Why Yates Had to Go...

[SavannahMann]

Why Yates Had to Go

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.


No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.


Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left.


They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.


For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe.


Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit.


Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go.

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.


It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.

Read more at: Why Yates Had to Go

Not quite right. If the attorney General or any individual receives an illegal or unconstitutional order they are duty bound to object and refuse to follow that order. We know this was done in the Bush era over Patriot Act spying.

If Yates had objected based upon the law or the Constitution she would have been absolutely right.

Yates on the other hand did not object based upon either established law or Constitutional precedent. Yates objected because it was morally wrong in her opinion. The law appears to say Trump acted legally. Her instructions to the DOJ was based upon her moral belief.

Moral objections are one of my pet causes. I am a firm believer in the teachings of among others St. Augustine. He taught that an unjust law is no law at all.

Now if Yates was motivated by her moral beliefs she should have informed Trump personally and then allowed him to discuss it with her. Instead she went out in a blaze of glory. As a lawyer she is duty bound to represent her client to the best of her ability. If she can't then she must withdraw. By issuing the instructions she did she committed malpractice. She could be disbarred for it.

If I work for you. And you give me instructions I believe are wrong. I will tell you. If we decide that employment is no longer feasible then I may make a statement to others as a former employee. If I was your lawyer that statement would not be possible.

Now remember that I absolutely respect the moral choice. Yates was wrong. She should have been fired. Not because she disagreed with Trump. But because she violated the very premise of her duty. I would have been here writing words of support if she had faced Trump and been fired for her moral beliefs.

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

 

[Jackson]

Why Yates Had to Go

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.


No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.


Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left.


They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.


For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe.


Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit.


Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go.

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.


It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.

Read more at: Why Yates Had to Go

Not quite right. If the attorney General or any individual receives an illegal or unconstitutional order they are duty bound to object and refuse to follow that order. We know this was done in the Bush era over Patriot Act spying.

If Yates had objected based upon the law or the Constitution she would have been absolutely right.

Yates on the other hand did not object based upon either established law or Constitutional precedent. Yates objected because it was morally wrong in her opinion. The law appears to say Trump acted legally. Her instructions to the DOJ was based upon her moral belief.

Moral objections are one of my pet causes. I am a firm believer in the teachings of among others St. Augustine. He taught that an unjust law is no law at all.

Now if Yates was motivated by her moral beliefs she should have informed Trump personally and then allowed him to discuss it with her. Instead she went out in a blaze of glory. As a lawyer she is duty bound to represent her client to the best of her ability. If she can't then she must withdraw. By issuing the instructions she did she committed malpractice. She could be disbarred for it.

If I work for you. And you give me instructions I believe are wrong. I will tell you. If we decide that employment is no longer feasible then I may make a statement to others as a former employee. If I was your lawyer that statement would not be possible.

Now remember that I absolutely respect the moral choice. Yates was wrong. She should have been fired. Not because she disagreed with Trump. But because she violated the very premise of her duty. I would have been here writing words of support if she had faced Trump and been fired for her moral beliefs.

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

Your last statement was very interesting...

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

But isn't that exactly what was happening with Obama issuing hundreds of EO's? Just one example was the ObamaCare Act. That was written law and he kept changing the law to salvage it after the law had been written without consent of Congress. Several times he changed the dates for which people could apply for ObamaCare when the original dates should have been followed or changed by Congress. Yet, every state and officials blindly relented to the changes that were illegal!

 

[Lumpy 1]

This link is worth a read, granted, it gets boring after a time... a coffee wouldn't hurt...

Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal

 

[Lumpy 1]

Obama/Democratic Party foreign and terrorist policy in review...

 

[SavannahMann]

Why Yates Had to Go

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.


No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.


Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left.


They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.


For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe.


Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit.


Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go.

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.


It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.

Read more at: Why Yates Had to Go

Not quite right. If the attorney General or any individual receives an illegal or unconstitutional order they are duty bound to object and refuse to follow that order. We know this was done in the Bush era over Patriot Act spying.

If Yates had objected based upon the law or the Constitution she would have been absolutely right.

Yates on the other hand did not object based upon either established law or Constitutional precedent. Yates objected because it was morally wrong in her opinion. The law appears to say Trump acted legally. Her instructions to the DOJ was based upon her moral belief.

Moral objections are one of my pet causes. I am a firm believer in the teachings of among others St. Augustine. He taught that an unjust law is no law at all.

Now if Yates was motivated by her moral beliefs she should have informed Trump personally and then allowed him to discuss it with her. Instead she went out in a blaze of glory. As a lawyer she is duty bound to represent her client to the best of her ability. If she can't then she must withdraw. By issuing the instructions she did she committed malpractice. She could be disbarred for it.

If I work for you. And you give me instructions I believe are wrong. I will tell you. If we decide that employment is no longer feasible then I may make a statement to others as a former employee. If I was your lawyer that statement would not be possible.

