The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. This is not about supporting the constitution, but her own conscientious objection. She defied the POTUS and he was her boss. Fired was the correct action. Tell your boss no, next time you are asked to perform a task and see where that gets you. At best, you get written up, worst case you get fired.
Sessions: You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say "no" about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say "No" to the President, if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, "He appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?" But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful should the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General say "no"?
Yates: Senator, I believe that 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.
And here's her full statement as to why she would not enforce it and why she feels the legal review does not show it to be lawful.Educate yourself:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653...ly-yates-disobey-improper-presidential-orders
If you can't be bothered to watch a 1 minute video here's the transcript:
Let me guess, if Sessions says no to the orange god emperor it's "okay", but if anyone else does it's "defying the supreme ruling of the POTUS"
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. 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. 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.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
"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's right"
Stand for what's right? Clearly she doesn't think protecting U.S. citizens from known risk factors stands for what's right.
Glad she was fired.
What pertinent law did she cite before not performing her job?It's probably more that she doesn't think enforcing unconstitutional things is right, considering that would be a violation of her oath.
Did you not notice that this EO has already been ruled likely unconstitutional? I assume you don't want our law enforcement enforcing unconstitutional things, right?
And here's her full statement as to why she would not enforce it and why she feels the legal review does not show it to be lawful.
My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.
You think it's the AG's job to rubber stamp anything and everything the president orders?Posting after a Picard post.
Just like Kim Davis she got fired for not doing her job. Nothing earthshaking about it.
What pertinent law did she cite before not performing her job?
I use the fact that Sanders was very much in tune to the populist undercurrent that Clinton completely overlooked. If Clinton was superior to Sanders, that means the best candidate the Democrats managed to field lost to a reality show celebrity with a Twitter account.So you use the fact that Sanders beat Clinton in some states as evidence he would have beaten Trump there but then say Bernie would have beaten Trump in Pennsylvania despite Clinton crushing Sanders by 12 points there. This makes no logical sense.
Sanders was a bad candidate. He lost for a very good reason and it wasn't because the DNC said mean things about him.
Kim Davis wasn't fired. In fact, it's basically impossible to fire her because she is an elected official - she'd have to be impeached or voted out at the next election.Posting after a Picard post.
Just like Kim Davis she got fired for not doing her job. Nothing earthshaking about it.
She was just sentenced to jail? That is SO much better.Kim Davis wasn't fired. In fact, it's basically impossible to fire her because she is an elected official - she'd have to be impeached or voted out at the next election.
I use the fact that Sanders was very much in tune to the populist undercurrent that Clinton completely overlooked. If Clinton was superior to Sanders, that means the best candidate the Democrats managed to field lost to a reality show celebrity with a Twitter account.
Obama appointee clashes swords with Trump. Shocking.As attorney general she is required to use her own judgment. That's literally the point of the job. Lol.
Federal courts have so far agreed she got it right. Smart lady to follow the constitution, wouldn't you agree?
She was in contempt of court. Maybe she should learn to follow legally issued court orders instead of openly defying them.She was just sentenced to jail? That is SO much better.
She was dealt with harshly by the people in power for not doing her job. Works for both of them.She was in contempt of court. Maybe she should learn to follow legally issued court orders instead of openly defying them.
Obama appointee clashes swords with Trump. Shocking.
She acted within the boundaries of her duties, but that does not mean that her own judgment is necessarily good judgment. Lynch is evidence enough of AG's demonstrating incredibly poor judgment.
Lot of good those 12 points did in the general. How did she manage to lose fvcking Pennsylvania, a state that hasn't gone red since 1988.He was so in tune with it in Pennsylvania that he lost to Clinton by double digits. Saying he would win there when she lost makes no sense.
She was dealt with harshly by the people in power for not doing her job. Works for both of them.
Lot of good those 12 points did in the general. How did she manage to lose fvcking Pennsylvania, a state that hasn't gone red since 1988.
Florida is not the rust belt. Bernie would have won PA, WI and MI over Trump. As I said, Trump had one narrow populist path to victory and Sanders could have blocked it.
My concerns were valid given who is now in the White House.
It is well-established that primary turnout and performance is a poor predictor of the general election. You're grasping at straws.Lot of good those 12 points did in the general. How did she manage to lose fvcking Pennsylvania, a state that hasn't gone red since 1988.
Trump acted within his authority....