Session to Yates in '15: [as AG] you have to say "no" to POTUS. Will you?

[BmorePat87]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ag-nominee-sen-sessions-once-told-fired-acting-ag-sally-n714566


Not that I disagree with Trump's firing of Yates as acting AG for refusing to enforce his immigration executive order. If your employees publicly refuse to listen to you, fire em. She did the right thing too by refusing to defend this unqualified clown's latest garbage order.

It is funny, though, hearing his pick for AG tell her years prior that the AG should say "no" to the President when they ask them to do something that is improper.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ag-nominee-sen-sessions-once-told-fired-acting-ag-sally-n714566

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 02:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ag-nominee-sen-sessions-once-told-fired-acting-ag-sally-n714566


Not that I disagree with Trump's firing of Yates as acting AG for refusing to enforce his immigration executive order. If your employees publicly refuse to listen to you, fire em. She did the right thing too by refusing to defend this unqualified clown's latest garbage order.

It is funny, though, hearing his pick for AG tell her years prior that the AG should say "no" to the President when they ask them to do something that is improper.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ag-nominee-sen-sessions-once-told-fired-acting-ag-sally-n714566

Shared this in the other thread.

Good luck convincing some people that she did her job.  

[*bfine32*]

There was absolutely no other place this thread could have went. As to the OP; glad to see folks getting behind sessions.

But from what I understand the Office of Legal Counsel whose duty it is to advise all members of the Executive Branch ruled the order to be lawful. So I'm not sure what Yates is doing is exactly what Sessions advised Yates to do.

Yates also said she was responsible to advise the President, she did not do that; she went against the President.

[GMDino]

And the keeper of "orderly threads" has spoken.
  

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 02:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ag-nominee-sen-sessions-once-told-fired-acting-ag-sally-n714566


Not that I disagree with Trump's firing of Yates as acting AG for refusing to enforce his immigration executive order. If your employees publicly refuse to listen to you, fire em. She did the right thing too by refusing to defend this unqualified clown's latest garbage order.

It is funny, though, hearing his pick for AG tell her years prior that the AG should say "no" to the President when they ask them to do something that is improper.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ag-nominee-sen-sessions-once-told-fired-acting-ag-sally-n714566

You lost me there.

So, if you do your job correctly you deserve to be fired?

Do you deliberately do your job wrong or do illegal things your superiors order in an attempt to retain your position?

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 03:02 PM)xxlt Wrote: You lost me there.

So, if you do your job correctly you deserve to be fired?

Do you deliberately do your job wrong or do illegal things your superiors order in an attempt to retain your position?

When I was in college, if my boss told me to inform every customer of our calibration service and I said I would not because I did not see the value in it and thought it waste of money, they would have had every right to fire me. Would I have been doing the right thing? Sure, but that's just a moral victory. 

Sessions was taking a dig at Obama when he asked her that question, just trying to score some points. If the Chief Executive says "this is how we are enforcing immigration" and it has not yet been deemed unconstitutional, you must do your part to faithfully execute the executive order if you wish to keep your job. If you have a backbone, tell them you believe it is wrong and, if they won't change their mind, then refuse and hope that the court eventually deems it unconstitutional as that you can at least score your moral victory. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 03:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When I was in college, if my boss told me to inform every customer of our calibration service and I said I would not because I did not see the value in it and thought it waste of money, they would have had every right to fire me. Would I have been doing the right thing? Sure, but that's just a moral victory. 

Sessions was taking a dig at Obama when he asked her that question, just trying to score some points. If the Chief Executive says "this is how we are enforcing immigration" and it has not yet been deemed unconstitutional, you must do your part to faithfully execute the executive order if you wish to keep your job. If you have a backbone, tell them you believe it is wrong and, if they won't change their mind, then refuse and hope that the court eventually deems it unconstitutional as that you can at least score your moral victory. 

You're 100% right until the last little bit.  If you find what you are asked to do morally objectionable then you resign your position.  You've firmly grasped the point that seems to completely elude GMDino and xxlt though.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 03:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When I was in college, if my boss told me to inform every customer of our calibration service and I said I would not because I did not see the value in it and thought it waste of money, they would have had every right to fire me. Would I have been doing the right thing? Sure, but that's just a moral victory. 

Sessions was taking a dig at Obama when he asked her that question, just trying to score some points. If the Chief Executive says "this is how we are enforcing immigration" and it has not yet been deemed unconstitutional, you must do your part to faithfully execute the executive order if you wish to keep your job. If you have a backbone, tell them you believe it is wrong and, if they won't change their mind, then refuse and hope that the court eventually deems it unconstitutional as that you can at least score your moral victory. 

So she did her job.  And he had the ability to fire her for it.

I think most people understand that.

Some think that just because she disagreed with the order (already partially stopped by a court order) then she wasn't doing her job which I can only assume they think is to rubber stamp whatever comes out of the White House.

I have no problem with someone whose job it is to look because the surface doing just that and stating their conclusion on it.  I suppose others do.

[Goalpost]

She was in a tough spot to be replaced by Sessions anyway. I don't think they fired her for her beliefs. They fired her because she told others to ignore the EO. She doesn't have standing to do that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 03:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: So she did her job.  

No, she didn't, that's why she got fired.  If she had any integrity she would have resigned, but she doesn't and she didn't.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 02:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was absolutely no other place this thread could have went. As to the OP; glad to see folks getting behind sessions.

But from what I understand the Office of Legal Counsel whose duty it is to advise all members of the Executive Branch ruled the order to be lawful. So I'm not sure what Yates is doing is exactly what Sessions advised Yates to do.

Yates also said she was responsible to advise the President, she did not do that; she went against the President.

