Right now, he is appointed by the President. It seems to me that this appointee is not as likely to question, or to investigate, someone who has appointed him to office. Perhaps the House or Senate should appoint someone with a 2/3 majority. All I would ask is that the President is left out of the process. Alberto Gonzales is a joke and will never think any wrong of Bush. They have been together since Texas.
2006-07-13 03:43:37 · 8 answers · asked by rlw 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Then who would have investigated Congressman William Jefferson?
No matter how an attorney general is selected he/she will always owe something to somebody. Even if he/she is elected (as in some states) there are always campaign contributors.
I think that you don't like Gonzales because he was appointed by President Bush and you don't like Bush.
2006-07-13 03:51:03 · answer #1 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They forget so quickly...Did you forget Bobby Kennedy and Clinton's dikey Attorney General, while we are discussing Jokes.
Actually I think Gonzales is doing a good job.
This is not a position to investigate the office of the President. This is a person that must be responsible for the nations law enforcement. If there is a problem with the President, Congress and the nations courts will address that issue, not the Attorney General.
2006-07-13 11:25:02 · answer #2 · answered by loligo1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure how it should be done, but I agree. Presidential appointees should ultimately be beholden to the public & the Constitution, not the appointer... in this case, the President. I think it's time to consider term limits on judges, too since we have so many acting as political activists. I'd say twice the longest term of any pol... 12 yrs outta do it. That way we don't have some ancient, near 100 yr old dictating archiac decisions over the current generation.
2006-07-13 10:56:22 · answer #3 · answered by Dookiee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all read those before me, The President may pick them, but Congress has to approve them.
Second, you don't know what he is thinking. Just so you know, while he may not agree with the President the Attorney General is a worker and if you could not tell by the Rank, a member of the Federal Government, As such he is not allowed to openly talk bad about the President, that would be treason. (Doesn't mean he is not thinking it).
2006-07-13 11:16:13 · answer #4 · answered by Artistic Prof. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that whatever way we come up with it will, like it always does, end up being a favor job.
sgtextreme: I am not sure you understand treason. A federal employee can say whatever she or he thinks about the President at any time and it is free speech. It is not done since to openly question is asking to be fired. Maybe it should not be up to President to fire Attorney General is a better way to correct the issue
2006-07-19 11:39:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the house and senate have to vote on the Attorney General after he is selected. So they are doing exactly what you want. The president nominates someone and after confirmation hearing held by the Senate, the nominee is voted on, not by the president, but by the congress.
2006-07-13 10:47:56 · answer #6 · answered by thunder2sys 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And so by your rationale, does that mean every attorney general has been a joke because they were nominated by the president? Or is it just because it's Bush?
2006-07-13 10:49:29 · answer #7 · answered by alexg114 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES.
In my state we elect our attorney general and I think it's a good idea to do so on the federal level as well.
2006-07-13 10:57:23 · answer #8 · answered by Franklin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