How many judges did Clinton replace?

Question

Why are they making such a big deal over recent judicial "firings"?

Answer 1

Janet Reno and Bill Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys, including the prosecutor in Little Rock investigating the Clinton Whitewater scandal. A fact conveniently overlooked by Democrats in Congress calling for Alberto Gonzalez's resignation.

Answer 2

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS
*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. March 24, 1993, Wednesday
By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, ...

So Clinton did some judicial firings. I think the problem with the current controversy, is that it seems the White House fired these prosecutors because they wouldn't look for corrupt Democrats and they were too easy on corrupt Republicans.

Answer 3

It's all about timing (and some). Clinton just did a sweep when he became President, firing all (attorneys, not judges) of them and filling the positions with those who reflected his ideals. Bush on the other hand just left things be, until now. Had Bush done what Clinton did their wouldn't be any problem, but taking action now, after there have been instances of people getting negative feedback or pressure for not prosecuting Democrats, etc., and a potentially shaky paper trail, does not leave one surprised that their are people making a deal of it.

I also don't think it's a big deal, and they shouldn't have to give a reason (and never should have). But, by trying to make excuses and stuff it only makes them look bad. And you certainly don't want to do that when you have a kenel of rabid Democrats just looking for opportunity. This is something that happens with every President and will continue. They word at the will of the President. Aren't politicians getting really annoying lately?

Answer 4

these were not judges replaced by Bush..they were federal prosecutors...and it appears they were fired for purely political reasons...the one reason i saw written was that they were told to investigate DEMOCRATIC supposed election fraud aggressively and nothing was said about Republican voter fraud...i don't know if it's illegal or not to fire them...but it is a political and public relations problem for Bush...it says that he is not even-handed and certainly will use his power to attack his political enemies unfairly while at the same time holding a blind eye to his own party's bad behavior....The supposed Democrat voter fraud is not a fact and may have been made up...since the prosecutors that did not fall in line did so out of conscience

Clinton did not look through his prosecutors and root out all the Republicans...he never has been accused of using his power in such a way,,,,by the way, Bush has rooted out more judges as well....As far as I know the only judgfes Clinton axed were because of crimes or vacancies.

Every president installs new prosecutors when he comes into office and can get rid of anyone...but this is an issue of why they were axed...a witch hunt by Bush and Gonzales of the Democrats...

Answer 5

US Attorneys, not judges. It's a big deal because normally, a a president will replace US Attorneys as he comes in to office. This was different because the attorneys were appointed by Bush, but still weren't behaving the way he liked. Once US Attorneys are appointed by an incoming president, they're likely to be left alone.

White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, who it turned out had told Gonzales two years ago that President Bush wanted him to fire all 93 district attorneys, each of them appointed by Bush, and install more loyal Republicans, had resigned in January soon after the purge of “disloyal” Republican prosecutors but before her role was known.

Answer 6

He fired prosecutors, not judges. The democrats are making a big deal out of this because they think intelligent individuals like myself will be swayed by their phony dismay and disgust over nothing important whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I doubt that most of the windbags that are feigning indignation and calling for the Gonzo's head to roll realize that some of those prosecutors where recalcitrant in their investigations into so called voter fraud.

I'm sick of this petty school yard bullsh!t.

Answer 7

He replaced 93 when he came into office. That's normal. Bush Jr. did it. This time it is because the firing party didn't have their ducks in a row regarding the explaination. They really didn't have to even give a reason at all. But they said something about performance issues and that is when the investigation started.

Answer 8

The "big deal" is not over how many but why and the fact that the Bushies went around the Senate to do so. Clinton at least followed the rules. That is something Bushies find annoying, Rules, I mean.

Answer 9

Clinton fired 93 Federal Attorneys all at once.
He was after the Attorney from Little Rock who was going to charge Clinton with: extortion, graft, fraud, and corruption.
Clinton fired the other 92 Attorneys, to cover his tracks.

Come to Little Rock & investigate. Be sure to bring a small army of body guards.
I'ts not safe to investigate the Clintons in Arkansas.

Answer 10

He didn't & couldn't fire judges. they are talking about US Attorneys. He fired 92 out of 93 when he took office. I don't know how many after that.
They are making a big deal of it because of their pathological hatred of Bush.