Last year's amendment to the Attorney General's appointment authority was necessary and appropriate. Prior to the amendment, the Attorney General could appoint an interim United States Attorney for only 120 days; thereafter, the district court was authorized to appoint an interim United States Attorney. . . . [S]ome district courts - recognizing the oddity of members of one branch of government appointing officers of another. . . . refused to exercise the court appointment authority, thereby requiring the Attorney General to make successive, 120-day appointments.This is rather weak. It would be a nuisance, of course, to have to state every 4 months that Ms. X is the interim USA, again, but not much of an issue.
In contrast, other district courts - ignoring the oddity and the inherent conflicts - sought to appoint as interim United States Attorney wholly unacceptable candidates who did not have the appropriate experience or the necessary clearances.I am extremely interested in concrete examples of a US district court appointing Goober McDumbass, Esq. - lately of the US Communist Party and the Aryan Nation - to the position of United States Attorney. I don't want to just blindly assume good faith on the part of everyone - which is good, because I rarely do - but clearly there would be a bit of consideration of the nature of the position when appointing an interim. After all, Goober would be arguing cases before that district court, and the novelty would wear off rather quickly. Plus any interim USA appointed in this way that was a "wholly unacceptable candidate who did not have the appropriate experience or the necessary clearances" could then just be fired. And a new interim USA could be appointed for another four months.