13 ms·

>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 leadershi

by hueving 10y ago

>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.

ivl 10y ago
I'm concerned we're going to see unprecedented levels of constitutional and legal violations from this particular executive branch. Checks and balances are great, but not when they happen after the fact. And no, the president is not elected dictator, there's a degree of insubordination allowed. It's not the first time an AG has said "we cannot fight this ruling, nor should we".
- greenleafjacob 10y ago
  This has already been contemplated and intentionally decided - see Federalist 70.
ouid 10y ago
"Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch." -http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+General http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...
- TenOhms 10y ago
  What I find worrying is she ordered that the DOJ not support the President without any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional, it smelled of an entirely politically motivated action not grounded in US law.
  - siidooloo 10y ago
    She said that she felt the order was illegal. Should she follow orders and obey something she thinks is illegal?
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      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 to share. If there is such an argument, why would it apply to President Trump's EO tightening immigration enforcement but not President Obama's EOs loosening it? There is nothing in Trump's EO that singles anyone out by religious affiliation or background. The EO uses a list of countries that the previous administration had already highlighted as high-risk. The EO imposes a temporary ban only, for the explicit purpose of reviewing the processes used to grant visas to nationals of those high-risk countries. I'm really not seeing anything blatantly improper or illegal here. Where does the chief law enforcement officer's obligation to enforce the law as enacted by the people of the United States cave to his/her personal proclivities or opinions about that law? It is the duty of the AG to execute the laws as written. If we allow the AG to ignore the laws we set up based on matters of personal opinion, isn't that a large subversion of the democratic process? Principled stands like this should truly be exceptional, and clearly and obviously justified. If you're getting into minutia about whether something may or may not be legal, we've set up a system of judges whose role is to make these decisions. In the meantime, it is the DoJ's duty to enforce the law. Prosecutorial discretion refers specifically to prosecuting someone under the law. It does not apply to the government's own lawyers refusing to advocate for or defend the government's position in hearings about the very legality of the Orders issued -- this leaves the administration without fair representation and stands only to prolong the litigation process. If Ms. Yates could not in good conscience fulfill the duties of her position, the appropriate course of action is resignation. If she refuses to take this course, it is the president's responsibility to relieve her and install someone who is willing to uphold the laws that the people of the United States have installed through their duly elected representatives and executives (including the president).
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "the attorney general is a member of the bar" While I'm sure that's always or virtually always been true in practice, nothing in the relevant U.S. Code appears to require it (it is definitely not the case for the Supreme Court).
  - ouid 10y ago
    What's the relevant US code? I was just searching through legal resources for an answer, and this was the first one I found. And there are no legal guidelines to whether you are allowed to be a federal judge of any kind. The same is not true of prosecutors.
rayiner 10y ago
Hierarchical leadership doesn't work like that with attorneys. If Yates couldn't come up with a good faith argument for the legality of the order, she wasn't allowed to go into court and defend it, regardless of what her boss said. She could have countermanded the order and accepted the consequences (which she did), or she could have resigned. Whether the order rises to that level I'm not sure. I think there are definitely some instances in how the order was applied that wouldn't have been defensible if pursued further. For example, I haven't heard a single cogent argument that it's legal to exclude permanent residents without individualized process.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  I was going to comment something along those lines. A business might hire an attorney, but they generally listen when they say a policy has shaky legal ground, if any at all. The response isn't generally to fire the lawyer and find one that agrees.
  - autotypo 10y ago
    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.
    - couchand 10y ago
      It's worth noting that the Office of Legal Counsel 1) is responsible for producing wild contortions of logic to produce anything resembling a legal defense of any of a president's chosen actions (e.g. torture), and 2) is actually part of the Department of Justice and therefore reports to the attorney general.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      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 interpretation is made in good faith, the judge doesn't care what OLC said. For example (and this is speculation), I have doubts that the OLC signed off on excluding permanent residents without individualized process. The order does not, by its terms, apply to permanent residents. But that is how CBP interpreted it for three days, and the White House reversed that position only last night. The AG would have to go into court and defend CBP's interpretation, and I don't think it is defensible. Indeed, it's so indefensible that I think there is a decent chance individual CBP agents will be held personally liable for Constitutional violations once this all plays out.
billjings 10y ago
Would you write an app that stores important passwords in plaintext client side if your boss demanded it?
- OskarS 10y ago
  This is a great question, and one that should be asked of any engineer. If you answer yes to this question, you should find another career. Engineers have ethical responsibilities as well.
  - cdash 10y ago
    The vast majority of developers are not engineers even if they like calling themselves Software Engineers.
- biafra 10y ago
  It is actually quite common to only hash passwords server side. Not on the client. edit: Never mind. Parent was about storing not about sending passwords in clear text.
- ufmace 10y ago
  Interestingly, Chrome AFAIK did and still does this for stored website passwords. The team argued that anything but plaintext would be a more dangerous illusion of security, since Chrome itself needs to be able to retrieve that data at any time with no password.
mwpmaybe 10y ago
> > The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. > It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government. You have DHS officials refusing to obey a court order[0] and the White House refusing to share information with Congress[1]. Where are the checks and balances? 0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord... 1. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317006-rubio-state-asked-not-to-talk-travel-ban-with-congress http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317006-rubio-state-asked-...
pfooti 10y ago
And of course the reason why CBP ignored the judiciary when federal judges issued orders about the EO. Conspiracy-theory wise, it is why the Trump White House page deleted the judicial branch from its sitemap (still has legislative). And of course, keep in mind that 'following orders' is never a particularly good reason to break with your own morality.
thinkcontext 10y ago
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-urge-attorney-general-trump-just-fired-resist-presidents-unlawful-orders http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...
- intherdfield 10y ago
  You're both right, but when it plays out in public, someone has to get fired.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bmm01 10y ago
    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?
    - uep 10y ago
      Hmm. You made me think about this differently. Trump comes from the business world, so it makes sense that he would treat his current role the same. Not that I agree with the mentality at all, but it does seem less inherently spiteful now. It also isn't lost on me that he made his reality television name by saying "You're fired."
  - billjings 10y ago
    If you fire someone for being a professional, you're going to get unprofessional behavior. So yeah, you can do it. But you'll get what you get.
bobwaycott 10y ago
> ... 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.

