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

61–70 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

jskell wrote: post #20

Shocking, and also politically/tactically very stupid. Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed? Which confirmation was all but assured; but now... I thought his campaign was brilliant, tactically; but this is amateur hour.

> Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed?

Because Sessions was already a shoe-in with the Republican Senate, but there are Republicans in the Senate opposed to the immigration order, and they've specifically, among other issues, cited the failure to legally vet the order. Making Sessions confirmation about Yates opposition to the order wouldn't make it smoother.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#62

Post by Spooky23 »

hprotagonist wrote: post #28
Spooky23 wrote: post #12

I despise Trump, but I don't think it's it's acceptable for a civil servant to insert themselves into the news. If you're getting an unlawful or unethical order, you follow the process, suck it up or resign in protest. By going rogue and making yourself the story, you're attacking the office of the president. It's a bad idea, bad precedent and will have bad outcomes.

Bollocks. Presidents are not above the law; most of them don't need to have their nose rubbed in the carpet in order to learn that. It is eminently clear that the muslim ban executive order was drafted, written, and released without any of the normal communication, forewarning, or legal reviews. The AG is 100% within their duties to the nation and the constitution to say that they will not enforce something of that n…

It's not your place as an appointed official in government to grandstand and get your picture in the news. You are not an elected official, you're there to represent the government. Unfortunately, the conversion of politics to reality tv has affected everyone.

You resign. That's ultimately a greater statement anyway.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#63

Post by billjings »

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.

Would you write an app that stores important passwords in plaintext client side if your boss demanded it?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#64

Post by probably_wrong »

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!

HN has an international audience. Most of us are not allowed to post about our own countries' political turmoil, so we flag other countries' politics in return.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#65

Post by bonyt »

For the curious, the line of succession for AG after deputy goes:

1. U.S. Atty for E. D. Virgina (Now the current acting AG)

2. U.S. Atty for D. Minnesota

3. U.S. Atty for D. Arizona

Interestingly, this is set by executive order so it may be changeable - though limited to those eligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, I think. (And I guess we can argue all day over the constitutionality of that under the appointments clause)

Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/1...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#66

Post by cookiecaper »

danhak wrote: post #45

“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’" -Peter…

* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump just took it a step further and temporarily halted immigration from these nations while his administration reviews the policies to ensure they're sufficient.

* Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Neither are dual citizens.

* It is true that non-diplomatic visas have been temporary suspended (not canceled), but this applies at border crossings only; persons currently in the country on those visas do not have to leave.

* There has been 18 months of warning in the form of the Presidential campaign. Trump promised something like this up and down. He was taken seriously, not literally, and he seriously implemented a 90-day stay on the travel of foreign nationals from areas with high terrorist activity, using the exact list that President Obama signed into law. He did not literally implement a ban on Muslims, or indeed, any other religious group, despite the literal meaning of his prior comments that did explicitly mention Muslims. Likewise, his statements about "the wall" seem to be flexible to the point of something more like multiple layers of well-patrolled fencing.

To me, "seriously but not literally" appears to be holding up really well. Trump is not betraying the intent of the voters who elected him, but he is also consulting with his advisors and legal experts and implementing things that accomplish the intention within the constraints of practicality and legality.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#67

Post by zardeh »

TenOhms wrote: post #40
ouid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

That's interesting. I totally see this as a valid argument (and I don't disagree that this might be politically motivated on the judge's part). However, it seems to me that

>any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional

is the wrong way of going about it. I would think you'd want to be pretty darn sure that the actions you were carrying out were constitutional before doing them. That is, I'd much rather people not enforce a law that might be unconstitutional, but isn't, than enforce a law that is unconstitutional. Err on the side of caution.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#68

Post by [deleted] »

whyileft wrote: post #42
rphlx wrote: post #38

Anyone in the private sector would be fired under similar conditions, except probably without an article in the NY times.

Considering it is illegal for companies to do what Trump ordered[0], I'm not sure that would be the best analogy. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

[deleted]

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#69

Post by grzm »

probably_wrong wrote: post #64
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!

HN has an international audience. Most of us are not allowed to post about our own countries' political turmoil, so we flag other countries' politics in return.

Of course, if you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, please do flag it. I would hope that you're not doing so out of spite, however.

When you say that you're not "allowed to post", would you elaborate?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#70

Post by rtkwe »

hprotagonist wrote: post #26

From 0 to Saturday Night Massacre, in 10 days. That's not really a record one ought to be proud of. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

I feel like the comparisons to Nixon's actions are quite a bit strained. At the very least the magnitude of the actions is vastly different. Nixon was shopping around for a AG that would remove a special prosecutor investigating him.
Post reply on HN