Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[esmith]

I see. So if your superior tells you, as a police officer, to beat a confession out of a suspect, you are not supposed to interpret the law?

If you think the order is illegal then you can refuse to obey the order and accept the consequences of ones actions. But you can not interpret the law, only follow the law to the best of your ability and standards. Given that, if your action violates a law then you are accountable for your actions.

 

[Underhill]

If you think the order is illegal then you can refuse to obey the order and accept the consequences of ones actions. But you can not interpret the law, only follow the law to the best of your ability and standards. Given that, if your action violates a law then you are accountable for your actions.

Exactly, and that is what the Attorney General did.

If she had done otherwise, it could leave her open to prosecution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The DOJ does not make laws or interpret laws they only enforce laws.

You can't enforce laws without interpreting them.

And every person in the government is obliged to follow the Constitution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you think the order is illegal then you can refuse to obey the order and accept the consequences of ones actions.

OTOH, if you think the order is illegal and you obey it anyway, you can suffer consequences as well.

... or even if you think it's legal, you obey it, and it's ruled illegal later.

 

[esmith]

Exactly, and that is what the Attorney General did.

and she accepted the consequences of her actions. no harm no foul

 

[Underhill]

and she accepted the consequences of her actions. no harm no foul

And we are commenting on it... Obviously I think she was right, you seem to disagree.

 

[esmith]

You can't enforce laws without interpreting them.

And every person in the government is obliged to follow the Constitution.

You must follow the law as written. If everyone, and this includes government employees, is open to their own interpretation of a law then you are coming very close to anarchy.

 

[esmith]

And we are commenting on it... Obviously I think she was right, you seem to disagree.

correct. everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

even if they are wrong

 

[Underhill]

You must follow the law as written. If everyone, and this includes government employees, is open to their own interpretation of a law then you are coming very close to anarchy.

Except this is not law. This is an order. There is a difference. An order is Trump interpreting or enforcing the law in his own way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You must follow the law as written.

... including the Constitution as written. And if a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.

If everyone, and this includes government employees, is open to their own interpretation of a law then you are coming very close to anarchy.

Any act of deriving meaning from a piece of text is interpretation. If you haven't interpreted the law, you have no law to enforce.

The process of deciding whether an act is permitted or not under the law is an act of interpretation.

 

[esmith]

Except this is not law. This is an order. There is a difference. An order is Trump interpreting or enforcing the law in his own way.

I stand corrected. President Trump issued a Executive Order. Now as it stands now it is a legal and binding order in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code

 

[esmith]

... including the Constitution as written. And if a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.


Any act of deriving meaning from a piece of text is interpretation. If you haven't interpreted the law, you have no law to enforce.

The process of deciding whether an act is permitted or not under the law is an act of interpretation.

We can discuss this issue ad nauseum. Therefore until the EO that has started this discussion is or is not brought before the courts I see no sense in continuing. The rest of you may, that's your prerogative.
However, the EO will expire before it would be totally adjudicated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can discuss this issue ad nauseum. Therefore until the EO that has started this discussion is or is not brought before the courts I see no sense in continuing.

Part of it has been. A federal judge issued an emergency order. CBP chose to disregard this court order. This might be the most disturbing aspect of this whole affair.

 

[Underhill]

I stand corrected. President Trump issued a Executive Order. Now as it stands now it is a legal and binding order in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code

So you say. Clearly she (along with at least one judge) disagrees.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see. So if your superior tells you, as a police officer, to beat a confession out of a suspect, you are not supposed to interpret the law?

I prefer a different mischievous analogy....
If you're ordered to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but you refuse.....you're fired!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I prefer a different mischievous analogy....
If you're ordered to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but you refuse.....you're fired!

The big differences, of course:

- a county clerk has a duty to issue marriage licenses
- an Attorney General has a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders from the President

 

[Revoltingest]

The big differences, of course:

- a county clerk has a duty to issue marriage licenses
- an Attorney General has a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders from the President

Of course there are differences.
I did say that it was a "mischievous" analogy....a response in kind.
Nonetheless, if the Prez believes an order is legal, & the insubordinate subordinate
should get the boot, no matter which party is in power. The courts will ultimately rule.

 

[YmirGF]

That is my point, though. The law is not at the pleasure of the president.

The law is what the president decides until the Supreme Court either accepts or rejects his/her/its decision.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You must follow the law as written. If everyone, and this includes government employees, is open to their own interpretation of a law then you are coming very close to anarchy.

However her Duty was to enforce the Law, not the Order.
As the senior law officer in the administration, It was her job to advise the president on the law and its interpretation.
He did not like what he was told, so he fired her.
That is why he is surrounding himself with Yes men.

 

[Revoltingest]

However her Duty was to enforce the Law, not the Order.
As the senior law officer in the administration, It was her job to advise the president on the law and its interpretation.
He did not like what he was told, so he fired her.
That is why he is surrounding himself with Yes men.

Trump has shown tolerance for minions who disagree with him.
Trump’s Cabinet nominees keep contradicting him
But for an AG to actually obstruct him on a major policy matter is different.
It made sense to fire her, even if she did have the high ground.