3 ms·

Ignoring whether I agree or not with the order, firing the AAG made sense. Here's why: #1 - The AG is THE person to defend the administration in court, and eve

by MR4D 10y ago

Ignoring whether I agree or not with the order, firing the AAG made sense. Here's why: #1 - The AG is THE person to defend the administration in court, and even argues personally on behalf of administrations in front of the Supreme Court. Her duty is to defend the Administration's position (even if she personally disagrees with it). As wikipedia puts it (abbreviated for space here): "The United States Attorney General (A.G.) .... is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government." But I suggest reading here for a very good overview: https://www.justice.gov/about https://www.justice.gov/about #1a (to highlight this specifically: AGs determine whether to prosecute, not whether to defend. #2 - The courtroom is the place to determine if the order is legal or not. From what I understand, Congress can also override this. #3 - There is no (publicly known) communication between the AAG and the President regarding her stance. From what I can tell, she contradicted his order without informing him. Note that he has no legal requirement to inform her, but she does to inform him (being that the President is the superior to an AG). #4 - Presidents have the right to fire US Attorneys without any reason. And they use it often. Every President in recent memory has done so. #5 - The order affected non-citizens who are outside the country. The law and legal cases tend to give wide latitude to the executive branch on actions outside the country. Again, I say this regardless of whether or not I like the order. I will say this - at a minimum, he should have consulted with someone to minimize some of the issues that this order faces. That fact that he apparently did not even do that is astonishing.

res0nat0r 10y ago
The AG enforces and defends the Constitution, not the whims of a POTUS. Trump is quickly trying to turn the USG into yes men. Sean Spicer just said minutes ago in his Press Conference that her firing is pretty much a warning shot that if you don't agree with his views, no matter how you think the law stands you should step up or ship out. That's not how Democracy works and Trump is quickly trying to change that and it is a terrible thing.
- MR4D 10y ago
  Well, upon that there is some disagreement. I'll take this quote from Jonathan Adler (who is Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University ): "To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not 'wise or just.' This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/?utm_term=.dae4ba1e5ff6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    Trump & co. have gone 0/5 in the federal lawsuits that have been brought already stating that this is unconstitutional.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not 'wise or just.' This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis. In the usual course, the DoJ would pre-vet an E.O. and concerns about wisdom and justice, and particularly, as regards the former, issues of the degree to which defending the E.O. would require the DoJ to take positions that the DoJ has taken or would otherwise take defending other executive actions, and the potential adverse precedent (for public and even specifically executive branch interests) that would be set were courts to accept arguments the DoJ would make defending the E.O. would be addressed, weighed, and resolved (possibly with changes to the E.O. and/or changes to strategy in other pending cases) before the E.O. was issued. The lack of consultation within the Executive Branch that, among others in other contexts, Senators McCain and Graham (both Republicans) called out, prevented that from occurring in advance, which meant those considerations would have to be weighed after-the -fact. But still before any defense could be prudently mounted.
celticninja 10y ago
I am not American, but I believe your first point to be incorrect. The AG is supposed to defend the constitution (including from the president). In her confirmation hearing in 2015, senator Jeff Sessions, who is to take her place asked her: "Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper...?" Ms Yates replied: "I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president." She was confirmed 84-12 so it seems that they were happy with the response. I would also note that any lawyer who is tasked to defend you also has an obligation to inform the client of poor chance of success, in this case the AG not only thought the chance of success was poor but it was unconstitutional also.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  "defend the constitution" and "follow the constitution" are two completely different things.
  - celticninja 10y ago
    Perhaps uphold would be a better word.
- dethswatch 10y ago
  >to give their independent legal advice to the president. In private, and when he tells you that you're to carry out his wishes- since you're serving at his pleasure, then you go and do your job or you resign. If you picked a public fight with your boss in the middle of the scrum and then refused to do what he wanted when you were overruled- how long would you last? Also- let's not forget that Office of Legal Council had already said that it's perfectly Constitutional and legal.

by MR4D 10y ago

res0nat0r 10y ago

The AG enforces and defends the Constitution, not the whims of a POTUS. Trump is quickly trying to turn the USG into yes men. Sean Spicer just said minutes ago in his Press Conference that her firing is pretty much a warning shot that if you don't agree with his views, no matter how you think the law stands you should step up or ship out. That's not how Democracy works and Trump is quickly trying to change that and it is a terrible thing.

MR4D 10y ago
Well, upon that there is some disagreement. I'll take this quote from Jonathan Adler (who is Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University ): "To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not 'wise or just.' This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/?utm_term=.dae4ba1e5ff6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  Trump & co. have gone 0/5 in the federal lawsuits that have been brought already stating that this is unconstitutional.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not 'wise or just.' This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis. In the usual course, the DoJ would pre-vet an E.O. and concerns about wisdom and justice, and particularly, as regards the former, issues of the degree to which defending the E.O. would require the DoJ to take positions that the DoJ has taken or would otherwise take defending other executive actions, and the potential adverse precedent (for public and even specifically executive branch interests) that would be set were courts to accept arguments the DoJ would make defending the E.O. would be addressed, weighed, and resolved (possibly with changes to the E.O. and/or changes to strategy in other pending cases) before the E.O. was issued. The lack of consultation within the Executive Branch that, among others in other contexts, Senators McCain and Graham (both Republicans) called out, prevented that from occurring in advance, which meant those considerations would have to be weighed after-the -fact. But still before any defense could be prudently mounted.

celticninja 10y ago

I am not American, but I believe your first point to be incorrect. The AG is supposed to defend the constitution (including from the president). In her confirmation hearing in 2015, senator Jeff Sessions, who is to take her place asked her: "Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper...?" Ms Yates replied: "I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president." She was confirmed 84-12 so it seems that they were happy with the response. I would also note that any lawyer who is tasked to defend you also has an obligation to inform the client of poor chance of success, in this case the AG not only thought the chance of success was poor but it was unconstitutional also.

ryanx435 10y ago
"defend the constitution" and "follow the constitution" are two completely different things.
- celticninja 10y ago
  Perhaps uphold would be a better word.
dethswatch 10y ago
>to give their independent legal advice to the president. In private, and when he tells you that you're to carry out his wishes- since you're serving at his pleasure, then you go and do your job or you resign. If you picked a public fight with your boss in the middle of the scrum and then refused to do what he wanted when you were overruled- how long would you last? Also- let's not forget that Office of Legal Council had already said that it's perfectly Constitutional and legal.