Even if legally president do have power to appoint or fire US attorneys taxpayers are still the one paying for. US attorneys are appointed to serve people not president or a political party.
2007-06-28 16:47:39 · 17 answers · asked by thebestbotintexas 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I know it is legal. and I am just asking if it is ethical?
2007-06-28 16:57:07 · update #1
Plus if he has right to fire his attornys then as Citizens we have right to ask.
2007-06-28 17:05:50 · update #2
so many wrong answers. most people appoint their cabinet when they enter office. the attorneys are part of your cabinet. old attorney are dismissed and new ones are appointed when presidents change. so the neo-cons twist is clinton did it too -- but he didn't.
it seems like what happened is legal but very unethical. bush's own attorneys were against him doing illegal/immoral/unethical things so they were a voice of dissent in his cabinet. they were fired not by bush but probably gonzales in an attempt to rewrite things like what the executive privileges of the president are without any voice of reason or logic or ethic.
what it leads to is what is happening now -- the president is declaring it within his exective privileges to not answer a congressional supoena -- because his crack team of non-dissenting laywers have re-written what his executive privileges are.
what he did is legal but it very unethical and the new definitions of government handed down by the attorneys is proabably unconstitutional.
2007-06-28 17:10:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
For more than 100 years, every post master, every customs officer, every US Marshal, every US Attorney lost their jobs when the President changed. Most of these jobs are no Civil Service Jobs, and no longer political appointees.
US Attorneys are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire them, he has the right and the power to do so.
Doc
2007-06-28 16:58:07 · answer #2 · answered by Doc Hudson 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It has been done by every single President. So I guess, I do not have a problem with it. Why is it fair that it is a problem when a Republican attorney general & president fires 8 US Attorneys? It was not a problem when Janet Reno fired 93 US Attorneys. A Democrat fires every US Attorney & it is their right?????
What is that word liberals like to use? Oh yeah! Hyprocisy!!
2007-06-28 17:11:07 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In our government, the President is the top boss of the executive branch and the attorney general works for him. All the U.S. attorneys work for him.
We elect the President, he picks his team. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. If you don't like the President's choices, you don't have to wait long for a new one.
Be sure you exercise your right to vote for someone you think will do better.
2007-06-28 16:56:10 · answer #4 · answered by raichasays 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
HAHAHA, US attorneys are appointed at the pleasure of the President. They don't actually have to be attorneys really. Every single president has fired US attorneys so they can put their buddies in there. Don't believe me look it up.
2007-06-28 16:50:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
There is no question about his right to do so.
The president can fire and hire someone in that position for any reason he chooses, even the color of his socks.
Clinton fired virtually all of them, during the time of whitewater investigation.
2007-06-28 16:51:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, but as a citizen, you and I are allowed to hire our own legal representatives. The President must have total faith in his lawyers just and we would want and need.
Remember, we tax payers pay for everything from soup to nuts. Like the nuts we have in congress, for whom we pay everything including their soup.
2007-06-28 16:59:35 · answer #7 · answered by howdigethere 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he had the right to, but not providing reasoning for doing so is wrong. I mean he has been in office for approx 7 years at the time of the firing, if he had a problem with them why didnt he let them go earlier....i smell bad eggs
2007-06-28 16:55:52 · answer #8 · answered by blue_rose1786 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's the president's right to do so. I'm not saying I agree with it, but there is nothing illegal about what he did.
2007-06-28 16:52:37 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If they are political appointees, then they serve at the pleasure of the President.
2007-06-28 16:50:05 · answer #10 · answered by Brand X 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