delete your account

Karak,

My point of argument is with the bolded. It is completely appropriate for Yates to do what she did within her role as AG. Because of the way the role is setup, the AG can be fired by the President on a whim, but that doesn't mean that it is inappropriate for the AG to do anything in their role that disagrees with the President. Ultimately, the AG's job is to serve the United States Government and uphold the constitution. Performing this job correctly will from time to time put the AG at odds with certain factions within the United States Government as the US Government is not a solitary entity with only one opinion on any matter.

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.

Ok. I think he was trying to say that if she judged the EO as unconstitutional, she should not continue to defend it. Not that one (or five) district rulings mean you have to stand down.

The actual memo she sent out to everyone actually says this. It also makes a distinction between OLE (which is supposed to review EOs just for bare legality, without passing on the merits, although it is very unclear whether that even happened in this case) and DOJ, which she writes has to consider legality and propriety of the actions as well.

So yea, she's grandstanding and making a big show, and the normal thing to do in a similar situation would be to just resign quietly. But this isn't really a normal situation.

it's like every time I ever asked a girl on a date

Yeah, that's not the point I made. But the AG's job is to uphold the constitution of the United States, and give advice and opinion on matters of law. If the AG agrees with the district court opinion that an order is unconstitutional then advising of that opinion is the AG's job. (This is what Yates did).

Maybe I can put this more simply:

Her letter is as much theater as his response. They both had their eyes wide open.

I don't think anyone said that firing her was illegal, just that it's extremely irregular and a clear sign of how ****ed up things are.

To which, I suppose, you would respond - "Well duh guys, this is how it was always going to happen". And you would be right. But it's more fun to revel in the schadenfraude and go nutso over all the crazy **** going down.

I'm not even arguing against her firing, it was just a matter of time anyways. I'm merely arguing against any attempt to claim that Yates in anyway violated the duties of her office.

Is this the thread where we tell lawyers they don't know **** about the law or courts work? Because I want on that ****!

Saying Trump fired his AG (like Nixon) seems like a win for the good guys at the proletariat level.

A clear data point that can be referenced that they can understand. Easily digestible and noteworthy.

Oh, I agree that Trump firing her was one of the handful of things that he's done that is actually indisputably legal. Maybe we should revel in this as a sign of progress.

I'm not sure why you imply that this is a bad thing. We need *more* people in government standing up against this nonsense and empowering ordinary people to do the same. People in some kind of power should not only be resisting, but should be resisting loudly and publicly.

Dont worry, they will. They just also need to find situations like Yates' which are all upside with literally zero personal cost to themselves. Thats the dream of those in power!

another erudite contribution to the thread, thanks!

Thoughts on Federalist Society as far-right hate group?

I think the biggest issue was with Trump's use of the word "betrayed"

You don't just borderline accuse a government official of treason

Trying to find some silver lining here, and I feel that the following are true and make me happy:

Practically overnight, American opinion on immigrants and refugees became collectively like 8 notches less disgusting and immoral, and that couldn't have happened without Trump. The ban sets us back a few decades superficially but advances us twice as much assuming it doesnt become some permanent thing.

Practically overnight, Americans realize the risks inherent in the gradual accumulation of power and erosion of checks and balances that has exemplified the executive for the last 80 years. This was a bad outcome, but it wasnt some unpredictable black swan event. The days of the worst thing about the President having so much power was that he was gonna enact the other guys pet policies instead of yours for 4 years are over.

Maybe thats meager solace, and obviously those can be wiped away if Hoya's lolchickenlittle fantasy comes true.

Your edit makes me think you dont know how to read....?

In trump's world that's not borderline.

Whoa, the two lawyers end up being completely wrong in a nitfest. Karak didn't come in her saying Trump had the right to fire Yates, he said this:

Karak coming in guns blazing like this is ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE. I rule in favor of Meb, and Karak find a new profession cuz

I don't know why you think I'm implying she did a bad thing - "I like her letter." I do.

I'm just saying Karak is catching heat here for being wrong about something that he's not actually wrong about. On the thin slice that she was ethically mandated to enforce unconstitutional laws, that is not true, but a lower Federal Court ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not the end of that dispute or a ruling providing certitude on an issue, and it appears the United States Government, her client, is instructing her to enforce that EO. Karak makes a good point. I'm altering it slightly to "it's not necessarily inappropriate to do what she did, but it's seppuku for sure."

In private practice Karak is entirely right, but the analogy is awful for obvious reasons.

I mean the only possible reason to fire her is to send a message you wont be ****ed with. Firing her or not firing her are functionally the exact same thing, otherwise. So yeah its awful but its all of a kind.

Actually, what Trump said was, of course, dumber than this.

He accused her of betraying "the Department of Justice." This doesn't even make sense.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, Mr. "I do this for a living."

In fact, you don't know: