Trump just fired the acting Attorney General

[Jimmy Higgins]

She did do her job. It's to uphold the law, not to blindly follow illegal orders from power-hungry dickheads who have no regard for it whatsoever.

Her interpretation of the Law. There is nothing illegal about refusing entry into the USA. The contraversy is preventing people who already have visas and green cards

This is a Brown v Board of Education v Plessy v Ferguson moment. The plain text says people from certain nations, but the meaning and effect is Muslims in nations where Trump doesn't have investments. You can feel free and try to ignore the clear context of the order. The lawsuits don't have to prove that the intent is to ban Muslims from entering the US, just that this Order demands it from seven nations.

- - - Updated - - -

This was the correct action. She felt that the order wasn't a legal one and couldn't countenance having her people enforce it. Trump felt that she was disobeying a lawful order, so he fired her for it. This is what is supposed to happen. Trump sets the policy for the executive branch of the US government and if you can't support those policies, you say no and lose your job. It's a case study for the future when somebody says that they were just following orders and it can clearly be pointed out that they did, in fact, have another option available to them.

This isn't a case study, this is a repeat from the Saturday Night Massacre under Nixon.

 

[dismal]

There's nothing controversial about this. It's what happens when you don't do your job. She should have resigned if she felt that strongly about it.

The AG's job is to uphold and defend the constituition, not twist it to her elected, superior's whims.

Besides, why should she necessarily predict that Trump would double down after recieving her refusal letter? Do you resign every time your boss tells you to do something you think is a bad idea? Or do you tell your boss it is a bad idea and hope they see reason?

Huh? What part of the Constitution do you feel Trump's order offends?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

According to the Justice Department web page, her duties include:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

It doesn't say anything about deciding which law/order is Constitutional. That's the court's job.

That being said, it might have worked better if she'd just "taken a dive" when she defended the order in court.

I think the AG also takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And since she's a lawyer, she's also the one to make the decision on whether an order is even legally defensible. If it isn't, she is under no obligation to support it. Legally.

She certainly did take that oath. But if she's deciding whether an executive order is legally defensible, she's taking the decision away from the courts, who are supposed to decide what's Constitutional and what isn't. Again, by advancing this to the courts and trying to defend the indefensible, she might have done a greater service to the country.

 

[repoman]

Straight from adorable 'Lil Goebbels

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This was the correct action. She felt that the order wasn't a legal one and couldn't countenance having her people enforce it. Trump felt that she was disobeying a lawful order, so he fired her for it. This is what is supposed to happen. Trump sets the policy for the executive branch of the US government and if you can't support those policies, you say no and lose your job. It's a case study for the future when somebody says that they were just following orders and it can clearly be pointed out that they did, in fact, have another option available to them.

This isn't a case study, this is a repeat from the Saturday Night Massacre under Nixon.

How so? Trump decides what US policy is and the Justice Department helps enforce that policy. If a member of the Justice Department feels that a given policy is not legal, they say no and don't enforce it. At that point, it's up to Trump to decide what to do, since the AG and the rest of them serve at the pleasure of the President. At that point, it's up to Trump how to proceed. If he feels that they have a potential point and wants to get clarification on it, he can get that done. If he feels that by not enforcing the policy, they are not doing their job, he can fire them for this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't a case study, this is a repeat from the Saturday Night Massacre under Nixon.

How so?

Because it has happened before. This Deja Vu, not something that hasn't happened before.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the AG also takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And since she's a lawyer, she's also the one to make the decision on whether an order is even legally defensible. If it isn't, she is under no obligation to support it. Legally.

She certainly did take that oath. But if she's deciding whether an executive order is legally defensible, she's taking the decision away from the courts, who are supposed to decide what's Constitutional and what isn't. Again, by advancing this to the courts and trying to defend the indefensible, she might have done a greater service to the country.

It's not taking the decision away from the courts, it's asking the courts to make a decision and not acting until that's done. If you feel that an action is illegal, you don't take that action until the legality of it has been clarified.

 

[Warpoet]

Her interpretation of the Law. There is nothing illegal about refusing entry into the USA. The contraversy is preventing people who already have visas and green cards

No, banning on the basis of religion while giving another religion priority is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

She certainly did take that oath. But if she's deciding whether an executive order is legally defensible, she's taking the decision away from the courts, who are supposed to decide what's Constitutional and what isn't. Again, by advancing this to the courts and trying to defend the indefensible, she might have done a greater service to the country.

It's not taking the decision away from the courts, it's asking the courts to make a decision and not acting until that's done. If you feel that an action is illegal, you don't take that action until the legality of it has been clarified.

Her specific order to her subordinates, which got her fired, was to not present arguments in court in defense of the executive order. It wasn't a decision to enforce or not. The judge's stay should have settled that until a hearing was held.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile in the "You can't make this shit up" category:

Video of Yates' 2015 confirmation hearing as deputy attorney general shows Sen. Jeff Sessions grilling her about her responsibility to then-President Barack Obama should he require her to execute "unlawful" views. Sessions is now Donald Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department.

"You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?" Sessions asks Yates.

"A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example by saying, 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?' " the GOP senator from Alabama asks, referring to Obama's 2014 nomination of Loretta Lynch as attorney general.

"But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?"
Yates replies: "Senator, 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."

