Facinating how this has become such a big deal with the Bush administration. It has been said, and as the commentator alluded to, the Clinton Administration got rid of far more prosecutors in the Justice Dept. just so Mr. Clinton could load up with political Idealogues he agreed with. It is only a problem now that the Bush administration allegedly did the same thing. Apparently one thing is not going to change anytime soon. The Main Stream Press is going to do all that it can to carry the water for the Democrat party, and it's candidates. Why do they continue to pretend that they maintain a neutal, unbias outlook on political news. Why don't they save at least a small amount of credibility by admitting that they are for the most part an unofficial arm of the DNC.

Clinton followed what must presidents do when they enter the White House. They make appointments in the Department of Justice.

No president has fired these people after their appointment because of their political agenda before Bush. Adding to this, we have clear violations of civil service laws.

I fail to understand how you can live in America and not see the difference between Clinton and Bush on this matter.

It is important for the Department of Justice to be fair and not be used as a tool of a political party.

If you believe what you wrote, you must get conservative biased news. Only a fool would just watch Fox and listen to Rush. I'm a Left Coast Liberal reading a Utah conservative paper. I will be reading Drudge later.

You need to be educated to be right.

The Deomocrats in the Senate have not even offered to have an up or down vot on about 75(I don't know the exact number but it's a lot) Bush admin judicial appointees. So how exactly is the administration supposed to leave a legacy if not by controlling what they can control. Answer that editors.

Oh thats right your more correct because you get your information from the unbias mainstream news media. Plus you have been told over and over that Mr. Bush is evil, and you and your fellow worshippers slobber at the feet of Mr. Clinton. Well I could certainly be wrong, (I am not afraid to admit that) and I don't know everything there is to know, but I seem to remember a little something about Janet Reno releasing all 93 US attorneys when she claimed her spot as Attorney General under Clinton. That was something that had never been done before, and interupted many investigations and prosecutions that were in the process at the time. Of course that was alright with you, because Clinton's your guy and we all know that he is pure and inocent in your eyes and the hearts of your fellow media commrades.

This is the most pressing issue of the week huh? Gimme a break. This was a rehashed news story any way you look at it. DOJ officials testified fully and candidly on this subject already and no new information has surfaced.

Also, just a quick lesson for all who are uninformed (including the D News Editorial Board), acting in a way to maximize your particular branches' power (in this case executive power) isn't a scandal. Please see judicial overreach and legislative hold-ups as they "advise and consent". Separation of powers law has been a part of our system of governance since the beginnning.

I know the details don't matter to 99.9% of the public, but an Article II judge and an Article III judge are very different and there is a strong argument that the appointment of Article II immigration judges should be at the pleasure of the President. It's not even close to waht this editorial is pushing.

PS. Nobody has ever claimed that DOJ was going back to the spoils system. Quit taking advantage of the uninformed.

Look Who's Right | 4:16 a.m. Aug. 3, 2008

"Why do they continue to pretend that they maintain a neutral, unbiased outlook on political news? Why don't they save at least a small amount of credibility by admitting that they are for the most part an unofficial arm of the DNC?"

Because they are, by and large, liberals. They've lost all objectivity and independence as reporters. It is far more important to them to elect one of their kind than maintain fairness demanded by the ethics of their profession. Sad.

You're not right | 10:37 a.m. Aug. 3, 2008

"Clinton followed what must presidents do when they enter the White House. They make appointments in the Department of Justice."

To make appointments a new pres first must fire the existing US Attorneys. And Clinton did... for nothing more than political reasons. We don't know how he selected the replacements but I'd bet he did the same thing that Gonzales is being accused of doing. It's just that the Republicans don't make an effort to haul the AG (Reno) in and grill them about it.