Monday Night Massacre

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 11:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Who?

The mean guy who fired that lady for not doing her job.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 12:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I remember folks hated when Kim Davis did not do her job. Hell I think she got locked up.

Her job was not to determine if something was legal or not.  Her job was to issue the marriage licences.  

Hell, she didn't even care if it was legal...it just went against her religion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Her job was not to determine if something was legal or not.  Her job was to issue the marriage licences.  

Hell, she didn't even care if it was legal...it just went against her religion.

Yates job is to enforce the law, the courts decide if something is legal or not.  If something is illegal on its face then, yes, the AG should call that out, behind closed doors.  This EO is absolutely not an example of that.  Aspects of it will be overturned, the vast majority of it is well within the scope of the president's powers.  Just own that Yates played politics instead of doing her job. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Her job was not to determine if something was legal or not.  Her job was to issue the marriage licences.  

Hell, she didn't even care if it was legal...it just went against her religion.

..and Yates refused because of her beliefs. It's exactly the same, you just don't want it to be.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yates job is to enforce the law, the courts decide if something is legal or not.  If something is illegal on its face then, yes, the AG should call that out, behind closed doors.  This EO is absolutely not an example of that.  Aspects of it will be overturned, the vast majority of it is well within the scope of the president's powers.  Just own that Yates played politics instead of doing her job. 

So she did her job.  Thanks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 12:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: So she did her job.  Thanks.

100% incorrect, as I explained in the post you quoted.  The EO is not illegal or unconstitutional on its face.  Certain aspects of it will likely be overturned but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  If you're an AAG with integrity then you defend the aspects of the EO in court that have firm legal footing, i.e. about 90% of it, and explain to the court that you cannot defend the remainder when the topic comes up.  You wouldn't state it as plainly as that in court but the gist, and outcome would be the same. 

[Vas Deferens]

(01-31-2017, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just own that Yates played politics instead of doing her job. 

Absolutely playing politics. Playing them well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 12:39 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Absolutely playing politics.  Playing them well.

If that's what you want out of the legal profession then I feel sorry for you.  The amount of damage that can be caused by mixing the two is enormous.

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 12:39 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Absolutely playing politics. Playing them well.

...as you must agree Kim Davis did?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-trump-had-to-fire-sally-yates-214715

Quote:Yates, a career prosecutor appointed by Barack Obama, is now being hailed for standing up to a supposedly “tyrannical” president, according to a statement blasted out by the Democratic National Committee.

But this has it wrong. If Yates truly felt this way, she should have told the president her conclusions in confidence. If he disagreed, she had one option: resign. Instead, she made herself a political martyr and refused to comply.

Quote:Yates acknowledged that there was a credible argument that the executive order was constitutional—she said only that she was not convinced by the OLC’s determination that it was lawful, hinting at the president’s campaign-trail calls for a “Muslim ban.” But many laws of dubious constitutionality are routinely, and zealously, defended in court by the Justice Department. Her objection, instead, was that the order was unwise or unjust. These may be valid points for a public citizen to raise, but the attorney general has a statutory duty to “[r]epresent the United States in legal matters generally,” regardless of her personal proclivities.

Have fun with Mosby in unethical lawyer land.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 100% incorrect, as I explained in the post you quoted.  The EO is not illegal or unconstitutional on its face.  Certain aspects of it will likely be overturned but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  If you're an AAG with integrity then you defend the aspects of the EO in court that have firm legal footing, i.e. about 90% of it, and explain to the court that you cannot defend the remainder when the topic comes up.  You wouldn't state it as plainly as that in court but the gist, and outcome would be the same. 

Lastly, drop the Fredtoast tactics.  They didn't work out so well for him and they're boring.

She was going to be AAG for about another day.  And she stated the truth:

http://documents.latimes.com/message-acting-attorney-general/



She isn't just checking it "on it's face".  So she did her job of looking and considering all facts.

Lastly, the name calling is getting old too.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If that's what you want out of the legal profession then I feel sorry for you.  The amount of damage that can be caused by mixing the two is enormous.

I keep bringing up the Kim Davis analogy. Regardless of my views of SSM, my view was that Davis should have done her job od resign from her position. But she and yates underminded the fabric on which the Nation is governed.

I see no difference in the acts of either; however, I strive not to be hypocritical.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2017, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yates job is to enforce the law, the courts decide if something is legal or not.  If something is illegal on its face then, yes, the AG should call that out, behind closed doors.  This EO is absolutely not an example of that.  Aspects of it will be overturned, the vast majority of it is well within the scope of the president's powers.  Just own that Yates played politics instead of doing her job. 

