imo, the problem is not that they were dismissed for 'political reasons'; politics is such a broad term, that it might be conceived that this is within the discretionary use of executive power (which, indeed, is exactly what the bush defenders are arguing);

instead, the problem is that prosecutors were being asked, and it was demanded, that they use prosecutorial power to advance purely political aims;

this is a misuse of the AG's office, which, by definition, is to be above the law, and to enforce laws, fairly, for all.

so, the wrong is not dismissal for politics; the wrong is the use of power, prosecutorial power, for political gain.

and if prosecutors, were not willing to use their power for such purposes, they were to be dismissed

bad, all bad.

jw

it is true that infotainment has taken over msm;

but, i see some light; just as tv changed newspaper journalism, and cable changed network journalism, i think the net, and now the blogs, and youtube, are changing the process again; for the better, imo

as to cheerleaders, you left out one of the most important:

kay bailey hutchinson, senator from texas

i read you all the time, as you know, and agree on most issues and viewpoints.

no issue, and i mean no issue, is more important than this one, because this literally defines who we are;

got to agree with glenn; am an edwards man, and voted for clinton twice; but, obama is right ; they are more interested in winning, and this is what they think it takes to win; but, if there is this much frustration with lefties over hrc's tactics, how do you think the independents are going to see her. i am not one to advocate electibility, i think you should vote for the candidate you think is right, but it has to turn off lots of voters, including me, that hillary is wanting to "brand' him.

the worst thing about george bush, to me, (and there are lots of things to choose from) is that he is so unwilling to consider and give voice to other views. his idea of compromise and accord is for you to agree with him;

am i the only one who sees the same quality in hillary, i.e., what is good for hillary is good for the country?

so, whatever i need to do to win is ok because thats good for everyone. i got problems with it

i am happy to hear that she believes in bivens; i have, in texas, argued to plenty of federal judges who just ignore that bivens exists.

just a signal, of course, but an encouraging one

we need judges who decide on the law, not the facts, and many situations are (relatively) unambiguous.

but, all of us, expect judges, in those situations that are somewhat different, somewhat in between the precedents, somewhat subject to differing valid arguments, to exercise judgment and discretion , and empathy, to reach the final conclusion.

of course, virtually every case that reaches scotus is in this category