Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

Trump cabinet: Democrats boycott health and treasury picks.


Sally Yates (Former AG) also released a public letter at the time explaining why not defending the EO was doing her job (Or at least a letter was linked to in that BBC article):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438879/Letter-From-Sally-Yates.pdf

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.

[Strife26]

Firing someone for doing their job, because their (important) job conflicts with what their boss wants to do...

Then hiring someone specifically so they will butcher the intent of that job and support their boss regardless.

It would be like if someone created someone whose only job is to make sure that building a tower won't crush anyone... Then when they say "No, that tower will crush someone" the boss fires them and hires someone and they go "Yes, don't worry. We will get that tower up!"

It really doesn't build confidence... Even further it says bad things when a person will fire anyone who says something they don't like.

If a prosecutor refuses to prosecute a case, they get disbarred. She's refused to represent her client (the US government) in the court of law, why should he not get rid of her?

Exactly. The AG is a part of the executive branch, y'know, the one underneath the person who gets elected president.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Starting today, he will start stocking the Supco. His appointees will be those he has leverage over. Expect at least one more justice to die of "natural causes," such as polonium poisoning.

I'll say this for the anti-Trump crowd, at least their conspiracy theories are more entertaining. Definitely spicier than anything to do with Obama's birth certificate.

Also it's somewhat ironic that Trump gets accused of being divisive by people who seem to be constantly fomenting unrest and who have a general 'Let's do all we can to resist our democratically-elected president!' attitude.

Tu quoque is not a valid form of argument. Try again.

Additionally, pfffff are you fricking serious, we've seen four years of a Republican Congress doing anything they can to obstruct the government from functioning, and you accuse us of having an "attitude of resistance". Hah. Gander and goose, sucker.


But actually seriously, though: obstruction is a valid move. Trump is IMO awful. I do not want him to carry through with what he intends to do. So I will support obstruction through the legal channels. It's what the Reps did to Obama, so there's nothing wrong with it (until we start doing it, then it's awful ).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yates' argument is sound. Every DA in the nation has to choose what is and is not practical to pursue, this enforcement discretion is an essential and constant part of their jobs. And there's no doubt that Trump's order is legally indefensible.

While Trump firing her is not unexpected, if he were smart....well, if he were smart he wouldn't have passed a legally indefensible order in the first place.

I'm sure whatever yesman he gets for the job will be less competent, so you won't see me complaining.

[Grim Portent]

Firing someone for doing their job, because their (important) job conflicts with what their boss wants to do...

Then hiring someone specifically so they will butcher the intent of that job and support their boss regardless.

It would be like if someone created someone whose only job is to make sure that building a tower won't crush anyone... Then when they say "No, that tower will crush someone" the boss fires them and hires someone and they go "Yes, don't worry. We will get that tower up!"

It really doesn't build confidence... Even further it says bad things when a person will fire anyone who says something they don't like.

If a prosecutor refuses to prosecute a case, they get disbarred. She's refused to represent her client (the US government) in the court of law, why should he not get rid of her?

Exactly. The AG is a part of the executive branch, y'know, the one underneath the person who gets elected president.

Lawyers and the like are still supposed to hold to various ethical and legal standards regardless of what their employer tells them to do.

As I recall it's against the ethics legal professionals have to abide by to represent a client you know or believe is guilty as if they were innocent, you're supposed to plead guilty for a reduced sentence, if you can convince your client that's the best option, or dismiss yourself from the case.

[Strife26]

You recall poorly.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

I recall that all lawyers are slimy scum who will do anything for money.

(that's a stereotype, and yes, I'm aware that it's incorrect)

[martinuzz]

In response to Trump's main financial advisor calling the euro an 'implicit German Mark', and accusing Germany of foul play in the Financial Times, saying that the common european currency makes the machines, cars and other products of the Exportweltmeister extra cheap, pushing US producers out of the market, the dollar has plummeted considerably. This is, according to Navarro, the main thing that stands in the way of creating a trade agreement between the US and EU.
Later that day, Trump himself attacked the valuta policy of other countries.
In a first reaction, Merkel has said that she has no idea what he is talking about.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-forex-idUSKBN15F013

[Rolan7]

The burden of proof is important.  Everyone in the courtroom might be sure the defendant is guilty, including their lawyer, but they still get a chance.  If the prosecution can't prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the person has to walk.