The Office of Legal Counsel doesn't determine the constitutionally of laws and executive orders, the courts do. They merely advise the executive branch on whether their actions are lawful as they understand current laws and precedents. As we all know here, we all disagree day to day over which actions, laws, and orders are lawful, whether we are citizens, lawyers, or lawmakers. One of us could be "right" one day and "wrong" the next after a court makes a decision.

I am not sure if Sessions would honestly take his own suggestion if he was serving a Republican administration, but the term "improper" is certainly subjective and I would make the argument that the definition of "unlawful" is fluid when spoken by lawmakers. As for my opinion of Sessions: Experienced and intelligent enough to AG, but I believe his views on civil rights and voting rights being stuck in 1950 disqualify him for heading the department that is suppose to enforce the laws that protect those rights. 

Like I said about Yates, she did the right thing (morally) by not defending the order, but she failed in her duties as Attorney General for the Trump administration. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 03:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: So she did her job.  And he had the ability to fire her for it.

I think most people understand that.

Some think that just because she disagreed with the order (already partially stopped by a court order) then she wasn't doing her job which I can only assume they think is to rubber stamp whatever comes out of the White House.

I have no problem with someone whose job it is to look because the surface doing just that and stating their conclusion on it.  I suppose others do.

Until the courts deem the EO unconstitutional, her job is to defend it if the Chief Executive demands that she does as part of his duty of "faithfully executing the law". She did not, so she did not do her job. 

I commend her for not doing her job, but only from a moral standpoint.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're 100% right until the last little bit.  If you find what you are asked to do morally objectionable then you resign your position.  You've firmly grasped the point that seems to completely elude GMDino and xxlt though.

One would argue her statement was a resignation, just with more drama. Gotta have drama and politics or your future is over. 

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 03:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Until the courts deem the EO unconstitutional, her job is to defend it if the Chief Executive demands that she does as part of his duty of "faithfully executing the law". She did not, so she did not do her job. 

I commend her for not doing her job, but only from a moral standpoint.

If that was her job...why have her?

She expressly said her job is look deeper into it.  She did.  She wasn't sure it was legal and said so.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 03:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: If that was her job...why have her?

She expressly said her job is look deeper into it.  She did.  She wasn't sure it was legal and said so.

She was the acting AG leftover from the Obama administration until Sessions was confirmed. She was just the one occupying the seat to keep things running until his man was in. 

Her job is to look deeper into it and advise the President and ultimately do what he says. She doesn't trump Trump. She can give her advice and opinion, but if Trump says to enforce, she must enforce. She overstepped when she said it would not be enforced, not when she said it should not be.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 03:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: One would argue her statement was a resignation, just with more drama. Gotta have drama and politics or your future is over. 

One could argue that, I certainly wouldn't. In this kind of scenario a person of integrity resigns.  A person without integrity holds a grandstanding press conference and obfuscates about their objections to an EO.  To be clear, and I know you realize this, her objections to defending the EO were personal and political not legal.  The EO is clearly not illegal on its face to the point of being indefensible and no credible legal scholar could argue otherwise. 

The Dems love it because grandstanding is all they have left.  Sadly it will be counter productive and I say sadly because the GOP is going to go too far the next four years and the Dems are going to hand them even more power in the mid terms unless they get their act together.  Petulance and name calling is not a viable long term strategy for a minority party.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 03:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One could argue that, I certainly wouldn't. In this kind of scenario a person of integrity resigns.  A person without integrity holds a grandstanding press conference and obfuscates about their objections to an EO.  To be clear, and I know you realize this, her objections to defending the EO were personal and political not legal.  The EO is clearly not illegal on its face to the point of being indefensible and no credible legal scholar could argue otherwise. 

The Dems love it because grandstanding is all they have left.  Sadly it will be counter productive and I say sadly because the GOP is going to go too far the next four years and the Dems are going to hand them even more power in the mid terms unless they get their act together.  Petulance and name calling is not a viable long term strategy for a minority party.

DC is a city that lacks integrity. Grandstanding keeps your name in the paper and your political hopes alive.

I told someone else on my feed that they need to stop going after every little thing. Focus on the big things, otherwise the middle ground people will see it as the boy who cried "Trump". If I see one more person post about parts of websites being deleted... (webpages get taken down when they are performing maintenance! The Judicial Branch isn't erased because it is temporarily not described on the Executive Branch's website). You lose credibility if the little things are made to seem as bad as the big things.

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 03:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The I said about Yates, she did the right thing (morally) by not defending the order, but she failed in her duties as Attorney General for the Trump administration. 

I suspect many had the exact same thoughts on Kim Davis; there's just different audiences applauding the moves.I personally think both failed morally (more specific ethically) and professionally.

As I have said since the results of the General Elections. Many folks will now become what they have professed to hate over the last 8 years.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2017, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I have said since the results of the General Elections. Many folks will now become what they have professed to hate over the last 8 years.

Ain't politics grand?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 03:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: DC is a city that lacks integrity. Grandstanding keeps your name in the paper and your political hopes alive.

I told someone else on my feed that they need to stop going after every little thing. Focus on the big things, otherwise the middle ground people will see it as the boy who cried "Trump". If I see one more person post about parts of websites being deleted... (webpages get taken down when they are performing maintenance! The Judicial Branch isn't erased because it is temporarily not described on the Executive Branch's website). You lose credibility if the little things are made to seem as bad as the big things.

All true.  I would add to this comparing the firing of Yates to Nixon's actions that the two members of the DoJ in the Nixon era resigned rather than carry out orders they objected to.  Those two men had integrity.  Yates has no business being compared to them.