I heard they were fired b/c of poor performance but some had just received positive reviews.
I've also heard that Clinton's admin. fired 90 something attorneys while being investigated. Obviously, that's suspicious but how does that make it correct what Rodriguez is doing? Can't those attorneys get their jobs back or is there some other reason they were let go?
2007-03-27 05:16:41 · 9 answers · asked by strpenta 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I hear everyone who says they serve 'at the pleasure of the president' and the WERE given a reason and it was incorrect. Now, the accusation is that it's for political reasons. I'm not hearing a reasonable defense.
2007-03-27 06:20:32 · update #1
To Millie C.: Probably not :-) I would want the offer, though.
2007-03-27 06:23:55 · update #2
Ahhh. I see 'Ricky' is going back to basics....if you can't successfully defend your issue, you try attacking something else to draw attention away. Kinda primal, don't ya think?
2007-03-27 06:25:18 · update #3
The president has the right to fire any and all prosecutors for ANY reason or NO REASON AT ALL. The democrats are not disputing that the firings were legal or not.
However, interfereing with a federal investigation while it is still ongoing IS ILLEGAL. Threatening to fire a prosecutor for not bringing charges against a democrat running for re-election is interference in a federal investigation. And if it is determined that this is what happened, appropriate actions will be taken.
To the poster below me, please re-read my post and check your facts. Blackmailing or threatening a federal prosecutor is a crime. If it is proven that this is what happened, Alberto and Rove will join the ever growing list of Bushbots under indictment.
2007-03-27 05:21:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Bush administration has been using the recent amendment to the Patriot Act to fill the interim positions on a long-term basis and by-pass Congress. Those interims appointments will have to be cut short. Also, the investigations are only just beginning.
Reagan and Bush II also fired US attorneys when they took office but to fire a group of US attorneys in the middle of a presidential term is unprecedented. Gonzales told Congress that he would never change a US attorney for political reasons. He also said that he wasn’t involved in the firings. Somehow, I don’t think he’s being completely honest.
2007-03-27 05:37:48 · answer #2 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, the errors in the question are setting a record.
1. It hasn't been shown they were wrongfully terminated.
2. Yes, Clinton did fire 90-ish.
3. Gonzalez, not Rodriguez.
4. They can't have their jobs back, because the constitution guarantees the President the right to fire them at any time, without reason.
2007-03-27 05:33:39 · answer #3 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay let's go through this piece by piece to make it pretty simple. The attorneys serve "at the pleasure" of the President. They have no rights in terms of employment except that the Pres who appointed stays in power and the Pres is still pleased with them
Therefore the were not "wrongfully" terminated, they were let go because the Pres wanted to, which is the key rule here. Rodriquez has done nothing wrong, the Pres has done nothing wrong, all you read and hear about it is from the socialists in congress.
Simple huh?
2007-03-27 05:30:27 · answer #4 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No they shouldn't. Realistically, they do. it particularly is by using them putting themselves in the previous all others in spite of skills. As for the argument that they "made the country," it particularly is white supremacist propaganda. no person alive at present made the country. All voters play a functionality in making a rustic what it particularly is at present. The very theory that some white human beings have self belief they're the only ones who've ever finished something of value is the two ignorant and propostrous.
2016-10-20 01:31:31 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They serve at the pleasure of the president. Even if they were fired for bad cause, they no longer have the pleasure of the president.
2007-03-27 05:19:58 · answer #6 · answered by eawolfpack04 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
wtf are you talking about, the law is that the president employs them at will and at his leasure, he can fire them without even saying why they were fired. The fact he has had the courtesy to offer them to interview his staff behind closed doors is already a handout as the law is that he doesnt have to explain himself.
2007-03-27 05:24:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The government is stupid. Enough said.
2007-03-27 05:56:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you WANT your job back after that? I know I wouldn't.
2007-03-27 05:19:23 · answer #9 · answered by Groovy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