What you are about to read will blow your mind.
Here is the language Donald Trump used to announce the firing of Sally Yates, an Obama appointee who has been the acting United States Attorney General, pending the Trump nominee confirmation for the position.
To use the word “betrayal” and to slam Yates as ” weak on illegal immigration” is not only overly incendiary, its childlike, divisive and unbecoming of the office of the presidency.
Many of us believe that Yates was doing her job. The Executive Order had been narrowly halted by a Federal Judge and was so vague and unconscionable that it was in truth indefensible and unenforceable. Yates was doing her duty and abiding her Constitutional oath and for this White House to suggest otherwise is fascism and tyranny of the worst order. Yet that is now the apparent nature of this White House and what we can expect moving forward.
Source and further reading at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/donald-trump-firing-sally-yates-isnt-the-big-story-how-he-did-it-is/?postshare=7261485893308221&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.c0e6691a6de3
5 thoughts on “The Shocking Incendiary Press Statement Firing Sally Yates”
I’ve meant to comment on the election. I did not vote for President Trump, but I wish him well. As I said about President Obama in 2008, “I hope he is successful because there is no ‘Plan B.'”
The complaints about how the immigration suspension was handled, is “form over substance,” however. President Trump has every legal right to do what he has done to temporarily suspend immigration from specific countries, and he has the authority under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(f)
“(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
“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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”
This is the same right that enabled President Obama to ban all immigrants from Iraq from entering the USA for six months in 2013 and enabled President Carter from banning all immigrants from Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. The countries in question are countries that President Obama identified as connected to terrorism.
Whether the Trump administration is continuing its “Twitter Agenda” by going after individuals on a personal basis, Ms. Yates was 100% wrong to direct taxpayer-paid employees of the DOJ to refuse to follow their oaths to uphold the law. This is not a “Muslim ban,” or the rest of the 57 nations that make up the Organization of Islamic Cooperation would be included. They were not.
she cant defend a case that her office believes cant be defended. The judge ruled narrowly. She is there to work for the people first.
The grounds that former Acting Attorney General Yates gave for refusing to support the President’s lawful decision “went way beyond the scope of the Attorney General,” as Alan Dershowitz correctly stated. “She criticized the order on policy grounds and said that it was not “right.” She also referred to its possibly unconstitutionality and unlawful. Had she stuck to the latter two criteria she would have been on more solid ground, although perhaps wrong on the merits. But by interjecting issues of policy and directing the Justice Department not to defend any aspect of the order, she overstepped her bounds.” – Dershowitz.
It’s absurd to think that an Obama appointee could not defend an action that President Obama himself carried out in 2013, when he banned Iraqi visitors for 180 days (twice as long as President Trump’s current ban, and on seven countries that President Obama himself identified as supporters and sources of terrorism.
As a lawyer (you and I both are, I know), I take a more nuanced view even than Dershowitz: I think that laws have to be litigated to fully determine constitutionality. That is, unless you agree with me that Marberry v. Madison was an absurd over-reach of power by the Supreme Court. . . . ?
In order to have that process actually WORK, there must be “case on controversy” and people to vigorously defend those cases. Another one of the Supreme Court’s earliest decisions clearly stated, “We do not provide advisory opinions.” Congress and the Presidency cannot just go to the Court and ask, “If we do this, is it OK?”
Let me give you an example: Of course, you and I both despised DOMA. You did so on Bill of Rights grounds and I did so because it could not even pass the “rational basis test.” Despite that, I maintain a special counsel had to be appointed to defend Congress’ obscene law so that the Supreme Court could rule on it and have done with it. Which they did, (and I am ever so thankful, both to that Court and to President Obama for being unable to support that law.) Sally Yates’ decision flouted that very process and instructed everyone to refuse to defend it – not just herself.
Honestly, I think the reason those of you on the Left fear President Trump is that you think he’ll serve his presidency like President Obama did – flagrantly flouting the law and picking and choosing what he will and will not enforce. “He will gut civil rights enforcement,” many on the Left have said. Well, those of us on the Right do NOT think that way. Whether we like laws or not, it’s our government’s responsibility to defend and enforce them, unless they are so obviously unconstitutional that we can’t do so. Of course, an attorney cannot support a “law” passed by Congress to “send all Jews to the gas chambers” or “ban all abortions.” But that’s not what was at stake, here. The LAW in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(f) was never in dispute – only the President’s decision to exercise his plenary rights.
I dont have time to read this and respond – working on some emergency issues. That said all I can say is many legal scholars and pundits including me disagree with Dershowitz on this – I often agree with him but not this time. I will try anfd get to a more detailed response later.
Thanks, Melanie. Good luck. Yes, I did hear the Queer Underground Railway story on NPR, yesterday, as well. It was a good discussion on the need to prioritize gays from Iran – and to sanction Iran for being led by monsters.