Eh, yes and no. The AG also has the role to defend the laws and policies of their jurisdiction in court. It has occurred that an AG has refused to defend a policy/law due to their opinion of its constitutionality. We have seen AGs from all over the political spectrum do this between the state and federal level and even though their political adversaries always make hay out of them not doing their job, there has yet to be any official disciplinary action taken against these AGs for doing this. However, and this is something many people do ignore, she didn't say it was unconstitutional.

I, personally, have mixed feelings on the situation. Regardless of any of this, the AG is a political position and Yates was, indeed, playing the political game. She knew what she was doing. My only concern is that with her firing we currently lack anyone with the statutory authority to sign off on FISA warrants. Not sure how long that will take to be resolved.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 12:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: She was going to be AAG for about another day.  And she stated the truth:

No, she stated her opinion.  Its frightening that this point, and why its troublesome, elude you.

Quote:She isn't just checking it "on it's face".  So she did her job of looking and considering all facts.

No, she didn't do her job, that's why she got fired.

Quote:Lastly, the name calling is getting old too.  

Haha, what name calling?  Just stop with your attempts to get people suspended or banned, it comes off as petty.  

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 12:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I keep bringing up the Kim Davis analogy. Regardless of my views of SSM, my view was that Davis should have done her job od resign from her position. But she and yates underminded the fabric on which the Nation is governed.

I see no difference in the acts of either; however, I strive not to be hypocritical.

And I replied directly to you that they had different jobs.  Yates did hers.  See?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, yes and no. The AG also has the role to defend the laws and policies of their jurisdiction in court. It has occurred that an AG has refused to defend a policy/law due to their opinion of its constitutionality. We have seen AGs from all over the political spectrum do this between the state and federal level and even though their political adversaries always make hay out of them not doing their job, there has yet to be any official disciplinary action taken against these AGs for doing this.

I, personally, have mixed feelings on the situation. Regardless of any of this, the AG is a political position and Yates was, indeed, playing the political game. She knew what she was doing. My only concern is that with her firing we currently lack anyone with the statutory authority to sign off on FISA warrants. Not sure how long that will take to be resolved.

Conversely, they defend highly dubious actions in court all the time.  As stated in the article I posted a professional in her situation goes to her boss in private and expresses their concerns.  If said concerns aren't addressed then you resign.  Anyone hailing her actions as heroic just bought a handful of magic beans.  She knew she had no job on the DoJ in a few weeks and made political hay out of the current situation for self promotional purposes.  This is not heroic, it's unethical.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, she stated her opinion.  Its frightening that this point, and why its troublesome, elude you.




No, she didn't do her job, that's why she got fired.


Haha, what name calling?  Just stop with your attempts to get people suspended or banned, it comes off as petty.  

Her job is too look beyond "on the face".

She did that.

Her job is to determine if it is legally defensible.

She did that.

It's not just "her opinion".  It's a result of actually looking at the EO and the law.

You can disagree...that's all well and good....but she still "did her job".

She got fired because Trump didn't like what she said and he could fire her.

He can't fire everyone who disagrees.

And if you think I'm getting people banned you're sadly mistaken and you stop stop that line of thought.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2017, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Conversely, they defend highly dubious actions in court all the time.  As stated in the article I posted a professional in her situation goes to her boss in private and expresses their concerns.  If said concerns aren't addressed then you resign.  Anyone hailing her actions as heroic just bought a handful of magic beans.  She knew she had no job on the DoJ in a few weeks and made political hay out of the current situation for self promotional purposes.  This is not heroic, it's unethical.

I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying that the AG role does go beyond just enforcing the law and an AG making an opinion like that on a law isn't unprecedented.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 12:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Her job is too look beyond "on the face".

She did that.

Her job is to determine if it is legally defensible.

She did that.

It's not just "her opinion".  It's a result of actually looking at the EO and the law.

You can disagree...that's all well and good....but she still "did her job".

There are several posts above that explain how you are 100% wrong.  You don't want to be wrong and your opinion is set, we get it.

Quote:She got fired because Trump didn't like what she said and he could fire her.

He can't fire everyone who disagrees.

Nope, and thankfully so.  It is equally good that he could fire Yates for her unethical conduct.

Quote:And if you think I'm getting people banned you're sadly mistaken and you stop stop that line of thought.

I know you aren't.  I said you try, not that you succeed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 12:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying that the AG role does go beyond just enforcing the law and an AG making an opinion like that on a law isn't unprecedented.

Agreed.  However, the circumstances surrounding this particular instance reek of dubious ethics and political pandering.  Yates handled this badly, from a professional stand point, so she could score political points and likely a future job.  That kind of grandstanding, whether it's from the DA in Ben's second case, Mosby or Yates will always earn the condemnation of people in the criminal justice system that actually take their job seriously.