Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[4consideration]

Trump's nomination for the post of Attorney General was officially made on January 10, 2017. There has been a delay in the confirmation hearings for permanently filling the position.

Subsequent to the firing of the Acting Attorney General, the Senate Judiciary Committee is finally moving forward with confirmation hearings. They are voting on it at this time.

I think the firing was a good move to pressure the Senate Judiciary Committee to actually move forward with the confirmation hearings, and seems to be more of a political leverage move than anything else.

I can't find a single US president that did not replace the Attorney General from the prior administration, when that prior administration was of an opposing political party. It's simply the matter of a short period of time before it happens.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

You will find that it is not toleration, at best he puts them out of his mind. At some point he will retaliate against anyone who contradicts him.

 

[Mindmaster]

To fire the AG doesn't violate the separation of powers.
Ever since the position of the country's top lawyer was created, the AG serves at the pleasure of the Prez.
It is his right under the law to fire her.
Ref....
United States Attorney General - Wikipedia

It makes sense to question the wisdom & legality of Trump's actions,
but criticism should be grounded in reality.....this is not dictatorial.

Go ahead and look up the last, I dunno, 20 AG's and you will see a pattern. As soon as a new party has control of the executive branch, "You're fired."

Various folks have been stalling Session's appointment or it'd be a non-issue, hence my comment that this is more fake news. It is in fact much more unusual that a President would even let her sit for a week+ past his inauguration, but I think initially he was willing to give her a chance. That's more than any President in the last 100 years has done.

 

[Mindmaster]

Trump should have used his Force Lightning on her.

It's more like self-immolation at this point, there is simply no way in four years the Dems are going to even bring any challenge to the incumbent President at this rate. Strangely enough, I don't think that's a good thing because knowing there is a suitable runner up tends to keep you working hard. Trump is working hard without this, and really it's just a credit to his own character.

 

[Mindmaster]

You will find that it is not toleration, at best he puts them out of his mind. At some point he will retaliate against anyone who contradicts him.

You mean like Obama and nearly anyone else sitting in that chair do? Look, if I was a government employee the last thing I'd be doing is insulting the money train... Their jobs aren't to whine about their stupid opinions on issues, they are to serve the President and fulfil the wishes of the executive branch. By talking against the sitting President, Sally Yates stopped doing her job. It's really that simple.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You mean like Obama and nearly anyone else sitting in that chair do? Look, if I was a government employee the last thing I'd be doing is insulting the money train... Their jobs aren't to whine about their stupid opinions on issues, they are to serve the President and fulfil the wishes of the executive branch. By talking against the sitting President, Sally Yates stopped doing her job. It's really that simple.

She was a principal officer of that executive branch.... One down from the president.
It is no defence in law to say " My boss ordered me to do it"

 

[Mindmaster]

She was a principal officer of that executive branch.... One down from the president.
It is no defence in law to say " My boss ordered me to do it"

Would you say that everyone in the executive branch has a duty to the President in some capacity? See, I think they do.

The AG isn't about interpreting the law, but enforcing it. That means she's not a supreme court justice and needs to shut her damn trap.

 

[Curious George]

First, as in this case, the Presidents EO has to be adjudicated as illegal. The DOJ does not make laws or interpret laws they only enforce laws. Therefore as it stands now the EO is legal. It seems that many do not understand this.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which
I am about to enter.

Seems individuals are required to interpret the Constitution. The president asked her to compromise herself. Whether she was wrong can be up for discussion, but if she felt she was being asked to work against the Constitution, she did the right thing.

 

[Curious George]

.

The AG isn't about interpreting the law, but enforcing it. That means she's not a supreme court justice and needs to shut her damn trap.

She took an Oath, you are asking her to be a sheep. This seems internally inconsistent with your previous posts.

 

[Jainarayan]

An order is Trump interpreting or enforcing the law in his own way.

Which an Executive Order is, granted by Article II of the Constitution. The legality of the Order is to be judged by the Supreme Court if and when it's brought before them Judge Ann Donnelly may or may not have been correct in issuing the stay, but that is also for a higher court to decide.

 

[Jainarayan]

it is a legal and binding order in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code

Correct, something that seems to be lost on so many who think they know the Constitution.

 

[Jainarayan]

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

And she can be overturned by a higher court who disagrees with her.

 

[Mindmaster]

She took an Oath, you are asking her to be a sheep. This seems internally inconsistent with your previous posts.

Not the case, I think if she had a problem with the Presidents views she should have simply vacated the post and refused the role... possibly speaking out at that time... That would be a level of protest that I think would be normal, but instead what she did is accept the appointment and stopped doing her job. There is a time for everything, but she couldn't put HER partisan views on the backburner to do the job of attorney general and shut her pie hole. It's totally her fault, and she is totally deserving to be fired -- in fact, Trump would look like he's not doing his job to let her remain in place.

The AG role isn't a political platform position, she screwed up because she can't keep her leftist propaganda out of her work. She deserves not only to be fired, but to never work in law again if you ask me.

 

[Jainarayan]

an Attorney General has a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders from the President

It hasn't been proven illegal yet.

 

[Jainarayan]

It was her job to advise the president

Advise privately, not countermand or openly disobey.

 

[4consideration]

Homeland Security Secretary, et al briefs on the recent Executive Order, and implementation of it -- just aired, for any that are interested: Homeland Security Secretary Kelly Briefs | Video | C-SPAN.org

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It hasn't been proven illegal yet.

The bar keeps lowering: from "it's moral" to "it's legal" and now from "it's legal" to "it hasn't been proven illegal yet."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Would you say that everyone in the executive branch has a duty to the President in some capacity? See, I think they do.

The AG isn't about interpreting the law, but enforcing it. That means she's not a supreme court justice and needs to shut her damn trap.

She was there to advise the President and other members of the executive branch and legal matters and ramifications and enforce the law. . Her staff were there to follow her Instructions on how to do that. The AG acts within the higher integrity of the law, which can put them in conflict with the president, as in this case.

The Executive has no contact with the supreme court... they often find them selves on opposite sides, and when the do the Court wins.

 

[Curious George]

Not the case, I think if she had a problem with the Presidents views she should have simply vacated the post and refused the role... possibly speaking out at that time... That would be a level of protest that I think would be normal, but instead what she did is accept the appointment and stopped doing her job. There is a time for everything, but she couldn't put HER partisan views on the backburner to do the job of attorney general and shut her pie hole. It's totally her fault, and she is totally deserving to be fired -- in fact, Trump would look like he's not doing his job to let her remain in place.

The AG role isn't a political platform position, she screwed up because she can't keep her leftist propaganda out of her work. She deserves not only to be fired, but to never work in law again, if you ask me.

While I agree she deserved to be fired, I respect her choice to disagree. Could she have done this in a classier way? Perhaps. But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether she needs to shut her "trap" or "pie hole" and whether an individual should interpret the Constitution in order to fulfill their Oath. She acted as an individual and took a stand. Right or wrong, she took a stand. Was it more dramatic than necessary? I suppose. But that was her choice as well.

 

[Akivah]

I take it that you are not aware of the principle of Separation of Powers?

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

The POTUS is commander in chief of the armed forces, but not of the judiciary.

I take it that you didn't read your own link. The separation of powers applies to the Supreme Court and other judiciaries. The attorney general is a member of the President's cabinet, serving as the chief lawyer. Not a justice of the court.