Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Acting AG’s Showboating Is a Fitting End to the Obama Era
Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates.
Acting US Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, ordered the Department of Justice not to defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration.
I couldn’t think of a more fitting capstone to the Obama record on Justice than its showboating on the immigration order. The legal arguments weigh strongly in favor of the administration — even though I find the policy misguided — and the Justice Department has a legal obligation to defend it. It can only refuse if there are no reasonable grounds on which to defend or the Justice Department has come to the conclusion that the law is unconstitutional, which it could only do it if disregarded existing statutes and case law. Once again the Obama Justice Department has put its left-wing politics before its legal duties.
On the other hand, this is meaningless showboating. Attorney General Sessions will be confirmed soon, and on day one he will direct DOJ attorneys to defend the order. But I couldn’t think of a more fitting end to the Obama Justice Department if President Trump were to call the Sally Yates, and say: “you’re fired.”
Published in Domestic Policy, Immigration, Law
I don’t disagree.
Well, it happened! :-D
http://ricochet.com/407521/breaking-trump-fires-acting-ag-yates/
Even without speaking up she only had a week (at least) as the ‘acting AG’.
Her so called ‘courageous’ stand might make her a minor cause celebre
It’s the principled stand democrats love, low risk high reward.
Yeah, I see the resemblance.
I didn’t say she looks plastic, quite the opposite. She looks way younger than 56.
And now the MSM get to call President Trump both “Hitler” AND “Nixon”.
Current CNN.com Headline: “MONDAY NIGHT MASSACRE: TRUMP FIRES ACTING AG”
Yes in large font, bold, and in capital letters.
We are all supposed to immediately think of Nixon and demand he resign.
Because, you know, this is exactly like Watergate.
My dad once told me a long time ago that if Watergate had happened during LBJ’s term, it wouldn’t even have made the news.
Edit: Holy cow someone already updated Wiki! “The event drew comparisons to U.S. President Richard Nixon’s dismissal of special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre and was termed the “Monday Night Massacre” by some while many others called it Draining the Swamp.”
I can’t take credit for this, but a friend just said, “Maybe Trump should send one of those surveys that the MSM was talking about to the Justice Department” with one question:
Do you think the Executive Order on Immigration is legal?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Those choosing the second option will immediately be asked to join Ms. Yates in the unemployment line.
That’s not fair. I’m sixty and never looked better:
NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):
That would be a relevant hypothetical if Yates refused to comply with the EO because she believed it was illegal. From what I’ve read, however, her stated reason was that she believed was “unwise” and “unjust.”
It would be mandatory for them to refuse the order. This was pointed out on the campaign trail by many military leaders, in response to Candidate Trump’s claim that “they would have to torture people if I ordered it.”
The Profession of Arms, at least, has an exacting and extraordinarily subtle core principle: personnel must obey all lawful orders, but must refuse to obey unlawful orders.
It is very similar in my field of legal ethics, and could have applied to the Acting A.G.: lawyers are obligated to represented their clients zealously, but within the bounds of law.“
I think she looks a little bit like a man who’s had a lot of plastic surgery in order to look more like a woman. Maybe the liberals have been just scrambling my brain.
Presumably, Yates was left in place post January 20 because she promised she would act in a nonpartisan fashion to enforce the law. The DOJ needs serious weeding.
We’re gonna need a bigger bottle.
“unwise” – you have to wait until 2020, and win, before that’s your call, honey.
“unjust” – then resign.
Perhaps Sally thought she was Princess Lia and she could lead the resistance from inside the administration.
If Ms. Yates were called upon to enforce an order she sincerely believed to be illegal, there are right ways and wrong ways to handle the situation. The right way was to send the President and his counsel a well-reasoned memorandum of law persuasively explaining the problem and making appropriate recommendations on correcting the problem.
The wrong way is to call a press conference.
Which does remind me: It is hard to remember you started out to drain the swamp when you’re up to your a## battling alligators.
And if the President insists, then to step down.
That’s a felony, is it not?
Disbarment and a month in clink seem more apt.
Yates has now had her 15 minutes of fame; let’s get the adults in there and get rid of the juveniles who’ve been running the place (and staffing the Civil Rights Division)!
Exactly.
Also, it is unlikely that she truly believes that the entire EO is unconstitutional as written. She could circulate a memo to her staff (cc-ing President Trump) explaining that certain interpretations likely run afoul of the Constitution; others do not; and some provisions may run afoul of the Constitution; therefore, the following actions [explain] will be taken.
This has the added benefit of being a reasonably good template for future officials who believe that President Trump is overstepping his authority and running afoul of Constitutional limitations.
Trump is so badass that he just ignores the alligators and keeps on pumping. That’s what I like best about this new Administration; Trump might pause to shoot out a Tweet or two, then he’s right back to taking care of business.
From what I can tell, she had three options:
Option 1: Honorably resign, like many others over the years. Retreat quietly to >$1M job in private practice.
Option 2: Await Sessions’ appointment. Quietly take >$1M job in private practice.
Option 3: Grandstand. Show party loyalty for the next Democrat administration. Take >$1M job in private practice. Await more lucre and the prospect of power to come.
Shameful stuff.
You stopped short of the question that has bothered me after reading all of the coverage of the lack of legal reasoning behind Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ instruction to the rest of the DOJ to NOT defend in court the executive orders in question. Shouldn’t she be the subject of a bar complaint for violating the first part of your quoted ethical standard?
The facts in all press accounts demonstrate to me that she violated her duty to represent her client zealously, propounding all possibly valid legal arguments in support of the client’s position. Since the DOJ’s own Office of Legal Counsel reportedly furnished an opinion that the EO’s were legal, how does she have a legal argument for refusing to defend them?
When the attorney is in government service that duty should be even stronger because you are unlikely to have tactical considerations (e.g. serious economic harm from the side effects of making an argument) that militate against arguing a valid legal position.
If I were involved in the State Bar of Georgia’s disciplinary program (she’s from Georgia) and presented with facts similar to the facts known to date, I would have to consider issuing a public reprimand to someone in Ms. Yates’ position. I’m not suggesting that she be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, but there are professional and ethical standards that should be upheld.
Alternatively, we could just conclude that there is one standard of conduct for attorneys in the private sector and another standard for politically well-connected attorneys holding government jobs. However, it would be instructive to the general public if the legal profession actually enforced its standards even when partisan politics are involved. In Bill Clinton’s case it actually happened. He no longer holds a law license because he never applied for re-admission to the bar after his temporary (as I recall) suspension.
Yates was perhaps auditioning to be a contributor to MSNBC (or the like). She had to know that her job was over. I can’t think of any other reason for disagreeing via press conference.