Should the Attorney General serve the president, or the people?

Question

It has been said that the current attorney general (Alberto Gonzales) is performing as if he is the president's personal attorney. Certainly- his politics and agenda are closely aligned with the Pres. In addition to the current scandal, remember, this is the guy who denied security clearences to inspector general's office investigators on potential Patriot Act violations. (unarguably a partisan decision- not a legal one)

While it is certainly true that the position *is* a presidential appointment, do you believe that his role should be to serve the president, or be a non-partisan position. Remember- the next president could be a Democrat.

Truth: If you want to know what I think- I think he's an abomination to the office.

But I guess the real gist of this question was to see if the adamant Bush supporters on YA like the idea of an Attorney General such as Gonzales, or would prefer the office to hols someone less political, even though he does support their views.

Jeff s: I like your statement/question:
"Does he protect the President more than the law and the United States people?"

I think that pretty well sums up the issue. It takes what I thought was a gray area and draws a clear line through it. 10 points coming your way if nobody can beat it.

Answer 1

Technically both. But the president serves the people so technically the Atty General serves the people by serving the President.

Now, the Attorney General is unique in that the office sometimes has to investigate the President or the administration. I am troubled by the contradictions that Gonzalez and his deputies told Congress. Lying or misleading Congress is usually prompted by a partisan political need to cover-up something. If this were the case then we need to consider if Gonzales favors his President over the interests of the nation. I think any political appointee will have a lot of loyalty to the President that chose him but this certain position (the Atty General) has a ethical obligation to over-ride any sentimentalities... he has an obligation to the law first and foremost.

By the way, this is not a "cover-up" on the level of Watergate... but we really need to consider Gonzales's motives here. Does he protect the President more than the law and the United States people? If there is just a question of this then I don't think he should be attorney General. Regardless of whether I like Bush or not.

Answer 2

Yes, partisan appointment. Clinton did not use Reno for his personal attorney for the impeachment.
The Attorney General is the "secretary of the Justice Department". We do have a 3 way balance of power.
To say he or she would be the personal attorney of the POTUS, is like saying that Congress is the President's personal lawmakers.??

Answer 3

The Attorney General is actually the President's official legal advisor when it comes to matters of policy and law.

Answer 4

There is no grey area on this matter.
The attorney general is NOT the President's personal attorney.
He is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Answer 5

OMG, are you all extreme? you are able to desire to return and study your history. Clinton wasn't even voted into place of work till November 1992. Barr replaced into the AG in August 1992, elder Bush replaced into president, whilst Ruby Ridge handed off.

Answer 6

He is appointed, not elected. If the President it serving the people, then by common sense so is the AG.

Answer 7

Well, who do you think the Department of Justice should serve?

Bush, or the People?

Answer 8

all government employees must serve the people.