Isn't that something Stalin would do? I thought conservatives hated Stalin...
2007-03-11 14:10:33 · 12 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When President Clinton took office, he fired ALL Republican appointed U.S. Attorneys replacing them with his appointees. That is a President's perogative. Yes it is political, but any executive branch employee (Civil Service, Senior Executive Service, Military, etc) serves at the pleasure of the President. And every government employee receives notice of this in writing when they take their oath.
2007-03-11 14:15:54 · answer #1 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is a great article on this in the NYT today or yesterday. Nixon tried to fire AG's for refusing to follow the party line. The Supreme Court held that such a firing was constitutionally inappropriate. the issue here is that the AG is appointed by the president, but s/he is supposed to be above the political BS in protecting the rule of law, no matter what the political fallout.
There is a growing body of evidence that these AG's were fired because they did not pursue prosecutions that would have cast a political haze over opponent party candidates in time to have a different result in the election last cycle. That is substantially different from the changing of the guard that we see at the start of each new administration. Several of your answers have said that the AGs serve at the will of the President. Does that mean that if the AG starts to investigate the President, the President can fire him/her to avoid the prosecution? That is exactly what Nixon tried to do and the Supreme Court said he had violated the Constitution in doing so. That is exactly why we ended up with the independent counsel law that made it possible to investigate Clinton. As unhappy as i am with the results of that investigation, it was right to have the option and it was and remains necessary.
The Bush administration has provided a platform for a level of croneyismc that we have not seen since Nixon, and Gonzales is just one in a line of many examples of this.
2007-03-11 14:21:18 · answer #2 · answered by blk justice 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
US Attorneys, like ambassadors & cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president. Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys when he became president. There is nothing wrong with what Bush did. Replacing 8 out of hundreds of US Attorneys isn't much of a purge.
2007-03-11 14:16:03 · answer #3 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
These are political appointments. These positions served at the pleasure of the President. Therefore, the answer is no.
2007-03-12 03:44:46 · answer #4 · answered by c1523456 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he had killed them, like Stalin did in his purge, that would have been illegal.
What Gonzales did was perfectly legal. Whether it wa ethical or not is a seperate issue, and Congress is holding hearings now.
2007-03-11 14:19:00 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Gonzales authored the memo that said the detainees were not POWs. It's obvious human rights are not a stong point with him. Just another Texas Facist
2007-03-11 14:16:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
that's off venture, yet my popular gonzales quote is the single the place he pronounced abe lincoln widespread digital surveillance so a techniques as getting prosecuted, the entire team merits it
2016-10-18 03:46:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they serve at the President pleasure
2007-03-11 14:15:01 · answer #8 · answered by Boston Mark 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know whether it is illegal or not, but it was very unethical.
I think that the one of the laws that the Patriot Act changed did make it legal.
2007-03-11 14:13:58 · answer #9 · answered by ♥ Cassie ♥ 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, and who said it was for political reasons. Give me facts, much more than you have. I need detailed facts.
2007-03-11 14:16:16 · answer #10 · answered by Carlene W 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