Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Of course, Attorney General is normally a position with a high degree of autonomy, not one that just involves following the orders of a boss. And firing an Attorney General, while legal, is so rare that it's practically unheard of.

This DOESN'T happen all the time. Even in business, this - firing a high-level executive for not following a questionable order - is pretty rare.

 

[Mister_T]

I'm not aware of any sitting President who doesn't hand pick their AG, Trump being no different. The current one was just guest hosting the seat until Sessions could be approved... Basically, she was out or out no matter what she was doing.

Not so much news...

Doesn't matter if she was just a "guest" or not. Her job is to uphold the Constitution and she did just that. If people go against him, Trump will keep booting people out their positions until he finds a yes man.

 

[4consideration]

I have read Sally Yates letter regarding the Executive Order a few times, and it brings to mind some questions for me. In it she says that she is not convinced the EO is lawful. She does not state anything specific about what she thinks might be unlawful.

I am inclined her position is more of a move to leave the position in the good graces of the Democrats, knowing she was already within hours, or days of being removed anyway.

Text is included here: Read The Full Text Of Sally Yates' Letter Opposing Donald Trump's Muslim Ban | The Huffington Post

For those of you that think there is something unlawful about the Executive Order issued, what specifically are you thinking is unlawful about Trump's EO?

 

[Akivah]

Indeed. The question here is how much of a moral and political right to use that power he has...

You are dodging the question. You said that a "technicality" doesn't make the actions of a boss firing an insubordinate employee moral. For the second time, what technicality are you talking about?

 

[Akivah]

Of course, Attorney General is normally a position with a high degree of autonomy, not one that just involves following the orders of a boss. And firing an Attorney General, while legal, is so rare that it's practically unheard of.

This DOESN'T happen all the time. Even in business, this - firing a high-level executive for not following a questionable order - is pretty rare.

I believe others have already found that EVERY President has fired the AG when they are different political parties. So that objection is overruled. What else you got?

As far as business, I'd say it is very common for a high-level executive to be fired when they go public disagreeing with their bosses decision. The normal procedure is for the subordinate to first discuss the policy with their boss. Then they can decide what to do next. Going public is sometimes done, like the Enron accountant did. But it always comes with a lot of grief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For those of you that think there is something unlawful about the Executive Order issued, what specifically are you thinking is unlawful about Trump's EO?

For one thing, it violates the United States' obligations under the Refugee Convention. AFAIK, this treaty is legally binding on the US.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

But the rub here is in the word "unconstitutional", without the court ruling one way or the other, as to the constitutionality of a given EO, the EO is in effect. Obama knew this, as a constitutional law professor, and was continually swatted down by the Supreme Court who did not go along with his reading of the law. In regards to the sacked AG, she may as well held a sign over her head reading, "FIRE ME, NOW!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe others have already found that EVERY President has fired the AG when they are different political parties. So that objection is overruled. What else you got?

Actually, AFAIK, it's normal protocol (though not a legal obligation) for the AG from the outgoing administration to give their letter of resignation to the incoming administration. Most of the time, the resignation is accepted.

Attorneys General get fired way less often than I think you're assuming.

 

[4consideration]

For one thing, it violates the United States' obligations under the Refugee Convention. AFAIK, this treaty is legally binding on the US.

What specific wording (or actions) in it violates that Convention? (I'm not really familiar with it, so I'll have to familiarize myself with it before I could discuss it.)

Have you looked at the press briefings, to hear what this administration is saying?

Do you think the US does, or does not, have the right to revise entry processes, and slow them down while implementing changes?

 

[4consideration]

The Senate Judiciary Committee just recessed, without the full vote on Attorney General. They will reconvene for the confirmation vote tomorrow.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have read Sally Yates letter regarding the Executive Order a few times, and it brings to mind some questions for me. In it she says that she is not convinced the EO is lawful. She does not state anything specific about what she thinks might be unlawful.

I am inclined her position is more of a move to leave the position in the good graces of the Democrats, knowing she was already within hours, or days of being removed anyway.

Text is included here: Read The Full Text Of Sally Yates' Letter Opposing Donald Trump's Muslim Ban | The Huffington Post

For those of you that think there is something unlawful about the Executive Order issued, what specifically are you thinking is unlawful about Trump's EO?