by hueving 10y ago

ivl 10y ago

I'm concerned we're going to see unprecedented levels of constitutional and legal violations from this particular executive branch. Checks and balances are great, but not when they happen after the fact. And no, the president is not elected dictator, there's a degree of insubordination allowed. It's not the first time an AG has said "we cannot fight this ruling, nor should we".

greenleafjacob 10y ago
This has already been contemplated and intentionally decided - see Federalist 70.

ouid 10y ago

"Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch." -http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+General http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...

TenOhms 10y ago
What I find worrying is she ordered that the DOJ not support the President without any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional, it smelled of an entirely politically motivated action not grounded in US law.
- siidooloo 10y ago
  She said that she felt the order was illegal. Should she follow orders and obey something she thinks is illegal?
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    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 to share. If there is such an argument, why would it apply to President Trump's EO tightening immigration enforcement but not President Obama's EOs loosening it? There is nothing in Trump's EO that singles anyone out by religious affiliation or background. The EO uses a list of countries that the previous administration had already highlighted as high-risk. The EO imposes a temporary ban only, for the explicit purpose of reviewing the processes used to grant visas to nationals of those high-risk countries. I'm really not seeing anything blatantly improper or illegal here. Where does the chief law enforcement officer's obligation to enforce the law as enacted by the people of the United States cave to his/her personal proclivities or opinions about that law? It is the duty of the AG to execute the laws as written. If we allow the AG to ignore the laws we set up based on matters of personal opinion, isn't that a large subversion of the democratic process? Principled stands like this should truly be exceptional, and clearly and obviously justified. If you're getting into minutia about whether something may or may not be legal, we've set up a system of judges whose role is to make these decisions. In the meantime, it is the DoJ's duty to enforce the law. Prosecutorial discretion refers specifically to prosecuting someone under the law. It does not apply to the government's own lawyers refusing to advocate for or defend the government's position in hearings about the very legality of the Orders issued -- this leaves the administration without fair representation and stands only to prolong the litigation process. If Ms. Yates could not in good conscience fulfill the duties of her position, the appropriate course of action is resignation. If she refuses to take this course, it is the president's responsibility to relieve her and install someone who is willing to uphold the laws that the people of the United States have installed through their duly elected representatives and executives (including the president).
Turing_Machine 10y ago
"the attorney general is a member of the bar" While I'm sure that's always or virtually always been true in practice, nothing in the relevant U.S. Code appears to require it (it is definitely not the case for the Supreme Court).
- ouid 10y ago
  What's the relevant US code? I was just searching through legal resources for an answer, and this was the first one I found. And there are no legal guidelines to whether you are allowed to be a federal judge of any kind. The same is not true of prosecutors.

