Should people who were appointed by impeached politicians be fired

@mommaj (23112)
United States
May 9, 2009 7:00am CST
There have been so many politicians that were corrupt should the people that they appointed or hired to their jobs be fired as well? The old saying was birds of a feather flock together. Is that the same approach we should like at political offices as? I think if a politician is corrupt and is making any decisions shouldn't all his decisions be overturned not just who he put in office?
2 people like this
9 responses
Netsbridge
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
9 May 09
Can you name any of them in Washington DC that is not corrupt and/or did not get in by affiliating with crooks? As per firing an official selected by an impeached official, I think the idea is unlawful if the appointment occurred while the impeached official was acting in accordance with law - meaning, while impeached official could still act as provided by law.
1 person likes this
Netsbridge
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
13 May 09
A person may be scrutinized for whatever; but until the person is proven guilty, he/she can still perform as required by law for his/her duties.
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
9 May 09
LOL. There is still a time that after you did something wrong you are innocent until you get the verdict from the court. In that time period? The person should still be scrutinized, shouldn't they?
Adoniah
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
9 May 09
I think that anyone appointed or hired by an impeached politician should be carefully looked at, but they should not just be fired out of hand. Their records should be checked but just because their boss is a crook doesn't mean they have to be a crook. A lot of times a Crook will hire perfect innocents to make them look innocent too. Shalom~Adoniah
1 person likes this
Adoniah
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
10 May 09
It is what I would do if I were a crook!lol
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
9 May 09
That's a really good point. You want to look good hire someone squeaky clean. Excellent thought.
iskayz
@iskayz (5420)
• Philippines
10 May 09
Hi there! In my country, appointed positions are co-terminus with the elected officials who appointed them. So if it happens that the elected official is corrupt, if he gets fired then so will his appointed officials. Even if the elected official is not fired, once his term is finished so will his appointments. This procedure is written in our law but sadly, law in my country has not served it's full authority. Corrupt officials are still in position and no matter how many complains are filed, they still get away with it. This is the real world I guess. Corruption is all over the world and money has really influenced people in the government. Ciao!
iskayz
@iskayz (5420)
• Philippines
11 May 09
Yes.. It's really sad but what's even worst is that these corrupt officials are shameless.
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
10 May 09
That's the sad truth of it, money has influenced people, and usually not for the better.
1 person likes this
thegreatdebater
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
9 May 09
This is a great question, if you invest money in a ponzi scheme, your profits can be taken away from you because you invested in an illegal investment. So why couldn't you lose your job because you were hired by a corrupt politican. It sure makes sense to me.
spalladino
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
9 May 09
What if you unknowingly invested in a ponzi scheme? I heard on the news yesterday that many of the people who lost everything in Madeoff's rip off will be put at the head of the list to get at least some of their money back because they were innocent victims. Along this same line, why would someone automatically be guilty of anything simply because they were hired by a corrupt politician?
1 person likes this
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
9 May 09
Why would a corrupt politician hire an innocent unless he thought that the hired could be swayed to do as he wished. Would that be someone that is qualified for the job?
1 person likes this
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
9 May 09
As far as the investment goes, Investments are risks. Whether or not it is a scheme you have to face the fact that you may lose your money. Since these people didn't know it was illegal what were they told? They would have to get their money back based on what their expectations were. Look at all the people who invest in stocks. Should they be allowed to get their money back because they thought they were going to make a profit? I know the law doesn't work that way. Because it was an illegal operation, those who didn't knowingly participate will get their money back. I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy when we are talking about investments that you could lose your money in anyway.
panmin
@panmin (90)
• China
10 May 09
Word has it that there are so many politicians that are corruption. it is almost the under rule that people who work for them know exactly that is illegal but still help working on it,just because they need to make a living! that is the reality. so if a politician is corrupt and of course the people that they appionted or hired to their jobs be fired as well. they know what kind of jobs they are, to be or not to be,that is the choice. but it can judged by law whether they are innocent or not...
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
10 May 09
So true... It is up to the law to decide on innocence or guilt.
huihojustin
@huihojustin (604)
• United States
10 May 09
I don't believe so, because they haven't done anything bad like their appointers. But I also stumble on your question, if a politician is corrupt, then should his decisions be corrupt, I was thinking maybe yes for some people and no for some people. The politician who appointed their people, could have been drunk that time, or has a bad habit, like Sam Houston got kicked, because he didn't accept the oath of Allegiance to the South, during the Civil War, and Sam Houston, was the man who defeated a large nation with a few men. So, back on topic, it depends on that politician.
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
10 May 09
I see your point. I guess it really depends on what the hired person's situation is. Did that person help the politician or did they just "do their job" without breaking the law or helping the politician to break the law.
RK Finnell
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
9 May 09
Interesting question. The chances of them hiring those who share their philosophy are pretty high, so yes I believe they should be fired. I do think they should also have the right to argue their position.
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
9 May 09
I guess if they are going to be fired they have the right to argue their position although they should still be fired. I would definitely have to say their appointment becomes null and void when the person that hires them steps down because of wrong doing. We shouldn't let them keep their position whether the politician steps down for wrong doing or whether he is impeached.
coolcoder
@coolcoder (2018)
• United States
9 May 09
I don't think that those who were hired and work for a corrupt politician should be fired. Whatever the impeached politician did, that's on him or her, not on those hired by him/her. Maybe the hired worker might straighten up if he or she saw their boss impeached or fired. Who knows?
mommaj
@mommaj (23112)
• United States
9 May 09
Your answer of the worker "straightening up" implies that they might not be the right choice for the job. Should the person have a second chance to do what they were supposed to do to begin with?
seanmaders
@seanmaders (102)
•
9 May 09
I think so, definately. There is noe romm for error on matters of corruption - it is vital that over time we weed out corruption from our societies. These people have been appointed illegally because the judgement of the appointer is null and void. They have no one to blame but themselves, you know when someone is a two-faced piece of trash, you can usually pick up on it within 5 minutes!! Down with corruption!!!