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

Trump sacks acting attorney general Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Lol. Trumps administration looks like it will be the most incompetent fascist regime in history.
    You must be having a laugh. If you really believe this, please enrol yourself in a year 7 history class
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    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.
    There may be cases in which an AG knows that a measure is unconstitutional but what that amounts to is "if this is taken to the Supreme Court I would expect a unanimous decision" or possibly even, "there is no respectable body of legal opinion that supports a contrary view".

    On anything that matters, that is unlikely to be the case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    "The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his or her advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments.""

    That clearly reads to me her advice was "this is not lawful". Trump fired her within ours branding her a "traitor". He regards himself as above the law - he doesn't need an AG, he needs a laptop doing what he says. Instead of asking her whether such a ban is lawful, he simply said do it, and she didn't and he fired her.

    I honestly do not understand how an intelligent human being is not deeply troubled by this behavior. Doesn't America pretend it has moral authority over countries like North Korea, China, Turkey?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    The reference to "order" confirms that what the questioning is addressing is her role as (deputy) head of an executive department. She is being asked to do something. She is not representing some other government agency which may have acted illegally.

    The questioning didn't occur in a vacuum. Always at the back of such questioning is the Saturday Night Massacre

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

    However more recently there was Congressional suspicion of political interference in the sacking of Bush Jr federal prosecutors

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismis...ys_controversy

    In both cases the issue was the AG acting in an executive capacity as employer.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    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.
    She thinks it is unlawful but if the AG can legitimately decide not to defend what she thinks is unlawful, she becomes the sole arbiter of whether something is unlawful, because the suit goes by default.

    The danger with her approach can be seen in Hollingsworth v Perry

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry

    which has totally emasculated California's power of public legislative initiation. It doesn't matter how many people back the law change; if you haven't got the support of the AG, he will allow a constitutional challenge to succeed by default.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The reference to "order" confirms that what the questioning is addressing is her role as (deputy) head of an executive department. She is being asked to do something. She is not representing some other government agency which may have acted illegally.

    The questioning didn't occur in a vacuum. Always at the back of such questioning is the Saturday Night Massacre

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

    However more recently there was Congressional suspicion of political interference in the sacking of Bush Jr federal prosecutors

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismis...ys_controversy

    In both cases the issue was the AG acting in an executive capacity as employer.
    So when she is doing something out of her own will, it must be within the law as she sees it.

    When the president tells her to do something, she has to follow it (even if she advises him it is unlawful)?

    Seems plausible, but begs the question where one draws the line. Would lead to a situation where she simultaneously acts as per presidents orders and at the same time starts lawsuit against the president's actions.

    Or she can just refuse to do it and be fired. In which case it also still begs the question what kind of a president Trump is if he so easily disregards the opinion of the top lawyer in the country. Only to replace with a lapdog.

    So my point remains, he is more like Russia, China, Turkey, North Korea than Americans would not even dare remotely dream of.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So when she is doing something out of her own will, it must be within the law as she sees it.

    When the president tells her to do something, she has to follow it (even if she advises him it is unlawful)?
    No.

    If she is acting as the boss of the FBI or the US Marshals Service or as the employer of lots of lawyers she must act within the law whether it is her decision or Trump's orders. Trump's orders, if illegal, provide her with no protection.

    But when she is acting as the government's lawyer or providing direction to other lawyers acting as the government's lawyer the position is different.

    If she is advising the government her duty is to give the best counsel she can as to what the law is.

    But if she is defending the action of the government, then she must put the best argument that can legitimately be advanced on behalf of the government even if she would not accept that argument if she was sitting as a judge.

    It isn't really that different from what lawyers do the world over.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No.

    If she is acting as the boss of the FBI or the US Marshals Service or as the employer of lots of lawyers she must act within the law whether it is her decision or Trump's orders. Trump's orders, if illegal, provide her with no protection.

    But when she is acting as the government's lawyer or providing direction to other lawyers acting as the government's lawyer the position is different.

    If she is advising the government her duty is to give the best counsel she can as to what the law is.

    But if she is defending the action of the government, then she must put the best argument that can legitimately be advanced on behalf of the government even if she would not accept that argument if she was sitting as a judge.

    It isn't really that different from what lawyers do the world over.
    No.

    You keep contradicting yourself. You keep refusing to specify your standpoint. You have given different examples but again said nothing really new in this post. This is a waste of time.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    No.

    You keep contradicting yourself. You keep refusing to specify your standpoint. You have given different examples but again said nothing really new in this post. This is a waste of time.
    As I am sure everyone else on this thread will concur, whether or not they agree with my view, my position has been absolutely consistent throughout.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    As I am sure everyone else on this thread will concur, whether or not they agree with my view, my position has been absolutely consistent throughout.
    It's not even about a view. I was asking you why you seem to know more about what the AG can or cannot do. If you are a lawyer, or have studied the US constitution or similar, that would be fair and I would accept it. However, you have done little to convince me. Maybe contradict was the wrong choice of word. In-concise and imprecise. Anyway, as I said this has become a waste of time.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    It's not even about a view. I was asking you why you seem to know more about what the AG can or cannot do. If you are a lawyer, or have studied the US constitution or similar, that would be fair and I would accept it. However, you have done little to convince me. Maybe contradict was the wrong choice of word. In-concise and imprecise. Anyway, as I said this has become a waste of time.
    I am a lawyer. I am not an American lawyer. I know something of American constitutional and legal history.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am a lawyer. I am not an American lawyer. I know something of American constitutional and legal history.
    Yes, I figured. Doesn't change the fact you have not been precise in your argument. You have given examples, yes, but not more, just "she acted as the government's lawyer like any other lawyer who would defend someone guilty". I questioned this and I am sorry but your answer was not satisfactory.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    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.
    What's your point? he is hardly going to say they are unlawful. That is what got the previous one fired. They are entitled to their view, but the courts will decide whether it is lawful or not. Lawters will always believe they are correct, that is what happens in an adversarial system.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes, I figured. Doesn't change the fact you have not been precise in your argument. You have given examples, yes, but not more, just "she acted as the government's lawyer like any other lawyer who would defend someone guilty". I questioned this and I am sorry but your answer was not satisfactory.
    Its a free country. You are entitled to your opinion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805944

    What a cluster****.

    Doesn't Donald realize he is one tiny *******?
    I mean, he might "only" be one tiny whatever the **** you said buuuttttt, he's kinda POTUS, meaning he can do this, the only reason Obama's appointee (who serves at the pleasure of the president) was still there is Sessions not yet being confirmed (expected in the coming days), and he's "only" the most powerful man in the world by a country mile.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    What's your point? he is hardly going to say they are unlawful. That is what got the previous one fired. They are entitled to their view, but the courts will decide whether it is lawful or not. Lawters will always believe they are correct, that is what happens in an adversarial system.
    My point is, the left getting all tingly up the pant leg over an Obama lackey toeing the Dem party line was a bit premature.

    While i applaud Trums travel ban I understand that ultimately with such a contentious policy, the courts will probably end up deciding if it stands.

    Lets hope loyalty to the constitution trumps party loyalty.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.