The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Sarkus said:
Indeed. As I understand the role of the US GA, it is to enforce the legislation that her boss sets out. If she disagreed with the legislation, considered it unconstitutional, then she could resign, but her role would be to enforce whatever the President sets out, to argue for the upholding of the legislation in courts, not to simply refuse to do so because she considered it undefendable. That matter is for the courts to decide; hers is to simply to defend as best she can, no matter whether she personally agrees with it or not.
Sure, you'd hope the President would be consulting his GA before making such executive orders, but that's a separate matter. In this instance she has seemingly failed to do her job, and is paying the price. And this is irrespective of whether you agree that the law is unconstitutional or not, whether it is defendable or not. Her job is to enforce it, to defend it in court. She said she wouldn't.

That's the way I see it from this side of the pond, but I may not fully understand the finer detail of American politics.
Click to expand...

I think you got it right

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch but I enjoy the twist and turns in legal arguments

Hypothetically if I was given a person to defend on a series crime where I had my own knowledge confirmed guilt

My legal problem would be
  • I can't disclose the information because he is my client
  • defend the client with the knowledge of his guilt
  • find him alternative council and resign
Seems she messed up the sequence

Talk about a bad day

You can speculate on how much firm ground Trump feels he has from the speed of the sacking
 
The United States Attorney General (A.G.) is the head of the United States Department of Justice per 28 U.S.C. § 503, concerned with legal affairs, and is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government. The office is currently held by Dana J. Boente, who assumed the office on January 30, 2017, after the firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates. The attorney general serves as a member of the cabinet of the President of the United States and is the only cabinet officer who does not have the title of secretary. src wiki
The AG is both the head of the USA department of justice AND chief law enforcement officer of the US government.

Google apparently went ape... ( gossip )

The Sally Yates acted in the best interests of the People of the USA as she is obliged to do and history will no doubt vindicate her stance. if she agreed with the POTUS she would be in breach of her obligation to the USA people. She had to act in good faith....
 
Michael 345 said:
She trashed her pledge and sacked for doing so
Click to expand...
Her pledge was not to the POTUS
Her pledge was to the citizens of the USA to protect and defend the constitution,
which is essentially about protecting the Citizens from a rogue Government.
It will be up the courts now to determine if Trumps Government is rogue (acting unconstitutionally) or not.
 
Last edited:
Trumps ability to sack someone is not in question. He has that executive privilege. Right or wrong is not the point. He has the right to sack someone.
However he has no right to force an employee to act against her conscience or illegally...


Gosh where is that refugee ....Superman when you need him.
"Truth, justice and the American way...."

is Krypton on that ban list?
SupermanRoss.png
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Whether she wins of not is not as important as the need to reestablish the integrity of what was her office.
If Trump can sack the judiciary at whim then the USA has no constitution.
Click to expand...

There is no designated term for the attorney general, rather the president can remove him or her from the office at any time.

Additionally, the attorney general can be impeached and tried by Congress if deemed necessary.

Pooooff there goes the Constitution

Byeee
 
What is at stake here is very different to what has happened in the past. The higher ground must be taken. She took it...
 
This is the most disjointed conversation ever. You know understand that he has the right to fire her at will. Therefore she can not sue him as you seem to think. It doesn't even make sense given what you now understand (that she can be fired at will).

You also (it seems) do not understand that being head of the justice dept is not the same as being head of the judiciary (which would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).

There is no right to force someone to do something against their conscious but there is also no right to listen to your conscious and not fulfill your job description and still keep your job.

I'm guessing you are also not knowledgeable of the characteristics of Krypton. :) It is an inert gas. :)
 
Quantum Quack said:
why was she sacked?
Click to expand...

Previously asked and answered

Now back to my question

Please give reference as to who did this dastardly act

.... he (who) has no right (how do you know? Citation please) to force (type and photographic evidence if available) an employee (who) to act against her conscience (what part of her conscience was offended?) or illegally...(which law did it violate)
 
Michael 345 said:
She worked for the US Government ie the citizens of the country {yep}

So that negates POTUS being the boss of the Govenment {nope}

So when a public lawyer files a action against the Order on behalf of the citizens of the country the Attorney General sits with the public prosecutor {gibberish}

Who sits on the Govenment side? {the AG}
Click to expand...
Seattle said:
The AG serves at the whim of the President.
Click to expand...
So? That doesn't change the nature of their job. They are supposed to give legal counsel to the President, for example - which would obviously include telling him when some Order he has issued is illegal or can't be ethically defended in court.

He would be better advised to clear his orders with his legal counsel in the first place, rather than fire them for their dutiful opinions about something he never vetted.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
So? That doesn't change the nature of their job. They are supposed to give legal counsel to the President, for example - which would obviously include telling him when some Order he has issued is illegal or can't be ethically defended in court.

He would be better advised to clear his orders with his legal counsel in the first place, rather than fire them for their dutiful opinions about something he never vetted.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending Donald Trump. I'm just saying this is fairly predictable and it's not illegal for him to do.

He makes the policy and they are supposed to either carry it out or resign. Being fired is also an option. He can't really have an AG who won't follow his instructions. The only reason he had one like that was that his new AG hasn't been confirmed yet.

If his new AG won't follow his instructions due to ethics or morality then it will have more of an impact on his administration.

I fully expect Trump to do himself in before his term is up. I'm just being factual and objective in this particular situation.

By the way, someone implied that he didn't have the right to fire his AG. I said that's not the case. You replay of "So" makes no sense in that context. "So" is also not a particularly articulate response to anything.
 
Last comment:
I think there is every chance that Sally Yates if she wishes to pursue it can set a new precedent in the Supreme court. When reading Korematsu v. United States (1944) and subsequent activities related since, it seems to me that it is very possible the Supreme court may come to a precedent ruling.
The arguments offered by Michael, Seattle, Sarkus are based solely on precedent and as you know the situation the world is currently facing is unprecedented.
Her success in setting a precedent would be dependent in many ways, on just how bad things get with Trump.

Reigning in the power of the POTUS is on many minds at the moment and if he is eventually impeached or other wise removed from office part of the POTUS executive power may very well be set by precedent ruling, that he must act to protect the rights of those in his control to act constitutionally.
 
iceaura said:
rather than fire them for their dutiful opinions about something he never vetted.
Click to expand...

POTUS 'Excuse me AG I've made this note which I think it might be a good law. Can you check it for the legalaly stuff and spelling mistakes please if you're not busy any time will do'

AG 'I will check it later but your handwriting is hard to read when you use crayons'

Doesn't work like that I hope

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top