There's a distinction between being an employee and being a political appointee. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for any reason. The AG has the obligation to act in accordance with the Constitution and law. If Ms. Yates had a concern about the legality of the EO, her obligation would have been to inform the President of what her concerns were and suggest ways that it could be amended to address those concerns. If her concerns were on personal ethical grounds, her obligation would be to inform the President of those concerns and, if they could not reach a resolution, to resign her position. She didn't do either of those things. Instead she sent a letter to JD lawyers telling them not to enforce the EO or defend it in court, stating, "I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful." That was political grandstanding. She deserved to get fired, IMO.
She was certainly going to lose her title as acting AG once Sessions is confirmed. I'm not sure that she would have lost her job, but maybe that's the case. Regardless, I think that what I wrote is still true even if her tenure was limited.
Lol. Pelosi Caught on Hot Mic Coaching Fellow Dem: 'Tell Them You're a Muslim!' http://www.mrctv.org/blog/pelosi-carson-caught-hot-mic-tell-them-youre-muslim That's about as bad as her asking for "real people" on hot mic... jesus..
Yes, had he consulted her. But he consulted no one in the relevant departments. Instead he took input from white supremacists and anti-Semites. Her only option was to act after the fact.
Pretty sure that the phone line from the Justice Department to the White House is operational. The effort she put into the letter to her staff could have been used to talk with Trump and express her concerns. That would have been the ethical thing to do. It probably would have still ended with her getting the axe, but at least she'd have the moral high ground. This column by Megan McArdle on the topic is pretty good: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/i...w_the_left_has.html#incart_river_mobile_index
EDIT: Apparently this may be fake news. Sheesh. But apparently this is true: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/lik...n-heart-surgery-because-of-trumps-travel-ban/
Not sure if this was posted before because I'm NOT sifting through this thread... Nike CEO condemns Trump refugee ban as threat to values Dear all, Nike believes in a world where everyone celebrates the power of diversity. Regardless of whether Or how you worship. where you come from Or who you love, everyone's individual experience is what make us stronger as a whole. Those values are being threatened by the recent executive order in the U.S. banning refugees, as well as visitors, from seven Muslim-majority countries. This is a policy we don't support. And I know we're all asking what this means for our future. for our friends. Our families and Our broader community. Today. I'm thinking of everyone who is impacted. like Sir MO Farah. Mo. four-time Olympic gold medalist. now lives in Oregon with his family. He was born in Somalia and moved to Britain when he was eight. He has dedicated his life to competing for his adopted country. And yet, MO fears that he may not be allowed to return from his training camp in Ethiopia to see his wife and children in Portland. I was moved by the powerful statement MO shared this morning. What MO will always have — what the entire Nike family can always count on — is the support of this company. We will do everything in our power to ensure the safety of every member Of Our family: Our colleagues. Our athletes and their loved ones. Nike stands together against bigotry and any form of discrimination. We've learned that On the field Of play. where fairness and mutual respect are the rule, not the exception. Now. more than ever. let's stand up for our values and remain open and inclusive as a brand and as a company. We are at our best when we recognize the value of our diverse community. Thanks, Mark Parker Chairman. President and CEO, NIKE, Inc.
All due respect, e_blazer, you are wrong. Ms. Yates found out after the fact. The Attorney General is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate but he/she does not work for the president, he/she works for "we the people" and has an obligation to not be a rubber stamp. You may have seen a video now circulating on line. When she was having her Senate confirmation hearings to be Deputy Attorney General, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, yes, the nominee to be new Attorney General, grilled her on how she would act if President Obama issued an order she thought was not legal. Ms. Yates said she would follow the law and the Constitution. Senator Sessions was dissatisfied with her answer, which he thought was not strong enough. He wanted a more solid assurance that Ms. Yates would not go along with anything President Obama did that hypothetically was not legal. But now? She did not simply have a disagreement or a different interpretation of the law, she is "weak" and "betrayed" the Justice Department. Because to Trump anyone who disagrees with or challenges him is an enemy. It's another example of Trump's poor management; remember, this was his selling point despite all the bankruptcies, business fraud, cheating workers and contractors, he is the best manager. A good manager gets information before acting. A good manager gets input from others who may have a different point of view. A good manager recognizes he/she does not know everything. A good manager treats people with respect.
He did consult the relative departments. Someone is lying that he didn't. Not you, you're just repeating it.