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

291–300 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#291

Post by wtbob »

rohshall wrote: post #135

Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

> When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

Well, in 1996 we re-elected Clinton, despite demonstrable evidence that he was a terrible president and an execrable human being. In 2004 we re-elected Bush, despite him violating his oath to the constitution. In 2012 we re-elected Obama, a man whose mediocrity and incompetence make Carter look like a capable executive (and our other choice was a business executive who couldn't even get a simple get-out-the-vote programme to run correctly).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#292

Post by bobwaycott »

hueving wrote: post #13
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. 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.

> ... it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants.

Except, for the health and continuing stability of the republic, one should not expect this in cases where the President is judged by legal experts to be outside the Constitution. On principle alone, we do not expect civil servants to simply "do whatever the President wants"—that way lies tyranny. We expect them to uphold and defend the Constitution, not executive agendas. That's the oath they take. Every President is rightly subjected to scrutiny and criticism when they fire people for disagreement. We created this system of government to avoid the abuses of unchecked power.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#293

Post by wtbob »

davidw wrote: post #102
cookiecaper wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> She signed an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath of loyalty to Trump.

Yes, indeed: and the choice available which is consistent with that oath is to resign.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#294

Post by bmm01 »

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.

I disagree. When the AG points out that an executive action is morally or legally dubious, it reflects more on the actions of the president than on the AG.

In this case, government cannot be compared to a business, where a subordinate publicly questioning a superior's decision is indicative of unruly management, leaving the superior in a position where he/she needs to reassure the public that he's/she's in charge. Government doesn't work like that.

Nobody "needs" to get fired. From where would the need come?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#295

Post by altern8tif »

koheripbal wrote: post #282
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…

There's a difference between giving your boss honest feedback, and being obstructionist. Encouraging honesty is great, but at the end of the day, you still need to follow orders.

What about whistleblowers? Should they have just "followed orders" instead?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#296

Post by hockeybias »

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…

I did not vote for Trump and do not like what he is doing, but the AG serves at the 'pleasure of the president' so to speak, correct?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#297

Post by mikeash »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #224
tzs wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without reviewing the statements in question, I would guess that he also understands that the Attorney General would likely resign or be fired in such a situation. How else do you imagine that it could possibly work? Do you think that any President would do otherwise? Especially when the acting A.G. was a holdover from a previous administration who was going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway?

If they're going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway, why do anything?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#298

Post by VLM »

rayiner wrote: post #229
Turing_Machine wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without reviewing the statements in question, I would guess that he also understands that the Attorney General would likely resign or be fired in such a situation. How else do you imagine that it could possibly work? Do you think that any President would do otherwise? Especially when the acting A.G. was a holdover from a previous administration who was going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway?

That's not really where the consequences stop flowing though. Yes, the President has a right to fire an AG that refuses to implement a President's policy. At the same time, the public may draw certain inferences from that decision. If a big oil company fired its top lawyer for refusing to do something she though violated environmental laws, very reasonable inferences could be made about the leadership. The US Attorne…

In that field very low level jobs are entirely professional and very high level jobs are entirely political, which makes the oil lawyer analogy invalid. There is no professional insight in a political act and vice versa.

In this specific example she made a highly public political act containing no professional content, naturally that results in firing.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#299

Post by bobwaycott »

wtbob wrote: post #278
davidw wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She signed an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath of loyalty to Trump.

> She signed an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath of loyalty to Trump. Yes, indeed: and the choice available which is consistent with that oath is to resign.

Resigning neither defends nor upholds the Constitution. It should be expected that one would go as far as one could, until such time as one could go no further (like, by being fired), to uphold and defend the Constitution. If everyone simply resigned, the oath would be meaningless, and the republic would fall. Inconvenient as it often is, we need people to stand up and refuse to resign when they feel the Constitution is threatened by executive or congressional action.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#300

Post by mr_spothawk »

devmunchies wrote: post #262
mr_spothawk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've got short legs; small circles is what I do best.
Post reply on HN