second article, which is an analysis of the legal aspects of the case, presents evidence that my first inclination, that this is the president's role to appoint US attorneys not the judiciary's, was correct. Some quotes:
If a legal challenge about Mullins' appointment goes far enough, the rule that allows judges to appoint interim lawyers could be thrown out as unconstitutional, according to experts in constitutional law.
"This is no different than the legislature endowing the justice branch to appoint the secretary of defense on an interim basis," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and consultant in Washington. He served as deputy attorney general under President Reagan...
Elizabeth Smith, a political science professor at the University of South Dakota, said it's an unusual situation that the code doesn't appear to anticipate.
"It's a situation that I've never seen before," Smith said.
The rules assume by the end of one interim appointment, the president will have made a permanent appointment.
President Bush has not appointed anybody to fill the position, so the U.S. Department of Justice and the district court are left trying to decide which one is in charge.
"As I look at the situation, it seems the clearest resolution is the political branches get together and make an appointment," she said.
I agree with Prof. Smith, and the last time I checked the judiciary is not included in "the political branches."
Recent Comments