rayiner 10y ago

Hierarchical leadership doesn't work like that with attorneys. If Yates couldn't come up with a good faith argument for the legality of the order, she wasn't allowed to go into court and defend it, regardless of what her boss said. She could have countermanded the order and accepted the consequences (which she did), or she could have resigned. Whether the order rises to that level I'm not sure. I think there are definitely some instances in how the order was applied that wouldn't have been defensible if pursued further. For example, I haven't heard a single cogent argument that it's legal to exclude permanent residents without individualized process.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I was going to comment something along those lines. A business might hire an attorney, but they generally listen when they say a policy has shaky legal ground, if any at all. The response isn't generally to fire the lawyer and find one that agrees.
- autotypo 10y ago
  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.
  - couchand 10y ago
    It's worth noting that the Office of Legal Counsel 1) is responsible for producing wild contortions of logic to produce anything resembling a legal defense of any of a president's chosen actions (e.g. torture), and 2) is actually part of the Department of Justice and therefore reports to the attorney general.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    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 interpretation is made in good faith, the judge doesn't care what OLC said. For example (and this is speculation), I have doubts that the OLC signed off on excluding permanent residents without individualized process. The order does not, by its terms, apply to permanent residents. But that is how CBP interpreted it for three days, and the White House reversed that position only last night. The AG would have to go into court and defend CBP's interpretation, and I don't think it is defensible. Indeed, it's so indefensible that I think there is a decent chance individual CBP agents will be held personally liable for Constitutional violations once this all plays out.

billjings 10y ago

Would you write an app that stores important passwords in plaintext client side if your boss demanded it?

OskarS 10y ago
This is a great question, and one that should be asked of any engineer. If you answer yes to this question, you should find another career. Engineers have ethical responsibilities as well.
- cdash 10y ago
  The vast majority of developers are not engineers even if they like calling themselves Software Engineers.
biafra 10y ago
It is actually quite common to only hash passwords server side. Not on the client. edit: Never mind. Parent was about storing not about sending passwords in clear text.
ufmace 10y ago
Interestingly, Chrome AFAIK did and still does this for stored website passwords. The team argued that anything but plaintext would be a more dangerous illusion of security, since Chrome itself needs to be able to retrieve that data at any time with no password.

mwpmaybe 10y ago

> > The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. > It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government. You have DHS officials refusing to obey a court order[0] and the White House refusing to share information with Congress[1]. Where are the checks and balances? 0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord... 1. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317006-rubio-state-asked-not-to-talk-travel-ban-with-congress http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317006-rubio-state-asked-...

pfooti 10y ago

And of course the reason why CBP ignored the judiciary when federal judges issued orders about the EO. Conspiracy-theory wise, it is why the Trump White House page deleted the judicial branch from its sitemap (still has legislative). And of course, keep in mind that 'following orders' is never a particularly good reason to break with your own morality.

thinkcontext 10y ago

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-urge-attorney-general-trump-just-fired-resist-presidents-unlawful-orders http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...

intherdfield 10y ago
You're both right, but when it plays out in public, someone has to get fired.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bmm01 10y ago
  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?
  - uep 10y ago
    Hmm. You made me think about this differently. Trump comes from the business world, so it makes sense that he would treat his current role the same. Not that I agree with the mentality at all, but it does seem less inherently spiteful now. It also isn't lost on me that he made his reality television name by saying "You're fired."
- billjings 10y ago
  If you fire someone for being a professional, you're going to get unprofessional behavior. So yeah, you can do it. But you'll get what you get.

bobwaycott 10y ago

> ... 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.