twa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, tshile said: I think you and @Popeman38 are leaving out a key detail: Presumably the AG would have been part of drafting the order, and thus evaluated the constitutionality of it then, and (again, presumably) had the order altered so that it accomplished the desired goals of the administration while also being legal (in the eyes of the AG.) The WH has the office of legal counsel review them and AG input is not required. You do not refuse to do your job because of doubts or the system breaks down. We have a adversarial court system to resolve doubts and one half of it refusing its role circumvents justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Popeman38 said: Read the link I posted to a Harvard Law professor's opinion on her reasoning. He says what I am trying to say in much more eloquent terms (him being a lawyer and all). Right, that's fine. I think you're going to find lawyers that think all sorts of things on the EO itself, and Yate's actions. I don't think there is a clear cut 'right' answer here. I was simply pointing out that, in my opinion, this situation is not the usual situation. The AG and staff, along with every other agency, was apparently blindsided. As was the house and senate, apparently so much so congressional staffers were helping draft it without telling the reps they worked for. To me, to turn around an demand any of the agencies defend the EO after the way it was put together, and then declare that they must because it's their job, is quit a tall order and without being more familiar with the actual ramifications of the EO per each agency (you know, the stuff that's supposed to be at least discussed prior to issuing the EO) I can't really go any further on the right/wrong of it. I'm not going to defender her on playing political games, considering she was likely out. I'll simply defer to what Jumbo has posted about her record and what her reputation was among her colleagues leading up this. People's reputations have a tendency to suddenly change dramatically when something like this has happened and the battle lines are drawn along party lines... If her office approved the order and then refused to defend it citing moral reasons I'd be on your side of this. Given the way it was all handled, I have a hard time demanding she defend the order she had no say over (or ability to review) simply because she's the acting AG and "that's her job". To me her job is a little more nuanced than to simply defend everything the administration does. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 A bunch of people were still found guilty and hanged or shot because they were following executive orders. This was in the mid 1940s. following orders will not save you 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, twa said: You do not refuse to do your job because of doubts or the system breaks down. Sure you do. Or more specifically - you can. I've refused to do my job because of legal doubts, and promptly resigned. I'll do it again, if I must. Your job doesn't require you to break the law or to violate your ethics or morals. Especially when you take an oath, and especially when you're a lawyer (which is a real profession with ethical standards and licensing.) That's for you to evaluate, and for you to accept the consequences either way you decide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, twa said: Her job is to defend it unless it is illegal. If an AG resigned every time they disagreed with the legality of an EO/Law, we'd burn through a few each week. Every week would be a Saturday Night Massacre and the end result would be eventually an AG signs off on an illegal order. That's precisely why AGs aren't supposed to resign, they're supposed to advise the DOJ attorneys on it. If the view of the AG is that the EO/law is of seriously questionable legality, then they should say so, as Ms. Fields did. I also think the interpretation that she was playing politics is itself another political game. She's been in public service since 1989. She's been praised by members of both parties profusely and consistently through the years. To suggest she acted politically is a cop out; she's far too experienced to not be afforded a presumption that she isn't a political hack. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 57 minutes ago, twa said: It came off to me as her playing politics with her position......which we have too much of from both sides and has no place in the Justice dept. Resign and state why would have been the better course. Her job is to defend it unless it is illegal. really... ? that is not the way i remember you characterizing Holder's duties and responsibilities when he was AG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, mcsluggo said: really... ? that is not the way i remember you characterizing Holder's duties and responsibilities when he was AG. Holder refusing to defend marriage law was a excellent example of the system breaking down. If you wish to quote something I said please do so, otherwise it is a empty thought. Tshile is certainly correct you should not do anything you feel immoral or illegal, you do not have the right to your position while doing so though. Most certainly not just over doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said: If an AG resigned every time they disagreed with the legality of an EO/Law, we'd burn through a few each week. Every week would be a Saturday Night Massacre and the end result would be eventually an AG signs off on an illegal order. That's precisely why AGs aren't supposed to resign, they're supposed to advise the DOJ attorneys on it. If the view of the AG is that the EO/law is of seriously questionable legality, then they should say so, as Ms. Fields did. Saying you have doubts is best directed to those making law or EO's. Your discretion as a AG is limited in scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, tshile said: If her office approved the order and then refused to defend it citing moral reasons I'd be on your side of this. Given the way it was all handled, I have a hard time demanding she defend the order she had no say over (or ability to review) simply because she's the acting AG and "that's her job". To me her job is a little more nuanced than to simply defend everything the administration does. That to me is where you are wrong, the AG has no authority to determine or required to approve a EO. I'm open to someone showing me otherwise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) By the way, can we pause just for a moment to marvel at the dickish and un-Presidential tone of the press release regarding Ms. Yates? THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 30, 2017 The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country. Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons. “I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General. ### Edited January 31, 2017 by Dan T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Why would you marvel? Did he send her a copy of a press release as a courtesy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, twa said: Why would you marvel? Did he send her a copy of a press release as a courtesy? If nothing else... one could marvel at the poor quality of the writing. Just really awkward phrasing especially in the opening 'graphs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 At this rate, I think Trump's firing of acting agency chiefs might need a separate thread. While fascinating and some good points on both side, we might be veering a bit off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I will write the best termination notices...you won't believe how powerful my firing announcements will be... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Now let me preface this by saying, I'm glad she stood up for what she thought (and what I thought) was right. Now maybe this is the cynic in me, but I doubt she would done have the same if she was starting out in the position knowing her position was soon going to be replaced by a Trump appointee. This act by her, while I certainly applaud it, seems easier to do when she knows she only has a few days left on the job. Now I will say, she's got more spine than Rubio, but that wasn't hard to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 hours ago, twa said: You do not refuse to do your job because of doubts or the system breaks down. Does this apply to government officials that might have religious objections to carrying out their duties? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Hersh said: Does this apply to government officials that might have religious objections to carrying out their duties? Is there a religious exception? I believe there is, but the courts are somewhat divided. Has no bearing on Yates that I see and ESPECIALLY the direction to staff not to do their job......that would be imposing her religion right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I wish I could get upset at this whole immigration freeze, but I can't. I just feel like the US can't be an asylum for everyone. *shrug* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 40 minutes ago, abdcskins said: I wish I could get upset at this whole immigration freeze, but I can't. I just feel like the US can't be an asylum for everyone. *shrug* We aren't an asylum for everyone as the rest of the world has taken on far more refugees than the US and this is significantly more than an immigration freeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 42 minutes ago, abdcskins said: I wish I could get upset at this whole immigration freeze, but I can't. I just feel like the US can't be an asylum for everyone. *shrug* Lady Liberty may disagree with you. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” How long before Trump takes some white out and replaces that inscription? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 This sums up two Americas pretty well: Quote At the end of four years, if [Trump] pulls off everything that he says he's going to be able to do and accomplish everything, he'll be the second greatest person to ever walk the earth," said Karen Lighter as she walked through the church's fellowship hall. Dan Miller, a member of 62 years, said the U.S. should ensure refugees and immigrants enter in a "godly manner." "We're a Christian nation, so if you want to be a resident — if you want to be a refugee coming into a nation and be a resident, be a resident — but in a godly manner," Miller said.... And back at Joker's Bar and Grill during the Sunday lunch hour, Ronald Curry Jr., a patron, questioned the court's authority over the president's executive order. A federal judge issued an emergency stay on Saturday night that prevented federal authorities from deporting immigrants already at U.S. airports. "How are you going to rule the president?" Curry Jr. asked. "He's doing — it's what he's supposed to do for this country. He wants this country to be a better place. But now people are not backing him up and are denying what he's doing." Across the bar, Amber Rowland, who helps run the place, insisted that she agrees with the ban on refugees and suspension of immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. "You want to help people out to get away from their countries and things like that," Rowland noted. "But it's making it harder for us to have a life. These people who are coming in are getting free handouts and everything else like that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, abdcskins said: I wish I could get upset at this whole immigration freeze, but I can't. I just feel like the US can't be an asylum for everyone. *shrug* There is much more to this than a temporary immigration freeze. (1) It impacts Legal Permanent Residents who have been through multi-year processes including background checks..Families who have lived here for many years are being separated ... for how long no-one knows. (2) It also impacts most severely those who have put their lives on the line aiding our military in combat, only to be sent back with no path for immigration. From one of the links a few pages back: "Gen. Talib al Kenani commands the elite American-trained counter terrorist forces that have been leading the fight against ISIS for two years. “I’m a four star general, and I’m banned from entering the U.S.?” he said.His family was relocated to the U.S. for their safety, and he’d had plans to see them next week, until he was told not to bother. “I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning,” he said. “Now my kids are now asking if I’m a terrorist?” Note that if his family left the US they would not be readmitted under the current EO. (3) It's seen as the best thing to help extremist recruitment since the Iraq invasion. Are you still not upset about it? Edited January 31, 2017 by Corcaigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now