An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings

March 22, 2007

Pres vs Congress

Filed under: Congress, Cow pies, Democrats, Opinion, Political — olbroad @ 8:58

White House can fire U.S. attorneys, and Congress should not meddle

The current imbroglio over President Bush’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys could have been avoided if Congress had exercised more restraint or the Bush administration had shown more backbone. Congress had no right to ask for an explanation from the president as to why he fired a group of his subordinates in the executive branch. And when Congress inquired into the reasons for the firings, the administration’s answer should have been: “It’s none of your business.”

And just why didn’t Bush tell them they were overstepping? All this nonsense is nothing more than the libs attempt at destroying the administration, it’s all political.

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Scholars have noted that these prosecutors serve two masters — both the President, who is their superior, and the public, whose interests they protect. But as executive appointees, they can be fired at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all — just as a president may replace his Cabinet officers at any time. And the president need not explain them to anyone, let alone to Congress.

If the President doesn’t like the way someone combs their hair, that’s all he needs. It’s worth repeating: They are appointees, they can be canned, no explanation necessary.

Some may argue that demanding reasons for the firings is a necessary component of congressional oversight of the executive branch. However, the shield of executive privilege protects many decisions by the president, and the decision to hire or fire a pure executive appointee should be one of them. The Bush administration is guilty of spinelessness in responding at all to questions regarding the firings. And if the administration misstated the reasons for the firings, then it compounded its original mistake.

I’m curious. Why does the President of the United States have to explain every single move he makes to a totally separate branch of the government? Did Clinton kowtow to Congress? I don’t think so.  Yes, some things should be explained, this isn’t one of them.

But Congress also bears responsibility for fanning the flames of press fanaticism over this “scandal,” particularly when the questions it is demanding answers to should not be asked in the first place.

The left loves the press, and the press loves the left. It’s been obvious for way to long which way THAT wind blows.

With President Bush’s refusal Tuesday to make executive officials available to testify under oath, his administration is finally showing a bit of the savvy territorialism that could have saved it a lot of headaches in the present case.

I just wish he had shown that backbone back in 2001, instead of beginning the suck up ‘fest right from the start.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: