Hmm, this is interesting

Donald Trump has fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she ordered Justice Department lawyers to stop defending the president’s controversial immigration orders.

Ms Yates, who was appointed by Mr Obama, said she was “not convinced that the executive order is lawful”.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defence of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities.”

The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. So, obviously, this can be done.

An interesting question though, what actually is the full ole? Is there an element of having to tell the rest of the Cabinet “we can’t do this, it’s illegal” or isn’t there?
Ahh, elsewhere:

He goes on to ask: “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper…?”

Ms Yates replied: “I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president.”

Hmm….

15 comments on “Hmm, this is interesting

  1. The order was scrutinised for legality and signed off on before it was issued. This Yates woman was insubordinate, essentially refusing to obey a lawful order. If she’d been in the military she’d be looking at a court martial. As it is, she should lose her government employment entirely, not just her acting AG role.

  2. Trump appears to be flushing his opponents out by creating a controversial policy that will be relaxed in a day or so when his appointee is installed.

  3. Presidents fire people in TV dramas like ‘The West Wing’ and ‘Designated Survivor’ all the time, so the millennials should be used to the concept…

  4. I think Mr Ecks would be mildly pleased – it’s flushing out the fifth column. Although I think he also believes in taking away their pensions etc.

    She can give advice, but she should be doing what her boss tells her to do and if she finds she cannot in good conscience do so, she should resign. Instead, she appears to have decided on her own that she could overrule POTUS.

    It’s not a muslim ban – just on the face of it, it doesnt ban all muslims and nor does it ban just muslims, but nationals. It is temporary. Once one understands these two points, it does not fall afoul of the constitution and falls well within presidential executive order powers. Do elements of it contravene habeas or other protections? Possibly, but overall the order is probably legal and it’s certainly contestable in court as being legal. The former acting AG is guilty of massive overreach given this.

  5. What I find interesting is all these supposed legal challenges are likely to eat a big bag of fat ones before the courts, since the US constitution does not apply to nonimmigrant aliens not present in the US.

    And it’ll almost certainly be relaxed to “if you’ve got your visa already no probs, but no more visas until this is sorted”, so there’s no damage to anyone under the protection of the US.

    Plus, trying to apply the US constitution universally to any bugger who wants to come is horrible optics to Joe Schmoe.

  6. She can give advice, but she should be doing what her boss tells her to do and if she finds she cannot in good conscience do so, she should resign.

    This. It’s not her supporting the measure but raising the legal concerns, or even objecting to the measure. It is her instructing her subordinates not to obey her boss.

  7. If she is not on board ta ta. It is good that Trump is willing to fire those who try to sabotage.

    Also consider how the AG post was held by crooked scum like Eric “fast and furious” Holder. Shame Oscama wasn’t as keen to fire his crew.

  8. Am I alone in finding the BBC coverage of this utterly bizarre? You’d think he’d executed babies or something.

  9. Ken,

    executing babies will be next week, he will have Marie Stopes herself doing the deed live in Mexico City but she will have to pay for it herself.

  10. I suppose she believes that guilty defendants should not be represented in court because it would tarnish the public defender’s office solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.

  11. A partisan Obama appointee in a short-term job decides to put her personal politics ahead of professionalism. A smart move, if dishonorable, for her – she’ll get plenty of capital out of it and has ensured herself hero status with the mindlessly Islamophile far left.

  12. This is another example of the modern phenomenon of not being able to trust the expert. Once experts ciuld be hired and relied upon to be impartial, dispassionate and, except in declared circumstances, disinterested. As the EU referendum showed us, however, that just isn’t the case anymore. We are kow experiencing a drip-drip of organisations and bodies declaring their referendum advice, predictions, apocalyptic warnings to be “our Michael Fish” moment. And “whoops. Let’s move on an Dall be friends again”.

    Well I for one am enjoying this left Ard get hers. I have ‘friends’ I don’t like, who said stuff about leave voters I want to challenge. I do harbour a grudge and I do intend to raise it in the future.

  13. “Am I alone in finding the BBC coverage of this utterly bizarre? You’d think he’d executed babies or something.”

    I find the BBC’s “Trump Travel Ban” headline bizarre. It implies he’s grounded all ‘planes and told ships to stay in port. All he’s done is tell some people from some not very nice countries whose Governments hate the USA that their citizens aren’t welcome for the next 3 months.

  14. The order was scrutinised for legality and signed off on before it was issued.

    By whom? Apparently the OLC said “no comment” when asked if they signed it off

  15. The White House says they were. It’s moot, really. Yates didn’t say she wasn’t going to enforce the order because it was illegal, but because she disagreed with it. She doesn’t get to do that.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.