 

[Malintent]

How does the head of the Executive branch of the government have fuck-all to even say anything about the happenings within the Judicial branch of government? The AG is Judicial, right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How does the head of the Executive branch of the government have fuck-all to even say anything about the happenings within the Judicial branch of government? The AG is Judicial, right?

Nope, executive.

 

[Malintent]

How does the head of the Executive branch of the government have fuck-all to even say anything about the happenings within the Judicial branch of government? The AG is Judicial, right?

Nope, executive.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[faded_Glory]

The fundamental problem with this order is that it sanctions people not because of what they do, but because of who they are. This is a major departure from the widely accepted principle that 'justice is blind', and from the equally widely accepted principle of assumed innocence until proven guilty.

Granting entry to the USA should be based on vetting people with respect to their past actions, on an individual basis. A blanket ban based on nationality would only be justified if the USA was in a state of war with such nations.

 

[dismal]

The fundamental problem with this order is that it sanctions people not because of what they do, but because of who they are. This is a major departure from the widely accepted principle that 'justice is blind', and from the equally widely accepted principle of assumed innocence until proven guilty.

Granting entry to the USA should be based on vetting people with respect to their past actions, on an individual basis. A blanket ban based on nationality would only be justified if the USA was in a state of war with such nations.

For almost the entire history of this country we have had laws restricting immigration of groups of people. We currently have a statute which clearly seems to provide for exactly that:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

 

[Warpoet]

For almost the entire history of this country we have had laws restricting immigration of groups of people. We currently have a statute which clearly seems to provide for exactly that:

Those powers exist based on the assumption that the president will not be some batshit insane motherfucker, and will use his power responsibly and consistent with established legal precedent. Literally nothing about this order is consistent with past policy. This analysis explains that at length, along with many reasons why the order is just generally a poorly-written piece of shit.

Basically, Trump and his team of imbeciles are grasping at every shred of legal authority they can find to justify this monstrosity - which is populist horseshit that will harm far more than it helps. And they've still run afoul of the First Amendment. Fucking idiots.

 

[fast]

Her interpretation of the Law. There is nothing illegal about refusing entry into the USA. The contraversy is preventing people who already have visas and green cards

No, banning on the basis of religion while giving another religion priority is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I'm not sure on something that some people seem quite sure about. It has to do with scope. American citizens are granted legal rights. These (what may or may not be natural rights of sorts) are codified into the supreme law of the land. When you speak of the establishment clause, you speak of but a part of an amendment to this law. Never mind right or wrong for a moment, as there's no moral argument at play in honing in on what I'm not sure about, which is strictly a legal issue pertaining to the applicability of this nations highest document concerning the issue at hand.

So what if a non-citizen is refused entry on practically any basis? How is it that we are legally obligated to treat non-citizens identical to how we treat citizens who are afforded legally granted constitutional rights?

 

[LordKiran]

No, banning on the basis of religion while giving another religion priority is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I'm not sure on something that some people seem quite sure about. It has to do with scope. American citizens are granted legal rights. These (what may or may not be natural rights of sorts) are codified into the supreme law of the land. When you speak of the establishment clause, you speak of but a part of an amendment to this law. Never mind right or wrong for a moment, as there's no moral argument at play in honing in on what I'm not sure about, which is strictly a legal issue pertaining to the applicability of this nations highest document concerning the issue at hand.

So what if a non-citizen is refused entry on practically any basis? How is it that we are legally obligated to treat non-citizens identical to how we treat citizens who are afforded legally granted constitutional rights?

Because the constitution is built upon the idea that rights are natural, omnipresent, and inalienable. In essence, your rights are not derived from your citizenship, they're inherent to simply being.

 

[Warpoet]

So what if a non-citizen is refused entry on practically any basis? How is it that we are legally obligated to treat non-citizens identical to how we treat citizens who are afforded legally granted constitutional rights?

Because America doesn't exist in a vacuum, and who we do or do not let in will invariably, over time, affect the makeup and composition of our society, and by extension of our politics. Also, what LordKiran said.

To those of you who cling to the idea that there can be nothing unconstitutional about barring a non-citizen from entry for any reason whatsoever: if, somehow, a Muslim president were elected, and issued an executive order saying that only devout, fanatical Muslims who can sufficiently prove their piety would be allowed to enter the United States, and all others would be turned away, would any of you persist in claiming that this is within the president's powers and not inconsistent with the Constitution?

 

[Trausti]

I'm not sure on something that some people seem quite sure about. It has to do with scope. American citizens are granted legal rights. These (what may or may not be natural rights of sorts) are codified into the supreme law of the land. When you speak of the establishment clause, you speak of but a part of an amendment to this law. Never mind right or wrong for a moment, as there's no moral argument at play in honing in on what I'm not sure about, which is strictly a legal issue pertaining to the applicability of this nations highest document concerning the issue at hand.

So what if a non-citizen is refused entry on practically any basis? How is it that we are legally obligated to treat non-citizens identical to how we treat citizens who are afforded legally granted constitutional rights?

Because the constitution is built upon the idea that rights are natural, omnipresent, and inalienable. In essence, your rights are not derived from your citizenship, they're inherent to simply being.

No. No. The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens in foreign lands. The Courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over foreign policy. None. Nada. Zilch.  Political question However, the Constitution does apply to all persons in the US, legal or illegal, citizen or not. The executive order was initially overbroad on that count.