Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Which is why I agreed that she should have resigned. But I'm glad you'll be here to tell us when it's ok for somebody to take a stand on a moral basis.

And I'm glad that you're hear to say that it's always proper to take any stand on a moral basis because GENOCIDE!

[Mainevent]

Fair enough, then how about the obvious example that the media has already latched onto, Nixon cleaning house when the AG office disobeyed the president's order to end the investigation and fire the special prosecutor. Were they wrong to take that stand?

[iam416]

Regarding the SDNY District Court ruling on the EO, the judge only stayed enforcement of the order. The judge did not rule on the merits of the order. She stayed enforcement of the order on behalf of immigrants who were in transit when the order issued or who were otherwise legally allowed to enter the US. She did not stay enforcement of the order as it pertains to other immigrants -- someone who decided to leave Yemen today for the US with no prior legal authorization is not protected.

Here is her order:

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with them, from the date of this Order, are

ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.

[iam416]

Fair enough, then how about the obvious example that the media has already latched onto, Nixon cleaning house when the AG office disobeyed the president's order to end the investigation and fire the special prosecutor. Were they wrong to take that stand?

The AG and Assistant AG resigned. I certainly have no problem with someone resigning. The AG and Assistant AG had promised Congress they wouldn't interfere with Cox. They held firm to their word and resigned. They did not stay on and issue and go on national TV to announced they would not follow his orders.

If someone wants to engage in grandstanding subordination then they'll get what's coming to them. She did.

Now, should the AG and Assistant AG have done more? Would they have been justified in hitting Nixon with a pipe? Shooting him dead? Horsewhipping him? You know, slippery slope and all.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I'm largely with Talent on this. If Yates disagreed with the policy or thought it was an immoral or improvident policy, refusing to defend it was a bad decision and a terrible precedent.

HOWEVER, if she actually thought it was unconstitutional I think she was within her rights as a lawyer to refuse to advance unfounded arguments. (I don't think she did, and I don't think it's indefensible from a legal standpoint).

[Mainevent]

I do have a problem with grandstanding subordination and gross publicity

And I have agreed that resignation would have been the right thing to do. I think it's a fair criticism of her move.

Now, should the AG and Assistant AG have done more?

Not being an attorney or expert on the AG office, I don't know what recourse they had other than resign or take no action on the president's order. I tend to think resigning in protest sends as big a message when it comes from such a highly visible position (especially if you are well respected in your field).

[iam416]

We are largely agreed, Mainevent.

Here's my admonition -- I don't think you want the DOJ deciding what to enforce based on each individual's moral compass. That's not law.

As SLF noted, as an attorney, if she felt she couldn't make a good faith argument to the court, then so be it. That's not the case. She won't enforce it because she finds it personally wrong. Those are really, really dicey waters to get into.

[Mainevent]

I do have a problem with grandstanding subordination and gross publicity

Though, it could also be a fight-fire-with-fire move, given that the new president is all about grandstanding and gross publicity. Still, I'd like to see those opposing these measures to not stoop to his stunts.

[Mainevent]

Here's my admonition -- I don't think you want the DOJ deciding what to enforce based on each individual's moral compass. That's not law.

As SLF noted, as an attorney, if she felt she couldn't make a good faith argument to the court, then so be it. That's not the case. She won't enforce it because she finds it personally wrong. Those are really, really dicey waters to get into.

Fair enough, she also could have said that she would advise her team to wait on acting on the order pending the outcome of challenges already being filed in various courts.

[iam416]

Actually, she couldn't. The pending action in the Court is against the Government. The DOJ represents the Government. If the DOJ doesn't represent the Government, then the motion is unopposed and the movants win. That's what she was doing. She literally refused to do her job.

[Wild Hoss]

Though, it could also be a fight-fire-with-fire move, given that the new president is all about grandstanding and gross publicity. Still, I'd like to see those opposing these measures to not stoop to his stunts.

Well, she probably doesn't get a book deal and speaking gigs if she resigns.

That said, there has been plenty of grandstanding the past eight years, on issues large and small. Shoes switching feet...the GOP can just deal IMO.

[Jeff Buchanan]

After watching this play out for a few days, and I think someone mentioned this up thread - the execution/implementation of the immigration EO was poor - and so was the post implementation shock wave badly handled by the WH.

Fundamentally, and as it stands right now, the EO is legal and enforceable. That could change. The uproar over it from most quarters is more emotional than it is fact based.

Regarding immigration of persons from the 7 countries ...... also stated up thread, there should be no question that extremists hostile to the US call these nations home. There is nothing inappropriate, IMO, to apply a restricted immigration process to persons seeking entry into the US.

The Obama administration did that with these 7 countries. The restrictions specifically limited visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.

Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn't traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.

Trump's EO is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.

The argument has been advanced that there have been no terrorist attacks from citizens of any of these countries. Could that be because of the travel restriction program? There are other arguments against the EO that have been advanced - the only foreign leader to offer a reasonable answer to the question, "under what pretext does the US ban citizens from these countries?", was the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, who said, "Its up to the US to determine how they are going to protect their boarders.'

I can't think of a more inclusive and appropriate response that addresses all of the arguments advanced by opponents of this particular EO.

The firings? Justified. Completely.

[iam416]

Personally, I still disagree with the EO. I don't find the policy particularly grounded in fact. But, TBH, immigration from those 7 countries is not significant enough for me to really become too invested in it one way or the other. It is, as most of the first week stuff, largely symbolic.

How he deals with Mexico is not symbolic.

[hack]

So, as head of the DOJ she is obliged to ignore the order in regions in which a judge has ruled against it, and to heed it in regions where no judge has done so?

[hack]

Won't your dominatrix coming looking for it?

You mean my majority shareholder?