Quote:
Originally Posted by CPHoya
You guys are missing the central point - if she won't do what the President tells her to do, she will be fired. That is the structure of the position. She was getting fired upon Sessions's appointment. Thus, this was inevitable. She accelerated it by taking a position adversarial to the current government.
AGs FREQUENTLY refuse to enforce laws embraced by prior administrations, because that is what the current administration wants. AGs sometimes refuse to enforce laws embraced by the sitting President who appointed them, but that is before Presidents who respect things like (1) the Constitution and (2) the rule of law, and who value the counsel of their appointed AG.
That is not this. While I don't agree that she was ethically MANDATED to defend the EO, I don't think that even matters because her marching orders are to pursue the policy the President wants pursued. As a practicality, she had no option if she desired to stay in the job.
I like her letter, but my agreement with Karak is that there is nothing procedurally wrong with Trump firing her. That's what "at the pleasure of the President" means.
but thats not all that karak said. he is trying to argue that she was obligated to uphold the presidents bs and unconstitutional policies and that it was inappropriate to stand by the constitution.
hes obv wrong.
but he thinks that way bc hes just another brainwashed republican that hates brown ppl and liberals and cant wait to turn the country into a conservative hellhole.
thats who these ppl are. they may seem reasonable on the surface, like karak did, but deep down, this what they desire.
and its why if we want a society that is free, verdant, advanced, profitable, and equitable, these ppl need to be silenced by any means necessary.