Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

wow, really nothing else here? lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?

I cleaned up the introduction to make it sound less like a high school yearbook article. --User:RWest 12:21 26 July 2007

Just a friendly warning: Any more attempts at racial smears/slanders will result in blocking. DanH 18:47, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

It makes no sense at all to call a person "intellectually rigorous". Well, it makes some sense, but it's certainly not within the usual usage of the phrase.

Also, there are plenty of scandals more serious than the firing of the attorneys in which Gonzalez has been involved. Some mention of the NSA domestic surveillance scandal and allegations of perjury would be nice.

As for the attorney incident, though I'm sure there are people who think the actions taken were illegal, the event can be scandalous without being illegal. It is reasonable to object to the overpoliticization of government offices, and to deny that purely political firings are bad. It is, however, pretty childish to complain about the "liberal media", as if the desire of the public for its administrators not to fire public officials without explanation was totally manufactured by some monolithic liberal media monopoly.



Is it really objective to use the phrase "...the liberally-biased media..."? -- User:Fez

I don't believe this site's purpose is to be 'objective' where it compromises the truth of the matter. On another note, can we update this page with the end of his term and create a page for the new AG, Mukasey? EddieBurke 00:04, 13 December 2007 (EST)

serving at the pleasure of the president

It is true that U.S. Atty's serve "at the pleasure of the president", and can therefore be fired for no reason, or for reasons for which other employees could not be fired. However, there are many reasons for which it would be illegal for the president to fire a US Atty. For example, if he did so in order to obstruct an investigation or prosecution, it would arguably be illegal; if a USAT was fired for refusing to take a religious oath, it would clearly violate the Establishment Clause and Article VI of the Constitution. if a USAT was fired for a criminal purpose (for example, to further a criminal conspiracy, etc.) this too would likely be illegal. I'm not saying this is what occurred in the USAT, but it the article is incorrect where it states that USAT's can be fired "for any reason."

UPDATE: I removed the portion that said that USAT can be fired "for any reason". Also removed the sentence "Even if an attorney was fired for being a Democrat..." To my knowledge, none of the fired USAT's was a Democrat, and none claim to have been fired for being one. - DaveSB

Personal tools