The Student Room Group

Trump sacks acting attorney general

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by Google22
Nope.


Yes it was.

Typical Trump logic though, it is what I think it is.
Reply 21
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by JohnGreek
I hope that you’ve realised that you’ve framed this discussion in a way that Trump cannot win. If he dismissed her over something major (like her investigating him for xyz), you would have called him a corrupt, Nixonian traitor. Now that he dismisses her for something relatively minor (basically her undermining his policy), you belittle him and claim that he’s throwing a tantrum over nothing. Given that it’s become a custom for the incoming President to kick out the previous AG, I honestly don’t know why you’re kicking a fuss over this. Anything to smear Trump, I guess...


Why is he supposed to "win" here?
Good. You go against the president, you deserve to be fired.
Original post by Len Goodman
Good. You go against the president, you deserve to be fired.


Sally Yates' responsibility was to protect the constitution and uphold the rule of law in the US.
I don't mind this; it will be far more satisfying to see the Trump administration lose the legal battle with a DOJ that actually tries to justify the policy, as opposed to one that doesn't even try to!
Original post by InnerTemple
Sally Yates' responsibility was to protect the constitution and uphold the rule of law in the US.


No-one appointed her to all nine seats on the Supreme Court.

An adversarial system relies on cases being thoroughly argued.

No-one was suggesting she did anything improper.

However her position was that she was not prepared for her client's case to be put before a court unless she was personally satisfied that her client's case was correct. There would be few defence lawyers in any criminal court if that was the test for representation. The real problem with her approach is that it deprives the courts of the opportunity on ruling on the lawfulness of Trump's actions and makes her the sole arbiter of its unlawfulness.
Reply 26
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by nulli tertius
No-one appointed her to all nine seats on the Supreme Court.

An adversarial system relies on cases being thoroughly argued.

No-one was suggesting she did anything improper.

However her position was that she was not prepared for her client's case to be put before a court unless she was personally satisfied that her client's case was correct. There would be few defence lawyers in any criminal court if that was the test for representation. The real problem with her approach is that it deprives the courts of the opportunity on ruling on the lawfulness of Trump's actions and makes her the sole arbiter of its unlawfulness.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDjylQ5Ps

She told them she would not carry out unlawful orders. She did just that.
Original post by yudothis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDjylQ5Ps

She told them she would not carry out unlawful orders. She did just that.


And who decided the orders were unlawful?

None of the Federal judges who heard emergency applications have done so.
Original post by nulli tertius
No-one appointed her to all nine seats on the Supreme Court.

An adversarial system relies on cases being thoroughly argued.

No-one was suggesting she did anything improper.

However her position was that she was not prepared for her client's case to be put before a court unless she was personally satisfied that her client's case was correct. There would be few defence lawyers in any criminal court if that was the test for representation. The real problem with her approach is that it deprives the courts of the opportunity on ruling on the lawfulness of Trump's actions and makes her the sole arbiter of its unlawfulness.


"... If Congress were to enact a law requiring, for example, that the Attorney General arrest and imprison all members of the opposition party without trial, the Attorney General could lawfully decline to enforce such a law; and he could lawfully decline to defend it in court. Indeed, he would be untrue to his office if he were to do otherwise ..."

I think she did none other than abide by the oath she swore years ago. And she upset a President who has essentially been ruling by decree.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
And who decided the orders were unlawful?

Head of the US Department of Justice?! They might have an opinion worth listening to ..
Original post by nulli tertius
However her position was that she was not prepared for her client's case to be put before a court unless she was personally satisfied that her client's case was correct.

She appeared sure that it was unlawful, which is not the same as doubting that it's lawful.
Original post by InnerTemple
"... If Congress were to enact a law requiring, for example, that the Attorney General arrest and imprison all members of the opposition party without trial, the Attorney General could lawfully decline to enforce such a law; and he could lawfully decline to defend it in court. Indeed, he would be untrue to his office if he were to do otherwise ..."

I think she did none other than abide by the oath she swore years ago. And she upset a President who has essentially been ruling by decree.


