Trump Fires Acting Attorney General • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#391

Post by cjeane » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #376

cjeane wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively Proponents say they are temporary measures, so that there is time to 'figure out what is going on'. No matter how you feel about this EO it was implemented in sloppy and unprofessional manner. It was poorly written, Agencies were not notified or instructed on the exact intent, there was no time for review from Legal Council. How am I supposed to extrapola…

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, it's pretty spot on in my estimation, I just don't think it's a sky is falling kind of situation. I was trying to answer the question: 'What would it take for his supporters to turn away from him?' and keep it in the context of why this thing just isn't an abandon ship situation, though it is certainly a fumble in a number of ways. |Proponents say they are temporary me…

The current refugee vetting process is very rigorous and would be a terrible avenue for ISIS agents to get into the US and other western nations, although I'm sure they would try. The process I went through to get a security clearance was about an 1/8 of the refugee vetting process and it was an incredibly invasive process. Obviously no vetting is 100% effective, but I'm highly skeptical that there will be a better process in 3 months. Then do we continue to ban these people our of fear?

As you said the question is: 'What would it take for his supporters to turn away from him?' Trump supporters may not not have breaking point when it comes to helping those that they don't have a perceived connection to.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-ve...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#392

Post by tripzilch » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #280

davexunit wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for letting us know that you are a fascist.

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.

> You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already.

I agree it would have been educational for many here to include a few of the definitions of fascism[0] as a political/idealogical term, just to drive home the point of how closely Trump is skirting the edge already after only a week or so.

[0] there's not a single generally agreed-upon definition, but you don't get extra points if you "only" hit a couple of them.

However, to address your point that the term was used for name calling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascist...

Now of course the word "bully" is a purposeful understatement (and of course saying "fascist" when you mean "bully" is no proper way of arguing on HN). And that would be that, if this were some other frivolous topic. But it's quite fair to argue that the situation is a lot closer to the various serious definitions of fascism than it is to the mere vague pejorative. The world is looking in horror, and we're all thinking it. Maybe another week of these "crazy antics" before we can say it without being downvoted? Don't wait too long though, or you might not be allowed to say it at all.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#393

Post by davidw » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #377

disantlor wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

>why do they need to halt immigration in this way while they review? Their theory is that travel needs to be temporarily halted to ensure that insufficient vetting procedures do not allow any terrorists to sneak in while the review is ongoing. You may agree or disagree that that's a real/substantial threat, but there is valid reasoning behind suspending travel.

There isn't valid reasoning though: if you look at what actually kills people in the US, those people who get in after vetting pose virtually no threat. Toddlers with guns, and falling out of bed kill more Americans than people from those countries have in the US.

It's a Muslim ban, plain and simple. It's not about our security.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#394

Post by defen » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #361

defen wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if hypothetically we went to war with country X tomorrow, the president would not be able to suspend entry of X nationals without an act of Congress?

Hypothetically, wouldn't the Act of Congress constitutionally required to declare war probably include a suspension of immigration itself? ;)

Yeah, I guess I was using war in the colloquial term (I don't believe the US has issued a formal declaration of war since World War II)

FWIW I think banning green card holders was stupid (both legally and politically - predictability is good for a legal system, and we already made a promise to green card holders. Politically he had to have known this backlash would happen).

It's just that...I don't know, it seems so polarized right now that you have to support one of two sides, and both are insane. The natural end game of "the right" is that no one else is allowed to come to America, ever. The natural end game of "the left" is that anyone who wants to come to America can, and the magical institutions of America will transform them into Americans, regardless of what they presently believe or how many of them there are. And there is a ratchet effect on both sides, where if you don't believe the most extreme version, you either hate America and its historic population, or you're a racist xenophobe.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#395

Post by croon » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:33 PM UTC

troisx wrote: post #387

croon wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? Like you said in the parent comment. This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.

If Uber or Airbnb counsel refused to defend some of the dubiously legal practices that both companies practice, they'd be fired that minute.

That's a false equivalence.

It doesn't suggest that their respective CEOs disregard the counsel's input. If it's still relevant to pursue their corporate interest in very fresh legislative ground afterwards, that's another thing.

