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

[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.