Now remember that I absolutely respect the moral choice. Yates was wrong. She should have been fired. Not because she disagreed with Trump. But because she violated the very premise of her duty. I would have been here writing words of support if she had faced Trump and been fired for her moral beliefs.

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

Your last statement was very interesting...

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

But isn't that exactly what was happening with Obama issuing hundreds of EO's? Just one example was the ObamaCare Act. That was written law and he kept changing the law to salvage it after the law had been written without consent of Congress. Several times he changed the dates for which people could apply for ObamaCare when the original dates should have been followed or changed by Congress. Yet, every state and officials blindly relented to the changes that were illegal!

The ACA was thicker than the Bible if memory serves this late in the night. Most of it was that the Secretary of HHS shall determine this and that. Much as the EPA is empowered to determine what is pollution and what isn't. They were sued in an effort to get the courts to order the EPA to find that Carvon Dioxide was a pollutant.

Just as the tax code is filled with contradictions, the ACA has more than its fair share. I don't think anyone really knows what is in it.

Again going off memory, some of the date changes were because the final rules were not ready, which meant that the insurance companies couldn't have a policy ready that met a standard that didn't exist.

Let's say you give me a task to write a report and I must present it in two days. Then you tell me information I have to get won't be available for three days. There is no way I can have the report ready on time. Firing me for missing an impossible deadline seems extreme wouldn't you agree?

 

[Jackson]

This link is worth a read, granted, it gets boring after a time... a coffee wouldn't hurt...

Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal

This is an excellent explanation why President Trump is the primary authority when it comes to the protection and subjects of international affairs, immigration being one of those subjects.

Thank you for the info, Lumpy!

 

[Jackson]

Why Yates Had to Go

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.


No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.


Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left.


They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.


For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe.


Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit.


Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go.

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.


It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.

Read more at: Why Yates Had to Go

Not quite right. If the attorney General or any individual receives an illegal or unconstitutional order they are duty bound to object and refuse to follow that order. We know this was done in the Bush era over Patriot Act spying.

If Yates had objected based upon the law or the Constitution she would have been absolutely right.

Yates on the other hand did not object based upon either established law or Constitutional precedent. Yates objected because it was morally wrong in her opinion. The law appears to say Trump acted legally. Her instructions to the DOJ was based upon her moral belief.

Moral objections are one of my pet causes. I am a firm believer in the teachings of among others St. Augustine. He taught that an unjust law is no law at all.

Now if Yates was motivated by her moral beliefs she should have informed Trump personally and then allowed him to discuss it with her. Instead she went out in a blaze of glory. As a lawyer she is duty bound to represent her client to the best of her ability. If she can't then she must withdraw. By issuing the instructions she did she committed malpractice. She could be disbarred for it.

If I work for you. And you give me instructions I believe are wrong. I will tell you. If we decide that employment is no longer feasible then I may make a statement to others as a former employee. If I was your lawyer that statement would not be possible.

Now remember that I absolutely respect the moral choice. Yates was wrong. She should have been fired. Not because she disagreed with Trump. But because she violated the very premise of her duty. I would have been here writing words of support if she had faced Trump and been fired for her moral beliefs.

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

Your last statement was very interesting...

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

But isn't that exactly what was happening with Obama issuing hundreds of EO's? Just one example was the ObamaCare Act. That was written law and he kept changing the law to salvage it after the law had been written without consent of Congress. Several times he changed the dates for which people could apply for ObamaCare when the original dates should have been followed or changed by Congress. Yet, every state and officials blindly relented to the changes that were illegal!

The ACA was thicker than the Bible if memory serves this late in the night. Most of it was that the Secretary of HHS shall determine this and that. Much as the EPA is empowered to determine what is pollution and what isn't. They were sued in an effort to get the courts to order the EPA to find that Carvon Dioxide was a pollutant.

Just as the tax code is filled with contradictions, the ACA has more than its fair share. I don't think anyone really knows what is in it.

Again going off memory, some of the date changes were because the final rules were not ready, which meant that the insurance companies couldn't have a policy ready that met a standard that didn't exist.

Let's say you give me a task to write a report and I must present it in two days. Then you tell me information I have to get won't be available for three days. There is no way I can have the report ready on time. Firing me for missing an impossible deadline seems extreme wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree with you. But if a deadline is put in a law, the law would have to be changed if the deadline is going to be changed, right? What was the purpose of putting these dates in law? For the proper execution of that law. Only Congress can change a law...don't you agree?

 

[Lumpy 1]

This link is worth a read, granted, it gets boring after a time... a coffee wouldn't hurt...

Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal

This is an excellent explanation why President Trump is the primary authority when it comes to the protection and subjects of international affairs, immigration being one of those subjects.

Thank you for the info, Lumpy!

