On the recordMarch 19, 2007
I thank Senator Kyl for his work and thoughtfulness on this subject. A situation that has always caused enemies is when judges--the judicial branch--appoint officials of the executive branch. In particular, a judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter for the contest going on before him. If he appoints the coach or the quarterback of one of the teams it seems as though he may not be facilitating a fair trial. It creates a perception that I believe is not healthy. Some judges have actually refused to appoint a U.S. attorney. They didn't think they should be taking sides in lawsuits that would come before them or stating to the world that they were, in effect, choosing and validating the integrity and their support for one of the advocates who appears before them. That is pretty basic to our system. But we have had a different procedure for appointing interim attorneys for many years. It has been discussed over time as being unwise, but nothing ever happened until the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Then, when we finally changed the procedure for interim appointments, I think we didn't do it well. We fixed the problem but left a big loophole that does need to be worked on. On balance, the Kyl amendment is preferable to going back to the old system, and I support it.
Source
govinfo.gov




