detail

[calimac]

In 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?

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

But there's no strict line of succession as there is for the presidency. Trump had to appoint this particular guy. It's just a question of which positions are capable of taking on the acting role. And there's been no change in who's confirmed by the Senate and who isn't, which is supposed to be the criterion regarding inclusion.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

Yes, I see what you mean. Just read in a BBC news article that the new appointee was originally approved by the Senate and thus eligible to be acting AG.

And sorry, I typed "line of succession" but was thinking more of "succession planning". Two very different things.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I don't think there had been any pre-existing succession planning here. After previously grudgingly accepting her because she was there, Trump now wanted Yates fired. US Attorneys being deemed eligible, they picked Boente as one who looked amenable.