Trump Fires Acting Attorney General • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#231

Post by soundwave106 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:49 PM UTC

mordant wrote: post #214

dragonwriter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>An E.O. that conflicts with statute or the Constitution is not law, in fact, it a violation of the law. And that is not the case, here. The Executive Order in question is firmly grounded in section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Get your facts straight.

The two objections I have seen most often in commentary are that Trump's order fell afoul of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...), or Trump's EO fell afoul of 8 U.S. Code § 1152 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152).

I have seen a lot of commentary arguing one way or another regarding this issue. My personal conclusion at this time is "firmly grounded" would be too strong of a statement, in my opinion.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#232

Post by douche » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:49 PM UTC

Remember when there was a ban on political topics for like three days? Remember how nice that was?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#233

Post by intherdfield » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

thinkcontext wrote: post #228

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.

Then you disagree with Jeff Sessions who said "the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper." Ironically he did this at Sally Yates' confirmation hearing, he went on to praise John Ashcroft for resisting the Bush administration. http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...

You're both right, but when it plays out in public, someone has to get fired.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#234

Post by mhurron » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #212

Turing_Machine wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is expected that a new President will replace the Attorney General, and not at all uncommon for a new President to replace large portion of the entire DoJ staff. These are political appointments! Clinton famously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office. As a recent Obama appointee as Deputy, Yates was running on fumes anyway. There was no way she was going to survive past the confirmation of Sessions (or w…

Speaking of Sessions, his belief is that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General should say "no" when asked to do something that they think is improper. When he questioned Yates during her confirmation hearing he specifically brought this up.

I wouldn't discount this as saying the right answer because you know it is what you should say. Trumps appointees and integrity don't exactly go together.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#235

Post by becarefulyo » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:52 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #174

davesque wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

The American people chose Trump. Sorry, there is no way around that. The US doesn't elect its president based on the popular vote.

The electoral college was created in part to prevent unqualified candidates from becoming president. It failed spectacularly.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#236

Post by disantlor » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:00 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #179

davidw wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people are already being vetted. A lot. Do you think no one before Trump realized that there are some bad people in those countries?

You're moving the goal posts. I have no position on whether this was good or not. The parent asked what this EO accomplishes. It accomplishes what it says it accomplishes; it gives the Trump admin time to review the policies. Is that a smart thing to do or not? I don't know. Does my opinion on whether or not it's smart have anything to do with whether its sufficiently illegal to have the acting AG openly refuse to al…

why do they need to halt immigration in this way while they review?

they haven't presented any reason for that, and since they've been talking about it for a year i doubt they learned some new info after the election (that some terrorist was specifically trying to get in from these countries, when none ever has, historically)

further, they are wasting a lot of the time they've given themselves in the fallout of how botched and rushed it was.

to say nothing of my lack of confidence that they could come up with a good immigration plan after how poorly this was executed

this whole situation is pointless and cruel

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#237

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:03 PM UTC

intherdfield wrote: post #233

thinkcontext wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you disagree with Jeff Sessions who said "the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper." Ironically he did this at Sally Yates' confirmation hearing, he went on to praise John Ashcroft for resisting the Bush administration. http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...

You're both right, but when it plays out in public, someone has to get fired.

[deleted]

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#238

Post by CalChris » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:06 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #180

msrpotus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably not the first time, if you count Nixon firing his Attorney General and then Deputy Attorney General because they wouldn't fire the Watergate prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre Maybe not the best precedent.

It is expected that a new President will replace the Attorney General, and not at all uncommon for a new President to replace large portion of the entire DoJ staff. These are political appointments! Clinton famously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office. As a recent Obama appointee as Deputy, Yates was running on fumes anyway. There was no way she was going to survive past the confirmation of Sessions (or w…

Clinton replaced the US Attorneys after an election on a staggered schedule as did Reagan. Bush fired many in 2007 for strictly tactical partisan reasons.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-talking23

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#239

Post by robbiep » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:07 PM UTC

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.

If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#240

Post by ubernostrum » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:11 PM UTC

mordant wrote: post #210

nikdaheratik wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The orders only have the force of law if they are based in laws already passed by Congress. If the order conflicts with these laws or the Constitution, it's the order that gets ignored, not the laws. The law passed by Congress in this case states that the immigration department is not allowed to discriminate based by country of origin. The Constitution also states that people are required to have due process before t…

>The law passed by Congress in this case states that the immigration department is not allowed to discriminate based by country of origin. See Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: "(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he…

8 USC § 1152(a)(1)(a):

Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Paragraph 2 does not provide grounds for Trump's order. It sets a cap on the percentage of visas which can go to any foreign state in a given year, but does not allow blanket bans on a particular state.

1101(a)(27) does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it defines a class of "special immigrants" for reference elsewhere).

1151(b)(2)(A)(i) does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it provides a definition for "immediate relatives").

1153 does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it defines an allowable scheme of preferential treatment to certain classes of immigrants, such as the highly-skilled).

So Trump did not have the legal authority to suspend issuance of visas on the basis of national origin. Attempting to do saw was a violation of applicable federal immigration law. His executive order was thus unlawful, and it was correct to refuse enforcement.