Can a President remove appointees who fail to carry out his policy?

Question

Keep in mind: U.S. Attorneys are appointees

LMAO@austingirl...c'mon get real! thinkprogress.org is a leftwing extremist thinktank and communist front....how about a REAL source?

Answer 1

Of course he can they serve at his pleasure

Answer 2

The obviously correct answer is that some he can and some he can't. U.S. attorneys he obviously can. Members of the Supreme Court he obviously can not. I'm not in a position right now to list which positions appointed by the President can be removed and which can't. But there's no one sweeping answer.

I fundamentally disagree with the one writer who specifically said that the Attorney General is essentially an employee of the President. While he or she does serve and advise the President, he or she is the United States Attorney General. He or she is an employee of the people of the United States. Therefore, he or she or any other presidential appointee should feel free to fight the President on principle when they think the President is wrong about something.

For that matter, the President and all other elected officials should also remember that they, too, are employees of the American people. They are not elected to office for a given length of time to do what they please.

As for those who think the media only go after Republicans, I wonder if they really remember anything about the Clinton presidency. Attorney General Janet Reno alone was under constant attack for almost the entire time she served. (I supposed the reply is that she deserved to be attacked, unlike Bush's Attorneys General.) Other members of his cabinet were assailed regularly.

And I don't really remember the press sparing President Clinton any embarrassment. Yes, he was guilty of a lot, but he was also not guilty of many rumors that at least some political operatives have since admitted to having started. For example, Vince Foster, a trusted adviser, was so overwhelmed by the attack associated with something called "travelgate" (remember that one?) that he committed suicide. But this wasn't enough. To this day there are those who claim he was murdered by a member of the Clinton administration, his body moved, etc., etc., all without a shred of proof. All of this has been duly reported and speculated on by the press ad nauseum. And no one ever seemed to care in any genuine sense about the man and his family.

So to say that Bush is being unfairly attacked because he is a Republican is either a statement made out of ignorance or selective amnesia. I'm going to hope for the best and not accuse people of actual maliciousness.

Answer 3

Yes, appointees are there at the leisure of the president and he can dismiss them .That's why they are called political appointees......

Here's a better example...New president is elected......theres a vacancy on the Supreme Court (these judges are there for life, or in case of illness they may retire) , Pres x of the Republican Party will appoint a Judge that most closely follows his party line .... So there we are ....Bush can do it , unless there's some other squirrely crap going on that the "opposition party" uncovers.

Ahhh! Justice........

Answer 4

Only democratic presidents can remove appointees. They, and they alone are NOTsubject to vetting their decision making process. All other parties will be ambushed and dismayed by partisan bickering while there are more important things to worry about like global jihad, and funding the military without including a spinach bailout that is only added
in order to buy a vote.

Answer 5

I believe that the President can. The Attorney General or any other member of his cabinet are there to provide him with advice and serve him. They are essentially employees of the President. Usually a President will ask for a resignation rather than fire someone in his cabinet. If President Bush asked AG Gonzales to resign, Gonzales would likely comply.

Answer 6

Isnt that the question of the week!

Personally, I don't believe that they could be removed for strictly partisan reasons, but "failing to carry out policy" makes the issue into something that I'm glad that I won't haveto sort through in the upcoming weeks.

But from now on, the president needs congressional approval for anyone he is trying to apoint. So I assume that the issue will be defunct in the future anyway.

Answer 7

technically... yes...

but, it really is much like the Clinton issue in many ways... before he lied at least...

the Clinton issue (pre-perjury) was simply a moral one, technically the president can get pleasured legally... it's not against the law... but many consider it immoral...

many in the legal area also consider removing a lawyer for legal reasons to be just as, if not more, immoral... the law and politics are supposed to be separate... are they ever? probably not... but this seems to be one of the more blatant examples of them not being separate at all...

congress seems to be moving forward with an investigation, much as the Republican one, without any actual legal issue... much as the Republican one did...

Answer 8

Yes. I can't think of one adminstration where someone has not opted to resign vs be fired due to conflict of beliefs.

Answer 9

Perhaps, but is it ethical? Especially when you slander said employees, although their record proves otherwise. Especially when you lie to the Congress about the reasoning behind it...because of bad performance *of course*.

Last week, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty claimed that six U.S. attorneys were fired for “performance-related” issues. But according to the former prosecutors and Justice Department officials, five of the six attorneys received positive evaluations from the DOJ shortly before they were told to resign.

John McKay, former U.S. Attorney in Washington:

“McKay said he was called Dec. 7 by Michael A. Battle, head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, who only months before had sent him a congratulatory letter for the laudatory report issued by the Justice Department audit team.”

Daniel G. Bogden, former U.S. Attorney in Nevada:

Bogden “was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a ‘capable’ leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators. ‘He didn’t get any dings,’ said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. ‘The overall evaluation was very positive.’”

Carol Lam, former U.S. attorney in California:

“Lam was described in her 2005 evaluation as ‘well respected’ by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff. Overall the review was positive. ‘We’re not aware of any significant issues,’ said another Justice Department official.”

Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona:

“Officials with the U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona said Charlton received his last review in December 2005. He was described as being respected by his staff, federal investigators, judges and Native American leaders for “his integrity, professionalism and competence.’“

David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico:

Iglesias “received a positive evaluation last year, according to another Justice Department official.”




http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/attorneys-evaluation/

Answer 10

Short answer...Yes.

Long Answer...Maybe, but leaning to yes. I answer this in some detail in another one of your questions.