Submitted by Kathleen Grasso Andersen, Sep 17, 2007 08:48

My big question about any nominees for the Office of the Attorney General is" Are they now or have they ever been Dubya's personal attorney". I consider it a blow to the Constitution and the Separation of Powers between the three branches of gov't, to allow a sitting President to appoint any of his personal attorneys to any office invloving the law, Attorney General, White House Counsel, or Supreme Court because it presents an insurmountable conflict of interest.

All attorneys have a continuing dutyt to protect the legal rights of their clients, present, former and even dead ones. It is clear from Harriet Miers' and Alberto Gonzales' actions that they were representing Dubya, not We, the People.

My advice to Democrats, while they still have a majority, is to introduce legislation prohibiting any President from appointing a personal attorney to any position involving the law. It's the only way to protect Congress' oversight duties from willfull interferance by a power hungry, unethical executive.

Unfortunately, I doubt that Democrats are even tuned into this problem, judging from their failure to raise this issue during Mier's' unsuccessful confirmation for the Supreme Court. and it never occured to them to object to Gonzales' nomination for AG, on those grounds.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.