Anyone in the private sector would be fired under similar conditions, except probably without an article in the NY times.
Which is one of many reasons why we are not governed by the private sector.
Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
101–110 of 498 posts
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
She signed an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath of loyalty to Trump.
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#103It sounds incredible, but this may be the first case of a gov "worker" who gets fired for refusing to work.
Good riddance!
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#104I 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…
Factually, it did have legal review, as she called out in her own letter
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3dOVzFXAAIGOlW.jpg
It's obvious this was a stunt and she fully expected to be fired.
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#105Earlier 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…
> 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...…
It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter at hand is not prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge not be able to hear what the DoJ can trudge up? Would the hearing be fair if Ms. Yates' rule was allowed to stand?
No one denies that President Trump's order is more restrictive, nor that it's inconvenient for the people whose travel plans have been temporarily disrupted. The point is that Trump did not pull this out of thin air. The countries had been previously identified as potential sources of malicious actors. It seems perfectly sensible for a new administration with a significantly different perspective to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#106His base will love this
He could shit on a plate and they'd eat it up. "Masterful distraction! Wow! He's been planning this for weeks! MAGA"
Crudely put, but accurate. It shows the emptiness of this seriously versus literally sophistry. The more norms he breaks, the more certain segments of his base eat it up, seriously, literally, or other.
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
From news.istambulcombinator.com.tr , circa 2012 : >Respectfully, can we maintain the ban on political articles on Istambul Hacker News? Sure, we can close our ears, and also we can argue that here we only discuss tech all the time. But as long as the world we live in influences tech, and all of us, there should be a political discussion here. HN comments are one of the sharpest for online forums, and it is a shame t…
I'm happy to debate the intersection of technology and politics here. But not pure politics. This community has an identity and norms and topics that are and aren't in scope. An alternative would be to use the same software, same group of passionate people to start the discussion, and the backing of Y Combinator in a different forum with a different identity, norms, etc. I'm also happy to be wrong / downvoted. It's f…
I agree that ultimately the forum reflects the joint will of both YC the company and its users. For instance, a bird-watching forum might have a a strict ban on anything not related to birds, while the YC ban on politics is softer.
What I don't like at all is people abusing flagging. You can flag any new article with ~4 votes, so less than a handful of active users can shape what we end up discussing.
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#108If 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.
> > The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty.
> It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.
You have DHS officials refusing to obey a court order[0] and the White House refusing to share information with Congress[1]. Where are the checks and balances?
0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord...
1. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317006-rubio-state-asked-...
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#109Anyone 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.
This EO is certainly unpopular, but it is hardly clear (yet) that it's illegal. Even the NYT does not make that claim.
Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...…
It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter at hand is not prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge not be able to hear what the DoJ can…
I am merely pointing out the flaw in your argument that the Trump administration's order is in any way acceptable simply because they're working off the same list of countries that the Obama administration used for a past order.