Mike the Usurper wrote:

What was seen here was unprecedented. These are W's appointments, fired for what look to be purely political reasons. To find something comparable, check the histories of Tammany Hall, or maybe Boston or Chicago in the bad old days. The only other similar modern circumstance that comes to mind is Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre.

(Again, still with no political axe to grind, I want to see Gonzales out as well...)

So it raises no eyebrows if an incoming President clears house, but it's cause for concern if they change up the mix during their term? It can be argued that the traditional reset is done for political purposes. I'm failing to see wrongdoing in this particular instance.

If it's the general practice of a President being able to hire and fire attorneys "at his pleasure" that we want to change, we should change it. If we want "a government of laws not of men" (paraphrasing Cox) why do we allow one individual so much reign over attorney selection?

This problem goes back decades. See Truman's firing of US attorney Maurice Milligan US AG Francis Biddle. I think it's safe to say that was for purely political reasons. Any reasonable person would have to say that was an abuse of power. Not to say that's an excuse for today's conduct, but to illustrate that there is precedent in a bi-partisan manner of this abuse.

If there is a law that prohibits this conduct though, I'm in error about my judgement and this is another nail in the coffin, I'm just unaware of such law.

RE: Alberto R. Gonzales - Nothing Improper - washingtonpost.com