Otherwise you endanger innocent people who only appear to be obviously guilty.  Defending a guilty person is actually pretty rough for the lawyer, since losses look really bad on their record.  But someone needs to do it, for the system to work.

[sluissa]

It's very easy to find examples where both Bushes, Clinton and Obama allegedly violated the War Powers Act.

If you think presidents are following the law then you aren't paying attention.

Key word here is allegedly. They are testing the waters in a way, but doing so carefully. If you think the President gets to do whatever they want, then you aren't paying attention.

If the President were to brazenly violate the act, and Congress were to call him out on it, it would initiate an immediate constitutaional crisis, which could only be resolved by the courts. If the President wins, that fine; they get their way both now and in the future. But if the President lost that fight, the result wouldn't be "curtailment of executive power", it would be "The President has violated the law and the Consitution." No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. Forget not getting re-elected, that's impeachment material right there. And since the Supreme Court has signaled they aren't interested in debating it, the only scenario where they would is if they were forced to by a crisis. So the President can't challenge the law without playing a game which can easily lose them their office. Of course, as long as no one calls the President on what they do, it's fine; so the President has to be very careful to make sure they don't call him on it (which he does by making a show of adhering to the law), because if they do, he'll be forced to back down or go all-in on a very uncertain outcome. So the President doesn't want to follow the law to the letter, but they cannot afford to be challenged on it, because either they back down (and have to back down on claiming it is unconstitutional) or they don't, and risk everything.

So don't be so rude. Things aren't so obvious as they appear.

In at least one case, Obama was called out on it by Congress. In a vote. There was no followup impeachment, but they refused to authorize his continued actions in Syria by a House vote in 2011. His excuse was that it was NATO fighting and not the US. There was no significant fallout over it.

[Puzzlemaker]

Politics are so hostile right now.  I don't care about a lot of the stuff, I just wish everyone loved each other and got along. 

[uber pye]

Politics are so hostile right now.  I don't care about a lot of the stuff, I just wish everyone loved each other and got along. 

everyone wants that, to bad everyone's definition of "love each other and get along" is different.
but, yeah all the "[other side] is evil we are good" sucks.

[Sergarr]

Some possible insight on your future Supreme Judges. Neither of the two choices appear to be R-Bot types, which is kinda good.

[Frumple]

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.

Yeah, for those questioning, I'll reinforce this and retract part of what I said earlier; if the AG believed the EO was unlawful -- as this quote definitely seems to support -- then refusing to defend it was very much their mandate, and the AG was doing exactly what they should have. They have a responsibility to enforce the lawful orders et al of the pres and by extension executive branch, but also one to not enforce unlawful ones.

Basically,

Lawyers and the like are still supposed to hold to various ethical and legal standards regardless of what their employer tells them to do.

this, except the thing to remember is that while the president does do the equivalent to hiring in this case, the employer is the government as a whole, and ethical and legal responsibilities to that supersede any to the president in cases where the two are (perceived to be) in conflict. If the AG thought the order was unlawful, holding off on enforcement and whatnot until that could be confirmed was by and large the correct thing to do.

[Grim Portent]

You recall poorly.

An hour of reading through legal ethics discussions says I was indeed wrong on their being an ethical duty in the current legal ethics system (referred to as deontological in some of the stuff I've looked at) used in the US to step down when you know or believe your client to be guilty, you are instead expected to pussyfoot around the issue in court. Though an attorney is allowed to request dismissal from the case by the judge if they feel it would be ethically wrong to defend their client, though apparently judges do not like this as it sets a bad precedent for difficult to represent clients being able to run out of willing representatives, and they can of course refuse to take a client in the first place.

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=facultyworkingpapers

http://info.sfcriminallawspecialist.com/bid/82057/How-Lawyers-Defend-a-Guilty-Client-in-a-Criminal-Case

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html

Personally I think the socialist ethical model from the second link sounds substantially better than the deontological model or the autonomy model described in the same, but that's not a discussion for here and now, though it would probably be fun.

Regardless, the overall impression I've gotten is that, applying the behavioral standards of an attorney as described in what I've read, the AGs actions seem entirely acceptable, though so would defending the EO in court, assuming it was even possible to do so.