While I might be persuaded in general that amendments should be made and the constitution not be static, immigration isn't a new frontier. And in that area, it's not in need of revision.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#396

Post by zaroth » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:36 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #354

FireBeyond wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please point to Obama's EOs that have been shown (or even suspected) to be unconstitutional. It's hard to find without being bombarded with partisan opinion pieces or quotes to Trump threatening to strike down "unconstitutional EOs"

Mr. Obama's infamous EO package known as "DAPA" (an acronym obviously selected to try to give it a more "actual law"-ish feel) was struck down by the Supreme Court last June in a 4-4 vote. [0] The Court's opinion was one sentence long, merely stating that because it was evenly tied, the appellate court ruling was automatically affirmed. However, the 5th Circuit's ruling [1] includes this language: >the INA flatly doe…

Thank you for taking the time to write all you did throughout this thread. Great discussion, much appreciated.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#397

Post by davidw » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:36 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #309

wtbob wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why is that the only choice? I don't get this idea that you must either obey or resign. What's wrong with refusing to obey, not resigning, and giving your superiors the choice of accepting that or firing you?

I guess it's a moot point. Now we have a guy who will "just follow orders".

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#398

Post by pm90 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #383

sangnoir wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a prescient clip from Sally Yates' nomination (March 2014). Reality certainly loves irony because the Senator asking the question was Jeff Sessions. I made a quick and dirty transcription of the interesting bits, but I encourage you to view the whole thing[1]. Sen. Jeff Sessions: Do you think the Attorney General has a duty to say no to the president when asked to do something that is improper? ... Sally Yates…

Sure, that's all normal. Note that she says it's their obligation to give legal advice to the president and follow the law and Constitution. The Constitution provides that the president is the chief executive and oversees the DoJ. Right now, the minor potential legal arguments that have been put forth by commentators ( not Ms. Yates herself; she provides no legal argument or justification) do not rise to the level of…

> Why is Ms. Yates comfortable allowing the judiciary to make its decisions on Mr. Obama's illegal EOs but not comfortable allowing it to do so on Mr. Trump's EOs?

Firstly, Obama's EO's were not "illegal": they were well thought out and released only after much consultation with the DOJ to precisely ensure that such a situation does not occur. Now, we have a week-old President with no political experience rapidly firing off EO's without consulting the DOJ. And the EO's themselves seem to be unconstitutional and disrupting the lives of many people.

But the answer to your question is: she is more comfortable because in her opinion as a lawyer, the Immigration ban is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. She voiced that opinion knowing that she had the possibility of being fired. I don't understand why you keep going off on tangents (Obama passed illegal EO's!) instead of simply accepting the fact, the fact that Ms. Yates did precisely what she had sworn to do: uphold the constitution.

> In ordinary conditions, a fair decision cannot be rendered by an attorney sitting alone in a room, and, barring a blatant constitutional violation, it's improper to redirect the resources of the DoJ based on such decisions.

Precisely. In her opinion, this IS a blatant constitutional violation.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#399

Post by FireBeyond » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:42 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #354

FireBeyond wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please point to Obama's EOs that have been shown (or even suspected) to be unconstitutional. It's hard to find without being bombarded with partisan opinion pieces or quotes to Trump threatening to strike down "unconstitutional EOs"

Mr. Obama's infamous EO package known as "DAPA" (an acronym obviously selected to try to give it a more "actual law"-ish feel) was struck down by the Supreme Court last June in a 4-4 vote. [0] The Court's opinion was one sentence long, merely stating that because it was evenly tied, the appellate court ruling was automatically affirmed. However, the 5th Circuit's ruling [1] includes this language: >the INA flatly doe…

I appreciate that. Thanks.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#400

Post by throwaway5752 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #332

throwaway5752 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the legal rights of green card holders, then? Was the EO consistent with existing US law?

I'm not an immigration lawyer and I don't know. Does the AG normally deny the president access to the DoJ based on an unspecified, ethereal debate over the potential conflict behind a few statutes? People are claiming that she had a constitutional obligation to do this which superseded her other constitutional obligation to serve the duly-elected chief executive. Do you contend that any potential statutory conflict r…

Are you sure you understand the history, legally defined role, and traditions of the AG well enough to say, "You seem to be radically redefining the role of the AG/DoJ." to me? That's an awfully strong statement.

Green card holders legally well defined rights with strong precedent. I would personally research where those are defined and how they were affected by the original EA if I wanted to understand the full context of the former EA's actions.