« "If They Won't Indict Democrats, Fire Their Asses and Get Me People Who Will" | Main | "And How Was The Weather In Łodź?" »
March 14, 2007
The Firings of U.S. Attorneys: A View From A Distance
My guess, though, is that the usual cast of characters is out defending the administration, and that the defense springs from the claim that because U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, and because disloyalty is a valid ground for dismissal, there's nothing to criticize.
But here's the funny thing about that defense: it proves its opposite. The fact that these appointments are political is precisely why the dismissals are fair game for public condemnation. If U.S. Attorneys could only be fired "for cause," there'd be a numbing and legalistic debate over whether, in individual cases, the President had "cause." Instead, it's all just politics -- and so the debate can and should be broader. These firings may reveal the extent to which loyalty is a preeminent Bush Administration value -- at the Justice Department as everywhere else.
Fine.
But it needn't be that way. Janet Reno, for all of her flaws and complexities, was decidedly not a fall-on-your-sword loyalist, but Clinton kept her on as Attorney General.
Maybe what's emerging from this debate -- I could say with more certainty if I were actually in a position to follow it -- is that people are recoiling a bit from the notion that the Department of Justice ought to be an institution where party loyalty is the lodestar value. Would that be such a terrible thing?
Posted by Eric at March 14, 2007 2:04 AM
Comments
Seems like the real issue (for lawyers at least) ought to be this: When a United States Attorney discovers a corrupt congressman, she has a sworn duty to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States and therefore must vigorously prosecute the congressman (unless she thinks the case is too weak). Carol Lam was fired (apparently) for upholding her oath of office as a United States Attorney.
As a general principle, at-will employees can be fired for any reason or no reason, but the exception to that rule is that they cannot be fired for an illegal reason. Illegal reasons include race, gender etc., but also (depending on the jurisdiction) retaliation for whistle-blowing, refusal to break federal safety rules on the employer's behalf, and no doubt some others. I don't know that there is any precedent, but it seems to me that an employee refusing to violate her oath of office should be an illegal basis for firing an at-will employee.
That said, I doubt Carol Lam would like to be reinstated.
Posted by: Mark Chilton at March 15, 2007 5:40 AM
Reno's own statement for asking for the resignation of all 93 US Attorneys in 1993 was that it was at the request of the president. That would be at least one instance of falling on her sword for him.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at March 20, 2007 8:22 PM