Live data from Hacker News

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

nytimes.com

91–100 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#91
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…

Green card holders were initially included in the ban. DHS assumed they were not and the white house clarified that they were. Now green card holders are not included.

He is doing what he said he would do, as you pointed out. So to me, "seriously but not literally" is not holding up well.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#93
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

She was fired for outright refusing to do her job [1], encouraging her subordinates to the same, and for going public about it.

[1] "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned"

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#94
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…

> President Obama signed a list of countries into law

> using the exact list that President Obama signed into law

Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0], counterpoint[1]).

0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...

1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#96
post #73

Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 I'm personally as engaged in reading and debating politics as I ever have been, but elsewhere. As dang put it: "Political conflicts cause harm here."

I agree. It appears as though shocking political news stories are going to be the norm in the short to mid term. As interesting as they are and as useful as it is to discuss things with a sensible crowd like HN, I fear that the focus will inevitably be pulled away from the main topic at hand. There are lots of other venues to discuss these issue if one so wishes.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#97
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

She said that she felt the order was illegal. Should she follow orders and obey something she thinks is illegal?

If she is unable to faithfully discharge her duty to execute U.S. law, she should resign. She offers no argument to support her claim that the order was not lawful, other than her self-evident personal disagreement.

Do you know of a credible legal argument that the president is not allowed to issue instructions to the Department of Homeland Security via executive order? Ms. Yates apparently does, but she doesn't wish to share. If there is such an argument, why would it apply to President Trump's EO tightening immigration enforcement but not President Obama's EOs loosening it?

There is nothing in Trump's EO that singles anyone out by religious affiliation or background. The EO uses a list of countries that the previous administration had already highlighted as high-risk. The EO imposes a temporary ban only, for the explicit purpose of reviewing the processes used to grant visas to nationals of those high-risk countries. I'm really not seeing anything blatantly improper or illegal here.

Where does the chief law enforcement officer's obligation to enforce the law as enacted by the people of the United States cave to his/her personal proclivities or opinions about that law? It is the duty of the AG to execute the laws as written. If we allow the AG to ignore the laws we set up based on matters of personal opinion, isn't that a large subversion of the democratic process?

Principled stands like this should truly be exceptional, and clearly and obviously justified. If you're getting into minutia about whether something may or may not be legal, we've set up a system of judges whose role is to make these decisions. In the meantime, it is the DoJ's duty to enforce the law.

Prosecutorial discretion refers specifically to prosecuting someone under the law. It does not apply to the government's own lawyers refusing to advocate for or defend the government's position in hearings about the very legality of the Orders issued -- this leaves the administration without fair representation and stands only to prolong the litigation process.

If Ms. Yates could not in good conscience fulfill the duties of her position, the appropriate course of action is resignation. If she refuses to take this course, it is the president's responsibility to relieve her and install someone who is willing to uphold the laws that the people of the United States have installed through their duly elected representatives and executives (including the president).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#98
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…

has nothing to do with religion.

After what Giuliani has publicly stated and explained, how can you say this?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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…

has nothing to do with religion. After what Giuliani has publicly stated and explained, how can you say this?

And Michael Flynn's son[0].

0. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/michael-flynn-muslim-b...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#100
post #38

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

Nonsense. Any lawyer fired for obeying an illegal order would end up pretty much owning the company that fired them. The duty of lawyers is to the law first, and their employer second. An EO is not a law.
Post reply on HN