Why Yates Had to Go...

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems= Party > Country

 

[rightwinger]

Yates went out in style....doing the right thing.....she was going to be gone in a week anyway

Best to go out, looking at Trump....with your middle finger held high

 

[danielpalos]

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

who is claiming it is unconstitutional? political offices are subject to changes in politics. district attorneys complain about every new administration.

 

[bripat9643]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

She's a political hack who doesn't know her place.

 

[bripat9643]

God forbid anyone in the Trump administration following their conscience, instead of their puppetmaster.

Now she can follow her conscience in the unemployment line.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

I think it's clear that anyone tied in with Obama is unethical at the very least.

 

[miketx]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

Well, I would go along with that. A brave but ill informed effort.

All efforts against evil are much appreciated

^^^ This from the things that want terrorists here.

 

[Flash]

 

[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?

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?

Actually, no. The Courts change law all the time. Some of our most important understandings concerning civil rights came not from Congress, but from the Courts. Miranda is but one example.

Look at Heller. Prohibitions against gun ownership in the cities were essentially eliminated with one decision from the Supreme Court. Often these decisions are in direct contravention of the clearly stated will of Congress.

Interpretation of the law is normally what is challenged. Or perhaps I should say application of the law. The interpretation, and application of the law is often a point of contention. Congress passes ten thousand pages of law. Then it is up to the various departments to figure out what the hell Congress meant. The Bible lays out the ten Commandments in clear and concise language. Imagine if it was written by Congress today.

Thou Shall Not Kill would be something entirely different. Thou shall not deprive of life anyone. However, this does not apply when in the action of defense of yourself, your family, or other persons, causes you to take the action which deprives the air breathing individual of life. Such actions shall be reviewed by a designated authority figure to determine justification based upon common applications of this law. There are no exceptions to this law except as listed below. Then there would be four pages of definitions of what each word means.

The clearly stated will of Congress is almost never clearly stated. Not when there are ten thousand pages to anything that they pass. Hell, the Tax Code is so large and unwieldy that basically nobody knows what is in it anymore.

http://www.bontheball.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tax-code.jpg

The code itself is usually only part of it. Then there are rulings, and then case files where courts have decided in favor, and inevitably against each of the rulings. I'm not sure if eighty thousand plus pages of tax code is a clear demonstration of the will of congress, are you?

 

[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

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!

The order was legal and her job was to carry out the legal orders.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

It would appear that way to some....

 

[Redfish]

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.

the EO is constitutional. Her actions were not.

 

[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!

The order was legal and her job was to carry out the legal orders.

The order was legal and her job was to carry out the legal orders.

Exactly IF the order were Constitutional/legal. BUT her job was also to contest actions which were unconstitutional/illegal on their face and to NOT ACT LIKE A RUBBER STAMP for a regime with an unconstitutional agenda. That is something you Trump parrots refuse to comprehend. Trump will get Nixon'ed doing that!

 

[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

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!

The order was legal and her job was to carry out the legal orders.

The order was legal and her job was to carry out the legal orders.

Exactly IF the order were Constitutional/legal. BUT her job was also to contest actions which were unconstitutional/illegal on their face and to NOT ACT LIKE A RUBBER STAMP for a regime with an unconstitutional agenda. That is something you Trump parrots refuse to comprehend. Trump will get Nixon'ed doing that!

Find the quote that Yates says the order was unconstitutional. You will not find it. She said she didn't know. How can she take an action like that without investigating? What kind of director woud do that? A phony and a political appointee that doesn't know what she is doing.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

the EO is constitutional. Her actions were not.

As the acting Attorney General, she wasn't convinced that that particular EO was legal.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

the EO is constitutional. Her actions were not.

As the acting Attorney General, she wasn't convinced that that particular EO was legal.

If so, which I don't believe, she's entirely ignorant. Just another Obama ideologue who got the axe... disobey your boss and see what it gets you.

 

[Redfish]

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.

the EO is constitutional. Her actions were not.

As the acting Attorney General, she wasn't convinced that that particular EO was legal.

That's not her call. She had two choices, enforce the presidential EO or resign if she thought it was illegal. Refusing to do her job is not a valid choice.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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

This opinion piece is just flat wrong.


Separation of Powers
The division of state and federal government into three independent branches.
Balance of powers

"""""The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch.

However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power.

This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify he power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny.''''

AND TRUMP IS A TYRANT.

"""Under the system of checks and balances, each branch acts as a restraint on the powers of the other two. The president can either sign the legislation of Congress, making it law, or Veto it. The Congress, through the Senate, has the power of advise and consent on presidential appointments and can therefore reject an appointee. The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president."""

 

[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

This opinion piece is just flat wrong.


Separation of Powers
The division of state and federal government into three independent branches.
Balance of powers

"""""The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch.

However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power.

This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify he power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny.''''

AND TRUMP IS A TYRANT.

Apply all of those statements to Obama.LMAO!

 

[Redfish]

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

This opinion piece is just flat wrong.


Separation of Powers
The division of state and federal government into three independent branches.
Balance of powers

"""""The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch.

However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power.

This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify he power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny.''''

AND TRUMP IS A TYRANT.

Apply all of those statements to Obama.LMAO!

the hypocrisy of the left. They never questioned obozo's EOs. Just bowed and worshiped him like the brainless sheep that they are.