Thread: What's all this "I serve at the pleasure of the president" crap, anyway?

Where did this come from anyway? It sounds so medieval to me.

President Bush said on March 14, 2007, “U.S. attorneys and others serve at the pleasure of the President. Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys. It is their right to do so.”
Karl Rove said on March 8, 2007, “Look, by law and by Constitution, these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term.”
Despite this acclimation of unfettered power, there must be some reason for a decision. Of course, “at the pleasure” does not require a reason to be justified. If the basis for a change in Department of Justice personnel is simply on a Presidential whim, then that is as scary, if not more so, than partisan politics.

How Much Pleasure Should One President Have? | Corrente

I Googled "I serve at the pleasure of the President" - and got 1,850,000 results:
Rummy said it, Powell said it, Rove said it, Gonzalez said it - the list goes on......
What is going on with these idiots? They act like they are living in the dark ages or the Knights of the Round Table or something. We are in the 21st Century and we don't serve our masters anymore. We serve ideals, the Constitution, or we just work for others - but we don't serve them like some kinda fucking slaves. Where do they come up with this shit?:hissy:

This is rediculous!!! Of course they serve at the pleasure of the president, just as you serve at the pleasure of your boss, meaning you can be fired for whatever reason. What, you think this is a new concept?

Originally Posted by Migi e!

This is rediculous!!! Of course they serve at the pleasure of the president, just as you serve at the pleasure of your boss, meaning you can be fired for whatever reason. What, you think this is a new concept?

Go tell your boss you serve "at his pleasure" and he'll ask you for a blowjob.

Originally Posted by Blueneck

Go tell your boss you serve "at his pleasure" and he'll ask you for a blowjob.

Want to bet he won't?
Where the hell do you work anyway? Some shithole?

Originally Posted by freckles

Want to bet he won't?
Where the hell do you work anyway? Some shithole?

So you think "serving the president" is more important than serving the people or the Constitution?

Originally Posted by Blueneck

So you think "serving the president" is more important than serving the people or the Constitution?

How old are you? Everyone serves at the pleasure of their boss. How does that translate to illegal activity or disregard for the Constitution. Please cite ONE case where this translates to "breaking the law?"

Good lord, beam this blog site up Scotty.

opcorn:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

How old are you? Everyone serves at the pleasure of their boss. How does that translate to illegal activity or disregard for the Constitution. Please cite ONE case where this translates to "breaking the law?"

Good lord, beam this blog site up Scotty.

opcorn:

Please cite one case where I said either of those things. I'm talking about this:

NewslettersIServeatthePleasureoftheKing

They act like Bush is God. He's not.

Originally Posted by Blueneck

Where did this come from anyway? It sounds so medieval to me.


How Much Pleasure Should One President Have? | Corrente

I Googled "I serve at the pleasure of the President" - and got 1,850,000 results:
Rummy said it, Powell said it, Rove said it, Gonzalez said it - the list goes on......
What is going on with these idiots? They act like they are living in the dark ages or the Knights of the Round Table or something. We are in the 21st Century and we don't serve our masters anymore. We serve ideals, the Constitution, or we just work for others - but we don't serve them like some kinda fucking slaves. Where do they come up with this shit?:hissy:

So what do you propose? Make it impossible to fire attorneys? Soemone put this in rant and rave, because this thread is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

So what do you propose? Make it impossible to fire attorneys? Soemone put this in rant and rave, because this thread is ridiculous.

Firing for cause and firing because they won't be political hatchet men for the republican party are two different things. The DOJ must be independent and free from and above party concerns. The executive branch should be that way as well. The Hatch Act was passed to prevent such politicizing. If dems do take power, do you want them to be able to prosecute only repugs? This thread is not ridiculous, closing a blind eye to the problem will not make the problem go away.

The USAttorneys are appointed by the president, after receiving the approval of the senate, they work for the citizens of the USofA and not the president.