Keep in mind that Yates wanted to determine if it was legal before the DOJ backed it, because of the questionable legality. She was not fired for saying it was illegal; she was fired for telling the DOJ not to defend the EO until the legality of it could be confirmed. She was doing her job.


But, both sides of the argument in regards its legality has been all over the news. A quick Google search could fill you in.

CAIR and others argue that by implicitly singling out those of the Muslim faith, Mr Trump's order amounts to an establishment of a state religion, in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.").

They cite comments by Mr Trump on the campaign trail, and his political surrogates, along with the exemption that the immigration order provides for religious minorities as evidence of discriminatory intent - even though the order did not mention Muslims or Christians by name.

Although Mr Trump backed away from his pledge to ban US entry to all Muslims, writes the ACLU's David Cole, he "never gave up his focus on the religion of Islam. Friday's executive orders are of a piece with his many anti-Muslim campaign promises."

Mr Trump's challengers also argue the action violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of "due process of the law" by denying entry to individuals who have valid visas.

"The very concept of due process emerged from a desire to limit the king's ability to order unlawful arrests," writes Mark Joseph Stern in Slate. "It appears we are returning to the days when the head of state can detain purported threats without a whiff of evidence that they have broken a law."

The conservative counter-argument to these claims is straightforward. Foreign nationals on foreign soil have no grounds for claiming constitutional protections.

"Foreigners have no right under our Constitution to demand entry to the United States or to challenge any reason we might have to refuse them entry, even blatant religious discrimination," writes Dan McLaughlin in the National Review.

There are other points as well here is the link: Is Trump's immigration order legal? - BBC News

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yates is right, such a wide sweeping EO with such a great impact should require more legal review before being put into effect. Trump was impatient and reckless.

 

[4consideration]

Keep in mind that Yates wanted to determine it was legal before the DOJ backed it. She was not fired for saying it was illegal; she was fired for telling the DOJ not to defend the EO until the legality of it could be confirmed. She was doing her job.


But, both sides of the argument in regards its legality has been all over the news. A quick Google search could fill you in.








There are other points as well here is the link: Is Trump's immigration order legal? - BBC News

You didn't answer my question. I can find stuff to read on my own. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

It isn't so clear that Trump's order is illegal.
Opinions vary.

 

[Jainarayan]

she did just that

No, that has not been decided. Ann Donnelly is not the Supreme Court, nor is public opinion. Moreover, the Constitution or not, what she did was insubordination, countermanding her boss publicly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What specific wording (or actions) in it violates that Convention? (I'm not really familiar with it, so I'll have to familiarize myself with it before I could discuss it.)

Basically, the convention requires that if a refugee arrives at a port of entry to a country that signed the convention, that country is obliged to accept the refugee with only very narrow exceptions.

See Article 32 - Expulsion:

Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees

Have you looked at the press briefings, to hear what this administration is saying?

I've read news reports about them. I haven't read transcripts of briefings or anything like that.

Do you think the US does, or does not, have the right to revise entry processes, and slow them down while implementing changes?

Depends what you mean. The US can set its own immigration and visa policy (within the limits of the law), but it's obliged to uphold all treaty obligations, including during any change in its processes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Jeremiahcp - this bit from one of the stories is especially problematic:

The conservative counter-argument to these claims is straightforward. Foreign nationals on foreign soil have no grounds for claiming constitutional protections.

Many of the rights in the Constitution are phrased as restrictions on government, not as rights of the people, so in many cases, it's irrelevant whether an immigrant or visa-holder is part of "the people" or not.

 

[idav]

No, that has not been decided. Ann Donnelly is not the Supreme Court, nor is public opinion. Moreover, the Constitution or not, what she did was insubordination, countermanding her boss publicly.

Its called doing her job as the president is not above the law, though try as they may. Attorneys are obliged to go with the constitution above the will of a potential tyrant. Executive branches job is to make laws but can be easily over reached which is the whole reason for the Supreme Court to rule on when laws are unconstitutional. I don't have to tell you what a lawyer has to do with judges.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@4consideration - the ACLU has posted a blog post outlining why they believe the immigration ban violates the Establishment Clause:

We’ll See You in Court: Why Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It isn't so clear that Trump's order is illegal.
Opinions vary.

A responsible government makes sure that its policies are legal before implementing them.