Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (34586)	4/3/2009 4:20:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"Also if it was offically non-partisan, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have an agenda, only that it would have its own agenda (or perhaps competing agenda's from different factions) without a check of the people appointing the department's leaders being subject to the decisions of the voters." Justice has no political agenda. If a cop on the street favors certain groups in the community we call that corruption. The only agenda I see here is justice which is compromised under the current system ... DOJ Mission Statement To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. "That might be unconstitutionally vague, since the oaths are rather general." A partisan lie is a violation of every oath. Such things are never prosecuted under the current system, leaving us all clicking our tongues and dismissing politicians with comments like, 'They all lie, so what'. A direct and serious cost to our confidence as a nation of people trusting in rule of law. Direct bribe taking can be (and sometimes is) tried under anti-corruption laws, no need to use "violating the oath of office" laws/prosecutions as well. Less direct forms of corruption should be handled by expanding the anti-corruption laws, or (particularly when the corruption is ambiguous or nebulous) just voting the people out of office. Among the most corrupt are the most favored by the partisan electorate. They don't get voted out, they get 'campaign funding'. "Case law wouldn't do much for the type of accountability I'm talking about. Deciding what and how to prosecute based on some internal political agenda, won't be something that will typically be addressed by courts except perhaps in extreme cases when you have prosecutorial misconduct." Congress, the Supreme Court, The Administration, and petition of the people can decide and set the merit for different types of cases and set goals for prosecuting at a certain level. In that way you have guidance on a prosecutorial agenda without political bias from one party or another. "And what do you do if its not a political thing or something involving corruption, but just poor performance on the job. " Terms of office should be enough for that and there is removal or impeachment for serious breaches. "If the Attorney General is not controlled by the president, than who orders him to change or fires him?" Nobody, that's the point an AT should be above orders from one entity. Create a natural check and balance system to guard against corruption but otherwise provide the trust an AT deserves. He can be removed from office by term limit, petition, or impeachment. What's wrong with that? For example can be charged with specific cause and removed by approval of congress.