01-31-2017, 12:49 PM
(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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
