Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Trump sacks acting attorney general Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So it was spam?



    mathemagician is the one you mean, he creates many more threads than I.

    In addition, no one forced you to click on the thread
    Nope.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    mathemagician is the one you mean, he creates many more threads than I
    I don't recall saying "create". Yet another example of you (deliberately?) failing to properly read and understand what people write.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    I don't recall saying "create". Yet another example of you (deliberately?) failing to properly read and understand what people write.
    I know you didn't, but I assumed you were accusing me of being annoying by spamming threads. Accusing me of just posting a lot in threads others created, never crossed my mind, because a) not like there are few Trumpers here who do the exact same, and b) that is completely ludicrous.

    But hey, if you get annoyed because someone in an open internet forum posts a lot, you know, that's your issue, not theirs

    Good luck with all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Google22)
    Nope.
    Yes it was.

    Typical Trump logic though, it is what I think it is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yea, exactly, Trump threw a tantrum over something much less. Well spotted.
    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...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Good. You go against the president, you deserve to be fired.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ..
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry to spoil your latests group fantasy..........

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...ers-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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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"
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    You people are lame. No one said "You're fired" yet
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 1, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.