Washington D.C. is in a fuss over the replacement of eight United States Attorneys after President Bush’s reelection in 2004. One of the main talking points of the Bush administration’s minions is that no matter what the reason for these eight attorneys’ demanded resignation, all of the 93 U.S. Attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the President.” Is that explanation enough?
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.
Pleasure. The word sounds so benign – like margaritas with little umbrellas sipped on a white beach near the equator. But the definitions of the word “pleasure” are telling, even damning in this context.
The first definition of “pleasure” is “desire, inclination.” If those eight U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and were asked to resign, then what prompted President Bush to desire such a change or to be so inclined?
Absent some kind of civil rights violation, the President can fire any appointee for any reason. He could complain that they aren’t blonde, they smoke, or they like Cocoa-Puffs – not Count Chocula. Of course, such reasons would be whims – child-like. It would be reminiscent of a pre-adolescent stomping around the room proclaiming, “I’m the boss of me!” Translated: “I’m the Decider.”
Obviously the reason for the replacement of the eight U.S. Attorneys was not that capricious. In fact, it is more likely that such decisions were highly calculated. The administration claims there is no evidence of impropriety in the replacement of the U.S. Attorneys. In the same breath they refuse full and open testimony on the matter by White House officials.
It’s difficult to discern whether there is evidence of impropriety if no evidence is presented at all. There are only the flat statements that the U.S. Attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the President.”
