Talk:United States Attorney

message: It's true that the term "discretion" means, in this context, that the President can fire a U.S. Attorney at any time.  I'm concerned, though, that not every reader will realize this legal implication, especially in light of the statement that the U.S. Attorney seves for a four-year term (which could be misunderstood as a fixed term).  For that reason, we should expressly state the President's removal power. JamesMLane t c 11:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discretion" 

message: I suggest merging Executive Office for United States Attorneys into this article. There is hardly anything in that article, but it would provide good information for the hirearchy of U.S. Attorneys & their place in the federal government.--Wikiphilia 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just go ahead and do it. Terjen 08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Executive Office for United States Attorneys]] 

message: An anon has been adding material to the article to the effect that the U.S. Senate repealed or rescinded a particular provision of a statute. That is incorrect. Repeals or any other amendments to statutes must be done by the full Congress (both houses) as as an Act of Congress, and then presented to the President. If the President vetoes, then the Act can become law without his signature if the full Congress overrides the veto. The anon claims that the "repeal" occurred yesterday, March 20, 2007. I see nothing in the news or anywhere else that would support the statement that the U.S. Senate unilaterally repealed or rescinded a statute. Yours, Famspear 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The U.S. Senate cannot "repeal" a statute by itself

message: Why is it not covered? john k 23:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Samoa 

message: The article on  the appointment of U.S. Attorneys seems to concern itself entirely with the law, and to ignore the customs relating to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys, specifically that they are traditionally chosen not by the President, but by the home state senator(s) of the same party as the President (I'm not sure what happens when there are no home state senators of the same party as the president). john k 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "consultation" with the highest same-party member as the President from the state in question usually describes it, but there are lots of non-routine appointments. Anyhow, same party: Senator, Governor, and other significant same-party office-holders, along with some variety of lip service or genuine consultation to other party members from the state, all depending on the particular president in question, and other relationships that president desires to maintain.  A topic worthy of an article in its own right, since it is not simple, and there are 93 of these positions. Quite a lot of offices and potentially interested consultative parties. -- Yellowdesk 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment 

message: This article primarily uses primary sources, and so violates WP:Primary and WP:V. According to WP:Primary, 
:Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.
According to WP:V:
:Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic.
According to WP:SelfPub
:Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, so long as: the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I do not believe that United States Attorney should be nominated for deletion because it violates these policies. Rather, this article is a useful example to show that these policies require revision. Brews ohare (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do  [[WP:Primary]] and [[WP:V]] require deletion of this article? 

message: Assistant United States Attorney redirects here, and that seems problematic to me. There are around 100 Assistant United States Attorneys for each United States Attorney, and they are very different jobs. The AUSAs handle, prosecute, and argue individual cases. The USA manages the entire district office. From a plain language reading of name, a lay person may suspect that an AUSA is a direct assistant to a USA (i.e. what the position of First Assistant United States Attorney actually is), but that would not be correct. In the absence of a detailed clarification of what an AUSA is, ideally in its own article, I think it would best that AUSA not redirect here. Opinions? I'll also post a reference to this discussion in the talk page for the redirect. jhawkinson (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect from Assistant United States Attorney 

message: According to this New York Times article, all 93 positions became vacant after the  2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys in early March, and Trump has not nominated any replacements since then. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the lede? --193.80.207.243 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  vacancies 

message: The phrase «are the only attorneys allowed to participate in grand jury proceedings» may be misleading: Grand juries in the United States states «generally under the supervision of a federal U.S. attorney, a county district attorney, or a state attorney-general». Maybe it's a matter of specifying which cases are being talked about. --Nemo 21:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand jury