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

251–260 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#251

Post by autotypo »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #241
rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hierarchical leadership doesn't work like that with attorneys. If Yates couldn't come up with a good faith argument for the legality of the order, she wasn't allowed to go into court and defend it, regardless of what her boss said. She could have countermanded the order and accepted the consequences (which she did), or she could have resigned. Whether the order rises to that level I'm not sure. I think there are defi…

I was going to comment something along those lines. A business might hire an attorney, but they generally listen when they say a policy has shaky legal ground, if any at all. The response isn't generally to fire the lawyer and find one that agrees.

The White House has its own office of legal counsel which has stated the order is legal. The AG ignored the legality of the order when making the decisions that led to firing.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#252

Post by FireBeyond »

cookiecaper wrote: post #173
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 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. Yes, I agree. It's the judiciary's role to interpret the law and decide whether there is a conflict. It is true that the AG has an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the elements of the Constitution that provide…

> It doesn't seem typical for presidents to seek to install such instructions by legislative action. President Obama issued several EOs of a similar nature while Ms. Yates was present at the DoJ. Why did she not resign then?

A pretty critical point: Obama used Executive Orders because in part he had a Congress that, courtesy of Mitch McConnell, stated openly that they had no intention of passing Bills on the President's behalf, even if good. That the way to make him a failure was to "do nothing for him". That left Obama with little option but to enact Executive Orders for many things. And with that being said, he still managed to sign less than Bush II or Clinton.

Trump on the other hand has Congress and Republicans firmly in his control, who've shown themselves to be fully "pliant" (or "spineless", depending on your perspective of the world) of all Trump's desires, so Trump has no _need_ of the Executive Order other than to make a statement, "Look at me, I'm the boss. Why would I act like I need approval from Congress?"

There's a distinct difference.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#253

Post by autotypo »

zardeh wrote: post #67
TenOhms wrote: 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.

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 peop…

Unfortunately it never actually works that way, and we have to fight tooth and nail in courts to overturn unconstitutional laws.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#254

Post by croon »

robbiep wrote: post #239
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

> If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well.

It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish.

I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely:

* That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job?

or

* That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition?

> 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

The comment or validity thereof?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#255

Post by vixen99 »

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…

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m...

'Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you'

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#256

Post by [deleted] »

siidooloo wrote: post #57
TenOhms wrote: 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?

[deleted]

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#257

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

robbiep wrote: post #239
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

The US has a Constitution. Being President/General/CEO doesn't mean you get to assume you're above the law.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#258

Post by khana »

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…

Perfect assessment.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#259

Post by [deleted] »

cookiecaper wrote: post #97
siidooloo wrote: post #57

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#260

Post by PeterisP »

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.

"An EO conflicts/doesn't conflict the statute" is a decision that only the judiciary branch is qualified to make, not you or the president. If judiciary and president disagrees about whether something is a valid law or a violation of the law, the judiciary branch is right by definition.
Post reply on HN