Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[Terrywoodenpic]

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."

To "we know we don't have a case, but it will take a few months to clear the courts"

 

[Akivah]

I stand corrected.

Although frankly, that only means that he is not quite technically breaching the law.

Since when is firing your own employees for not carrying out the duties that you want them to do, a breach of the law?

 

[Jainarayan]

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."

I never said it's 'moral" (or "immoral" for that matter), so show me where I did. I've never made a judgement on it one way or the other. I said issuing the EO is legal, which it is. The EO itself may also be legal, or not. I think it is legal, given US Code 1182 and that it has precedent based on US Code 1182 (Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants) that stood. That is to be determined by the courts, if it even gets there. It hasn't been proven illegal, and may not be.

 

[LuisDantas]

Since when is firing your own employees for not carrying out the duties that you want them to do, a breach of the law?

The point is that a technicality does not make the action moral, nor safe for the American institutions.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

Nor do we know what she had advised the President before and after the signing. Knowing Trump He left her no choice of what to do.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nor do we know what she had advised the President before and after the signing. Knowing Trump He left her no choice of what to do.

What she advised is actually irrelevant. She did have choices:

1. Comply and enforce the EO.
2. Disobey and be fired.
3. Quit the job.

I really don't see the complexity there.

 

[Skwim]

Trump: "I don't want your informed opinion. I want your 'yes sir.' "


.

 

[Mindmaster]

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.

Well, I don't take that to mean that someone should be silenced or anything. I'm 100% pro-free speech, it's just that you should always be responsible for the timing of your words. She could have just said what she said, refused the appointment, and moved on. Trump's policies are no secret at all, and never were. I think the message still would have got out if she refused the appointment initially, that'd have been big news for a day, right?

As far as interpreting the constitution, that's exactly the reason SCOTUS exists. She could have brought her issues to them after she rejected the appointment, but no, she didn't do that. I find it unprofessional anyway... She should air her grievances with Trump directly and not take them public... I would view it unprofessional REGARDLESS of your line of work.

 

[Mindmaster]

Trump: "I don't want your informed opinion. I want your 'yes sir.' "
.

Just like any other boss on the planet, lol.

Please tell me a job that will let you rant about politics or put heat on the boss and still keep your employment.

 

[Akivah]

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"

Ethical dilemmas have been faced by everyone at one time or another. It is up to us as individuals to decide if we want to follow a superior's order or not. Then it is the superior officer's decision what to do about your disagreement. This is perfectly normal behavior that happens all the time, nothing extraordinary here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well, I don't take that to mean that someone should be silenced or anything. I'm 100% pro-free speech, it's just that you should always be responsible for the timing of your words. She could have just said what she said, refused the appointment, and moved on. Trump's policies are no secret at all, and never were. I think the message still would have got out if she refused the appointment initially, that'd have been big news for a day, right?

As far as interpreting the constitution, that's exactly the reason SCOTUS exists. She could have brought her issues to them after she rejected the appointment, but no, she didn't do that. I find it unprofessional anyway... She should air her grievances with Trump directly and not take them public... I would view it unprofessional REGARDLESS of your line of work.

Would it even be possible for her not to discuss these things with Trump. I am sure she did. or at least tried.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said it's 'moral" (or "immoral" for that matter), so show me where I did.

I wasn't quoting you; I was going through the normal progression of how people try to justify their positions.

 

[Akivah]

The point is that a technicality does not make the action moral, nor safe for the American institutions.

What technicality are you talking about? Her boss asked her to do something, she refused, he took action against her insubordination. This happens in business all the time. People make their own ethical decisions and take responsibility for the consequences.

 

[Akivah]

Would it even be possible for her not to discuss these things with Trump. I am sure she did. or at least tried.

You're sure? What evidence do you have?

 

[columbus]

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.

I don't see this as at all complex.
She was on her way out. Her short remaining tenure would be unpleasant and fraught with ethical compromise. She'd be left with a bunch of orange smears all over her curriculum vitae.

So instead of cravenly capitulating to the most unpopular president in living memory she took the high road. Now she can leave as a high profile "Speaks Truth to Power" candidate for any other position she chooses to pursue.
I see her as a total winner here, regardless of what I think of the policy disagreements.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

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

Sure, except that the order in no way violated the law.

 

[LuisDantas]

What technicality are you talking about? Her boss asked her to do something, she refused, he took action against her insubordination. This happens in business all the time. People make their own ethical decisions and take responsibility for the consequences.

Indeed. The question here is how much of a moral and political right to use that power he has, or should have, given the price paid by the democratic institutions.

 

[Underhill]

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

Sorry but that just isn't true. I don't know any cases of a court throwing the book at a SG for following orders that were unconstitutional, but it's certainly happened in the military.

 

[Underhill]

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

Sure, it could happen. But until it does, her judgement is law.

 

[Mindmaster]

Would it even be possible for her not to discuss these things with Trump. I am sure she did. or at least tried.

I doubt it, actually. Trump isn't sneaky, he'll just say exactly what is on his mind. If he's talked to her about it, he'd have made a comment. You'd think that would be the case, but I highly doubt it due to her immediate firing.