Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

Post by muninn_ » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:36 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…

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

davexunit wrote: post #307

tptacek wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't argue this way on HN, and since your side of this argument is so utterly in command of the high ground, I'm kind of baffled by why you'd think name calling was a good idea. You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already.

That's like saying that one should debate creationists or flat earthers.

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #150

pcwalton wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing in Trump's EO that singles anyone out by religious affiliation or background. This is false. It has explicit exceptions for "religious minorities". Wikipedia: "After the resumption of USRAP, refugee applications will be prioritized based on religion-based persecutions only in the case that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in that country."

Yes, you're correct. My language was imprecise in that I was referring specifically to the orders limiting entry of foreign nationals, and also specifically referring to singling out specific religious affiliations rather than religious background as a general principle. But yes, the order does also contain an instruction to prioritize refugees seeking asylum from generalized religious persecution, and states that th…

Post by autotypo » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #269

autotypo wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inte…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:41 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #298

rayiner wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.