Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#31

Post by ouid »

hueving wrote: post #13
ivl wrote: post #2

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue. As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what? The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone wh…

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. This shouldn't be surprising nor worrying. This is how hierarchical leadership works and it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants. It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.

"Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch."

-http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#32

Post by rabboRubble »

ivl wrote: post #2

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue. As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what? The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone wh…

Comes as a surprise as she is the only person in the DOJ authorized to sign off on foreign security letters [0]

How nice that Trump right out of the gate has kneecapped his administration in terms of intelligence gathering! At least until a puppet replacement is approved by the Senate.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra...

[Edit: earlier in the day I read that the acting AG was the only Senate approved signatory. As somebody below me pointed out, that is no longer the current interpretation of who is able to sign these letters in the provided link. I'm keeping my post up as originally written because things moved so dang fast today.]

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#33

Post by woofyman »

bmh_ca wrote: post #16
ivl wrote: post #2

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue. As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what? The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone wh…

> If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. I kind of thought you must be joking, since revolving AGs were a hallmark of the Bush Jr era, to legalize torture, etc. But in case not, here is a decent place to start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_...

Those were US attorneys.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#35

Post by dragonwriter »

cookiecaper wrote: post #23
ivl wrote: post #2

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue. As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what? The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone wh…

I don't understand your point. Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws. As far as I know, Ms. Yates's job as acting AG is to preside over the enforcement of the law, not to decide whether it is constitutional (there is a process for that, and Ms. Yates is not in a position to make that determination) nor to decide whether it is good policy (as she is neither a legislator nor the chief execu…

> Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws.

An E.O. that conflicts with statute or the Constitution is not law, in fact, it a violation of the law.

> As far as I know, Ms. Yates's job as acting AG is to preside over the enforcement of the law, not to decide whether it is constitutional

Deciding whether the is a reasonable legal argument for an action before defending it and not defending it otherwise is absolutely her obligation, both as a officer of the court and a public officer with an oath to the Constitution.

> Would Democrats be pleased to see the same latitude offered to Senator Sessions once he's installed?

Democrats prime objection to Sessions involves recognizing that this job responsibility and being concerned that Sessions' past record indicates he would exercise it poorly, from their perspective.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#36

Post by mjmsmith »

nether wrote: post #30
minimaxir wrote: post #25

From Sam Altman on Twitter: ".@SallyQYates, @ycombinator and many others would be delighted to give you a job and resources to continue your work defending American law." https://twitter.com/sama/status/826262739202908160

Most likely response: who the fuck is Ycombinator, and why on earth would I want to work there?

She'd get to hang out with Peter Thiel.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#37

Post by dang »

AlexandrB wrote: post #34

The fact that this is flagged is ridiculous. The USA is undergoing historic turmoil - history is literally being made; meanwhile on Hacker News: here's some JS tips for your next webapp!

You can't judge this accurately by a single post. HN has had a significant uptick in political stories lately. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969 for more about this if you're interested.

Edit: looks like a moderator unflagged this one. That's how the system is designed to work: upvotes, flags, and moderation all play a role.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#39

Post by lemming »

kristiandupont wrote: post #17
yeukhon wrote: post #7

Have I ever had a strong disagreement with my boss? Always. Every day. But did my boss fire me? No. But should my boss considered to fire me? Probably. Normally you don't fire someone from your cabinet even if you are just an acting member. You make the person to resign. I don't know the full story, but this goes to show Trump is truly an unique president. He doesn't care what people think of him. He's running the Wh…

>He doesn't care what people think of him. I don't know about that..

Hell, I could probably get him to respond on Twitter by saying that the size of his inauguration crowd was in proportion to his tiny hands.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#40

Post by TenOhms »

ouid wrote: post #31
hueving wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. This shouldn't be surprising nor worrying. This is how hierarchical leadership works and it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants. It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.

"Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...

What I find worrying is she ordered that the DOJ not support the President without any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional, it smelled of an entirely politically motivated action not grounded in US law.
Post reply on HN