January 31, 20179 yr How does the law conflict with him? I don't think it's been established that Trump's order conflicts with the law. But I could see her interpreting it that there is a conflict.
January 31, 20179 yr I would hope the AG would go along with the law and the Constitution over the President. For a thousand different reasons, all of which the founders of this nation were keenly aware, public officials take an oath to defend the constitution, not a person or even an office. That said, executive agency employees serve at the pleasure of the president. She made her choice and, I assume, is at peace with both that choice and its result.
January 31, 20179 yr In the real world, when the boss gives you marching orders with which you disagree, then you respectfully explain your objections. If your boss still does not see things your way, then if your instructions are legal and ethical, you have a duty to do as you were told. If you were asked to do something that was not legal or ethical, or you are just unwilling to do what was asked of you, then you resign. Otherwise, you will be fired off your boss is halfway competent. Trump is from the real world and he made the right choice in firing this grandstanding political hack.
January 31, 20179 yr In the real world, when the boss gives you marching orders with which you disagree, then you respectfully explain your objections. If your boss still does not see things your way, then if your instructions are legal and ethical, you have a duty to do as you were told. If you were asked to do something that was not legal or ethical, or you are just unwilling to do what was asked of you, then you resign. Otherwise, you will be fired off your boss is halfway competent. Trump is from the real world and he made the right choice in firing this grandstanding political hack. Why is she a grandstanding political hack? Because she disagrees with the President she works for?
January 31, 20179 yr Why is she a grandstanding political hack? Because she disagrees with the President she works for? If the order is legal, why did she refuse to follow the order? Isn't it her job to follow the order? Not agreeing is not a defense. That has been the problem with the DOJ for 8 years. They picked and chose what laws they wanted to enforce.
January 31, 20179 yr Why is she a grandstanding political hack? Because she disagrees with the President she works for? Because she ordered her subordinates to disobey Trump's instructions and forced him to fire her. She did not do the honorable thing, which would have been to have resigned.
January 31, 20179 yr Because she ordered her subordinates to disobey Trump's instructions and forced him to fire her. She did not do the honorable thing, which would have been to have resigned. Exactly! If she disagrees, fine quietly resign. She made a 'UGE issue out of what should have been nothing by making a very public announcement of her OPINION that the EO was illegal.
January 31, 20179 yr If the order is legal, why did she refuse to follow the order? Isn't it her job to follow the order? Not agreeing is not a defense. That has been the problem with the DOJ for 8 years. They picked and chose what laws they wanted to enforce. Is it legal? Some judges disputed it and blocked it. It hasn't been proven or disproven concerning legality yet.
January 31, 20179 yr Because she ordered her subordinates to disobey Trump's instructions and forced him to fire her. She did not do the honorable thing, which would have been to have resigned. Is it always honorable to be silent or to take a stand if you think something is not legal?
January 31, 20179 yr Exactly! If she disagrees, fine quietly resign. She made a 'UGE issue out of what should have been nothing by making a very public announcement of her OPINION that the EO was illegal. What about the judges who have interpreted it differently?
January 31, 20179 yr What about the judges who have interpreted it differently? Do judges serve at the pleasure of the President as part of the Executive Branch? Bottom line is it's all still opinion. No hearings have been held and no evidence has been presented. Until it works it's way through the court system all it will be is opinion.
January 31, 20179 yr Is it legal? Some judges disputed it and blocked it. It hasn't been proven or disproven concerning legality yet. This is from a NYT article, "However, the president has broad legal authority to restrict immigration. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he can restrict any class of aliens he deems “detrimental to the interests of the United States” without needing legislation or congressional approval." Seems legal.
January 31, 20179 yr Do judges serve at the pleasure of the President as part of the Executive Branch? Bottom line is it's all still opinion. No hearings have been held and no evidence has been presented. Until it works it's way through the court system all it will be is opinion. The AG is to be the legal counsel of the President. Was she even asked legal advice? Her oath is to the Constitution and not the Prez.
January 31, 20179 yr This is from a NYT article, "However, the president has broad legal authority to restrict immigration. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he can restrict any class of aliens he deems “detrimental to the interests of the United States” without needing legislation or congressional approval." Seems legal. By that statement it appears so. Then again I am no legal expert.
January 31, 20179 yr The AG is to be the legal counsel of the President. Was she even asked legal advice? Her oath is to the Constitution and not the Prez. I agree. But rather then the political posturing, she should have just resigned. Curious that she didn't have the same reservations about Obama's actions on Cubans?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.