FLT
Member
:banghead:If you **** on your boss's desk, technically you quit.
The DON / redux
- Thread starter Gordon Gray
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
- Status
Scumurculum
Well-known member
FLT
Member
The judiciary has a mandate to uphold the constitution of the U.S. I would never argue a decision based on that, let's see what you think of today's supreme court pick. :ROFL:
GaryG
Well-known member
Simple, the Attorney General is a member of the executive branch. He or she is a member of the cabinet and answers directly to the president. The confusion here is that the attorney general is the head of the "Deprartment of Justice" this is not the same as the Judicial branch of government. In this case she was a holdover from the Obama administration and Trump had asked her to stay on until the Senate confirmed his choice (Sessions) for the permanent position.
It's not quite so cut and dried as this. As a lawyer, the A.G. Is a member of the bar and has a duty to abide by legal ethics constraints. They are prohibited from making spurious arguments to the Court, such as defending the Constitutionality of a law that they believe is Unconstitutional. I'm sure Sessions will have no such qualms, as his ethics have proved highly malleable over the years. Given the way he is acting thus far, I fully expect Trump will be impeached in his first year. Every single republican in Congress would rather have Pence in the Oval Office than Trump. At this point, they're just trying to give him enough rope to hang himself.
From the reports I have heard the President fired Sally Yates because she refused to enforce the temporary ban.
She said that she could not enforce it, not because it was against the law but because it was, for her ethically wrong.
If, that is in fact the truth then should she not have been removed from her position?
She said that she could not enforce it, not because it was against the law but because it was, for her ethically wrong.
If, that is in fact the truth then should she not have been removed from her position?
If Trump has the power to remove any road block in his path, he will remove that road block. Ethics are moot.
Thanks Rich, after reading your statement I searched it out.
I guess it's no surprise the media has it *** backwards again, this was on Fox and ABC.
I guess it's no surprise the media has it *** backwards again, this was on Fox and ABC.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
That will be his eventual downfall. Just like Nixon. Another egocentric, paranoid, narcissistic, power hungry individual.
I liked the 60's but I don't know if I want a redux.
"I'm no crook" ........... 
Kevin
Well-known member
Actually, you are correct, she did make an ethical argument, as well as offering a very "vague" legal reasoning behind her position. She said that the Office of Legal Counsel did not address whether the law was "wise" or "just". Well, they probably did not do that because it is not their job to determine whether or not a law is wise or just. Neither is it the job of the AG.
Rich, you said- "As a lawyer, the A.G. Is a member of the bar and has a duty to abide by legal ethics constraints. They are prohibited from making spurious arguments to the Court, such as defending the Constitutionality of a law that they believe is Unconstitutional." That would be true, but as you pointed out, her statement was, "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." That is a far cry from saying that her belief is that the order is unconstitutional. She is stating that she has no idea. As such, since she serves the president , she should defend the order unless she was "convinced that the order was unlawful".
If she felt she could not proceed with this order due to her personal opinion of what is wise and just, as well as having some measure of doubt over the orders lawfulness, she should have simply voiced her concerns to Trump and had offered up her resignation. The fact that she refused to proceed with the order over these very dubious arguments, strikes me that she was neglecting her duties to make an ideological stand. Trump not only had the right to fire her for that, but in my opinion, the duty to have done so. If he did anything wrong at all, it's that given her judgement on this matter, he didn't fire her on day one.
Love the 'Dons' choice for Supreme Court ! ..........
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html
FWIW, I selected the Chicken Noddle News (CNN) report so as to appease a certain faction ..........
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html
FWIW, I selected the Chicken Noddle News (CNN) report so as to appease a certain faction ..........
Semantics, Kevin. Saying "I am not convinced the order is lawful" is the same as saying "I believe the order is unlawful." If she is not convinced it is lawful, then she has an ethical duty to not defend it as lawful before the Court. She did the right thing, whether or not lay people agree with it.
By the way, the order appears to me to be unlawful, because it singles people out by both country of origin and religion. Trump specifically stated the exception in it was to protect persecuted Christians. The statutes governing this matter, as well as international treaties on refugee treatment and the Constitution itself, specifically prohibit singling out by nationality or religion. So I believe Yates is on fairly solid legal ground with her decision. And Trump, not so much. It will take a while to wind through the court system, but I believe the administration will lose this one and Yates will be vindicated in her decision. Although, I think this will be the least of Trump's troubles. He's acting like a bull in a china shop and he will likely get in much more hot water than this before we are done. I'll be surprised if he lasts a year in office.
By the way, the order appears to me to be unlawful, because it singles people out by both country of origin and religion. Trump specifically stated the exception in it was to protect persecuted Christians. The statutes governing this matter, as well as international treaties on refugee treatment and the Constitution itself, specifically prohibit singling out by nationality or religion. So I believe Yates is on fairly solid legal ground with her decision. And Trump, not so much. It will take a while to wind through the court system, but I believe the administration will lose this one and Yates will be vindicated in her decision. Although, I think this will be the least of Trump's troubles. He's acting like a bull in a china shop and he will likely get in much more hot water than this before we are done. I'll be surprised if he lasts a year in office.
I agree that he is one of the better choices on Don's list. Lord, anyone is better than Pryor. But I don't expect an easy confirmation. Democrats are still rightfully pissed at republicans for refusing to consider Obama's choice, effectively stealing the seat. It may very well take the nuclear option being used to get him confirmed. And you know how politics goes . . . once the cat is out of the bag, its a tool for future democratic majorities to use at will. Harry Reid has already partially opened that door, and the republicans may swing it wide open. We may very well see the end of the filibuster as a tool of minority power. This is historical in and of itself.
Kevin
Well-known member
Semantics? Perhaps you're correct, maybe it comes down to what the definition of "is" is.
Scumurculum
Well-known member
Thus it starts....
As an Australian, and part of a country that has basically been the US's closest ally for 70 years. We deserve better than this
Allies should be treated with respect even when there are disagreements.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...s/news-story/fbdac6ae86d62ff0f03bd8d51637a47a
The picture of Bannon sitting across is truly frightening
As an Australian, and part of a country that has basically been the US's closest ally for 70 years. We deserve better than this
Allies should be treated with respect even when there are disagreements.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...s/news-story/fbdac6ae86d62ff0f03bd8d51637a47a
The picture of Bannon sitting across is truly frightening
Last edited:
I didn't read the whole thing but I thought I saw the word 'illegal' more than once, if true, what's your point ??
Scumurculum
Well-known member
My point is obvious......................Oh i give up
- Status
