![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacIn the midst of this roiling constitutional crisis, the part that surprises me is the replacement of the Acting Attorney General with a U.S. district attorney. I didn't think they could do that.
A critical aspect of the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973 was that, after Richardson and Ruckelshaus resigned, Bork didn't. He offered to, but Richardson said no, don't, because it would leave the department without anyone legally authorized to act as Acting A.G. An Acting A.G. has to be someone who had been approved by the Senate for their regular office in the Department, and only the Deputy A.G. (Ruckelshaus) and Solicitor General (Bork) fit that requirement.
But U.S. attorneys also work for the Justice Department, and they're approved by the Senate. That must be the reason why the lawyers decided this guy was eligible to be appointed. But if that's so, why wasn't it so in 1973?
A critical aspect of the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973 was that, after Richardson and Ruckelshaus resigned, Bork didn't. He offered to, but Richardson said no, don't, because it would leave the department without anyone legally authorized to act as Acting A.G. An Acting A.G. has to be someone who had been approved by the Senate for their regular office in the Department, and only the Deputy A.G. (Ruckelshaus) and Solicitor General (Bork) fit that requirement.
But U.S. attorneys also work for the Justice Department, and they're approved by the Senate. That must be the reason why the lawyers decided this guy was eligible to be appointed. But if that's so, why wasn't it so in 1973?
