05-12-2017, 01:15 PM
(05-12-2017, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a reason that when AGs and their deputies are confirmed they are asked, rather pointedly and usually by Senators in opposition to the administration, if they are going to be willing and able to say no to the administration when they cross the line. That is the role of the DoJ. These positions do not swear loyalty to the administration, they swear to uphold the Constitution, the law. The tradition and culture with the DoJ is that it has a degree of independence that other departments do not. There is a reason that its cabinet level officer is not titled Secretary.
We can argue whether she was correct in her interpretation of the law, that's fine, but her role as acting AG was to do exactly what she did. Ideological differences are all that change one's opinion of her actions.
No one is saying she had no right to act as she did. That being said, actions have consequences, and if she felt strongly about the illegality of the EO she should have resigned. Simply saying no to your boss is not sufficient. Why has no one even attempted to address the example I gave above of the AG and his deputy resigning during the Nixon administration? Because it's the perfect example of what Yates should have done if she felt strongly about her position. My position is not based on ideology, it's based on integrity.
The EO was in no way illegal or unconstitutional on its face. To those who try and use the fact that both EO's issued on this subject have been blocked I would point out that the reason they were blocked in both instances was due to what the judges felt was the implied intent behind the immigration bans. There is clear an undeniable precedent that the POTUS has broad powers in regards to who is allowed in the United States and from where.
