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

261–270 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#261

Post by Spooky23 »

Retra wrote: post #145
Spooky23 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The Nuremberg defense is to sit there and do something unethical justifying your continued employment. The ethical course is to resign.

If the law is illegal, then everyone in that position would have to resign, which would make the resignation pointless. Someone shouldn't have to fall on their sword in order to do the right thing. That way leads to dictators surrounded by spineless yes-men.

Actually, you do need to fall on your sword in some circumstances.

The point of a Nuremberg defense is that you were compelled to do something immoral or illegal by orders of a superior officer or other official.

Since senior DOJ lawyers are not conscripted soldiers. Resignation, including mass resignation is the appropriate response. Dictators get surrounded by "spineless yes-men" when people place paying the mortgage above their professional and ethical duty.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#262

Post by devmunchies »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #139
jbyers wrote: 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."

While I agree that I don't want Hacker Political News to be "a thing", this is one of the very few places that I feel I can get reasoned discussion about immediately important (to me) news. I'm incredibly interested in the views of the rest of the community. That said, I'm trying to keep the politics out of my own posts and comments...

> one of the very few places that I feel I can get reasoned discussion

you must run in some small circles. There are lots of communities out there.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#263

Post by FireBeyond »

cookiecaper wrote: post #105
mwpmaybe wrote: post #94

Earlier 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…

>"It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted"

That's more than a little hand-wavy and dismissive. In multiple places in this thread you quote various laws that seem to support the legality of the EO.

Along comes a law that seems to question it - and your response is to say "oh, well, we'll have to consider whether some obscure law may be contradicted".

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#264

Post by couchand »

autotypo wrote: post #251
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's worth noting that the Office of Legal Counsel 1) is responsible for producing wild contortions of logic to produce anything resembling a legal defense of any of a president's chosen actions (e.g. torture), and 2) is actually part of the Department of Justice and therefore reports to the attorney general.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#265

Post by benchaney »

mordant wrote: post #216
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.

> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California .

Is California not part of the United States?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#266

Post by notheguyouthink »

pm90 wrote: post #159
throwaway5752 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a lot of us on both sides of the former partisan political spectrum are wonder what - if any - boundaries Trump supporters have past which they would not defend the actions of this administration.

There aren't any, and I'm serious about it. Unless Trump does something that is totally and obviously anti-populist, like raise taxes for everyone by 20% or send in the National Guard into a city. It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news.…

> It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news. When they try to debate some of this fake news, they are immediately dismissed by the reasonable sort who know fake news is fake news. They see shares/feeds from their friends about mostly the same thing. End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats. And an acceptance of Trump: just because he ain't a "damn liberal".

I don't even think it's the fake news or etc, it's the moral highground/horse that the far left stands on, and is unwilling to debate, talk, communicate.

Regardless of all this political shitstorm, i am quite sickened by the thought control that the far left seems so unwilling to yield from. They have so many dismissive weapons in their toolbag of verbal war that make hope for discussion a fickle thing. A lot of people have very unpopular views, either on the edge or over it from what the far left believes, and we all need to be willing to discuss. No ones views should be dismissed. Once we start doing that, a "surprise" voter turnout happens - ala Trump.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#267

Post by davexunit »

mordant wrote: post #213
davesque wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. If the attorney general claims that something may be illegal and unenforceable, people should listen. This comes off as purely political and makes it seem as though Trump will just fire anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to do so.

>As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. On the contrary, I find it thrilling, and am eager for more in this vein.

Thanks for letting us know that you are a fascist.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#268

Post by OskarS »

billjings wrote: post #63
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.

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

This is a great question, and one that should be asked of any engineer.

If you answer yes to this question, you should find another career. Engineers have ethical responsibilities as well.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#269

Post by rayiner »

autotypo wrote: post #251
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A law or executive action can be illegal on its face, or as illegal applied. OLC reviews executive orders before they are signed. The AG generally has to defend the orders in court, as applied. Depending on what happens on the ground, the AG can be stuck defending actions the OLC would not have signed off on. And in any case, when the AG is in court its her signature on the papers. If the judge doesn't think her interpretation is made in good faith, the judge doesn't care what OLC said.

For example (and this is speculation), I have doubts that the OLC signed off on excluding permanent residents without individualized process. The order does not, by its terms, apply to permanent residents. But that is how CBP interpreted it for three days, and the White House reversed that position only last night. The AG would have to go into court and defend CBP's interpretation, and I don't think it is defensible. Indeed, it's so indefensible that I think there is a decent chance individual CBP agents will be held personally liable for Constitutional violations once this all plays out.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#270

Post by camiller »

nikdaheratik wrote: post #155
cookiecaper wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is true that EOs are not statutes enacted by Congress, they are usually binding law. As a layman, I'm not qualified to argue the matter in detail, but it's obtuse to pretend otherwise. EOs with the force of law are not new and have well-established precedent. This appears to be a good overview. [0] [0] http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/executive-orders-in-court

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…

I think the law the president is relying on is 8 USC §1182(f) which states in part:

"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 shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Post reply on HN