But if Congress were to enact a law requiring for example the US Postal Service to arrest and imprison all members of the opposition party without trial (or for that matter for the US Customs to arrest and imprison all Iraqis setting foot in the USA), I submit it would be wholly improper for the AG not to defend that law before the courts. The AG is not the arbiter of the Constitution.
Sorry to spoil your latests group fantasy..........

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/boom-new-acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-defend-lawful-orders-president/


A few hours later, Boente issued a statement rescinding Yates’ order, instructing DOJ lawyers to “defend the lawful orders of our President.”…
…”I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed,” Boente said in a statement produced by the White House in announcing the appointment. “I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected.

Before you start.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Boente

He was nominated by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2015, and confirmed by the United States Senate on December 15, 2015, as the 60th U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

Don't be too disappointed i'm sure you will come up with another fantasy soon enough.
Original post by RogerOxon
Head of the US Department of Justice?! They might have an opinion worth listening to ..


Yes, and she should have tendered that advice to her client and it would have been a lot better if he had listened to it.

This is what the American Bar Association Code of Ethics says

"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."

Is she saying that the argument the Executive Order is lawful which is being maintained by various participants in the drafting process including a former US District Attorney (Giuliani) is not merely wrong but frivolous?

Original post by RogerOxon
She appeared sure that it was unlawful, which is not the same as doubting that it's lawful.


That isn't what she said:-

"In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.(1) At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful"(2)

(1) Where did that obligation come from?
(2) Not "I am convinced the Executive Order is unlawful"
You people are lame. No one said "You're fired" yet
Original post by nulli tertius
"nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful"

I take your point, but the wording, and her actions, make it clear that she thinks that it is unlawful. The wording is subtle, but I think conveys that she's reasonably sure that it isn't lawful.
Reply 36
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by nulli tertius
And who decided the orders were unlawful?

None of the Federal judges who heard emergency applications have done so.


So every time the AG thinks he or she should not do something, they should do it anyway and let the courts decide instead? First, wow, second, what do you know about the role of the AG that means that is how they are supposed to behave?
Original post by nulli tertius
But if Congress were to enact a law requiring for example the US Postal Service to arrest and imprison all members of the opposition party without trial (or for that matter for the US Customs to arrest and imprison all Iraqis setting foot in the USA), I submit it would be wholly improper for the AG not to defend that law before the courts. The AG is not the arbiter of the Constitution.


I take the point.

But surely if we were to follow this line of thinking, the AG could find themselves in a tricky situation. Where they know that a measure is unconstitutional - but then enforce it and defend it which would apparently lead them turning their back on the Oath they swore.
Original post by yudothis
So every time the AG thinks he or she should not do something, they should do it anyway and let the courts decide instead?


No definitely not.

The AG has a dual role. She is head of a large executive department but she is also the government's chief lawyer.

In her executive role, she like all other Americans is bound by the law and the Constitution and "Donald told me to do this" is no defence if she acts illegally.

However, here she is not acting as an executive but as a lawyer. Her function is to represent her client, the government and advance the arguments that are available to it to defend its interests.
Reply 39
Avatar for yudothis
yudothis
OP
20
Original post by nulli tertius
No definitely not.

The AG has a dual role. She is head of a large executive department but she is also the government's chief lawyer.

In her executive role, she like all other Americans is bound by the law and the Constitution and "Donald told me to do this" is no defence if she acts illegally.

However, here she is not acting as an executive but as a lawyer. Her function is to represent her client, the government and advance the arguments that are available to it to defend its interests.


Then I again refer you what she said in that clip - she will not carry out orders that she sees as unlawful.

If that is not how an AG should behave, that should immediately disqualify, and a successful candidate would have replied in the way you did. She should have said I will carry out the orders that are given to me and will defend them in front of a court until they are found to be unlawful.

So you are just assuming that her role in this should have been "lawyer defends probably guilty client". I see no evidence to confirm that assumption. Given the clip, I see evidence against it.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you