You're welcome Lady Jackson...

 

[Lumpy 1]

Why Yates Had to Go

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.


No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.


Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left.


They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.


For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe.


Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit.


Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go.

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.


It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.

Read more at: Why Yates Had to Go

Not quite right. If the attorney General or any individual receives an illegal or unconstitutional order they are duty bound to object and refuse to follow that order. We know this was done in the Bush era over Patriot Act spying.

If Yates had objected based upon the law or the Constitution she would have been absolutely right.

Yates on the other hand did not object based upon either established law or Constitutional precedent. Yates objected because it was morally wrong in her opinion. The law appears to say Trump acted legally. Her instructions to the DOJ was based upon her moral belief.

Moral objections are one of my pet causes. I am a firm believer in the teachings of among others St. Augustine. He taught that an unjust law is no law at all.

Now if Yates was motivated by her moral beliefs she should have informed Trump personally and then allowed him to discuss it with her. Instead she went out in a blaze of glory. As a lawyer she is duty bound to represent her client to the best of her ability. If she can't then she must withdraw. By issuing the instructions she did she committed malpractice. She could be disbarred for it.

If I work for you. And you give me instructions I believe are wrong. I will tell you. If we decide that employment is no longer feasible then I may make a statement to others as a former employee. If I was your lawyer that statement would not be possible.

Now remember that I absolutely respect the moral choice. Yates was wrong. She should have been fired. Not because she disagreed with Trump. But because she violated the very premise of her duty. I would have been here writing words of support if she had faced Trump and been fired for her moral beliefs.

The Attorney Generals job is to enforce the law on everyone. Not just to carry out the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

and pleased to meet you SavannaMann, so far, I'm impressed and possibly a tad

intimidated, I haven't quite decided yet...

 

[Claudette]

If Yates didn't want to do what the President said then she shouldn't let the door hit her in the ass on the way out.

Sessions will be in there soon and running the AG's office.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good on Yates, stupid on Trump.

He seems very, very not "aware" of how government works.

If he thinks he can run it as a business, he is very foolish.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

God doesn't bless people who undermine the law.

Tell that to your pals who not long ago were cheering the idea that law enforcement in some places might ignore gun laws.

 

[Mac1958]

Why Yates Had to Go

My guess is that she already had her office packed when she did this.
.

 

[nat4900]

Why Yates Had to Go

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.


No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.


Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left.


They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.


For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe.


Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit.


Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go.

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.


It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.

Read more at: Why Yates Had to Go

Tell that to Richard Nixon

 

[Lumpy 1]

Sheesh. it's like an invasion of sour grapes

Good on Yates, stupid on Trump.

He seems very, very not "aware" of how government works.

If he thinks he can run it as a business, he is very foolish.

Okay .. I'll admit Trump knows more than you do...

 

[Lumpy 1]

Why Yates Had to Go

My guess is that she already had her office packed when she did this.
.

My guess is that someone bought her an extravagant gift (taxpayers expense)... and to foam the liberals... sexual favors...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Why Yates Had to Go

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.


No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.


Over the weekend, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status. Naturally, this has triggered protests by Democrats and the Left.


They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.


For inexplicable reasons, the new president left Yates in place to run the Justice Department in anticipation of the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions. A faithful Obama-appointed progressive, Yates obviously knew which way the political wind was blowing in her tribe.


Like most Democrats, Yates objects to the president’s executive order. Fair enough. But she is not a political operative, she was a Justice Department official — the highest such official. If her opposition to the president’s policy was as deeply held as she says, her choice was clear: enforce the president’s policy or quit.


Instead, she chose insubordination: Knowing she would be out the moment Senator Sessions is confirmed, she announced on Monday night that the Justice Department would not enforce the president’s order. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice of the order. Now, she’ll be a left-wing hero, influential beyond her heretofore status as a nameless bureaucrat. But she had to go.

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.


It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.

Read more at: Why Yates Had to Go

Her oath was to protect and defend the constitution. Not the president.

This might make it clearer.

Section 1182(f) of Title 8, U.S. Code: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

Since the president made the order, it is her job to enforce his order or resign.

Since the president made the order, it is her job to enforce his order or resign.

Her Oath of Office was to support and defend the Constitution NOT the President's unconstitutional Executive Order. Where do people like you get these outlandish ideas in your heads? It took courage to stand up and say the Emperor has no cloths and follow her Oath of Office! Other people without principles will just roll over like a dog!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump foolishly did not ask legal counsel, though he lied that he did.

If he had patterned carefully on Carter's ban and made no comments about favoring Christian refugees over others, he would be in far better shape.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why Yates Had to Go

My guess is that she already had her office packed when she did this.
.

My guess is that someone bought her an extravagant gift (taxpayers expense)... and to foam the liberals... sexual favors...

I admit you don't know about what you are talking.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

Put her to work on the wall