# Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke harasses, threatens Packer fan.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/milwaukee-county-sheriff-david-clarke-harasses-threatens-packer-fan/777636>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [January 20, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/milwaukee-county-sheriff-david-clarke-harasses-threatens-packer-fan/777636 "2017-01-20T16:31:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 191

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/milwaukee-county-sheriff-david-clarke-harasses-threatens-packer-fan/777636/191 "2017-01-25T05:18:12Z")

</div>

> [@Chisquirrel](#):
>
> So the dismissal was not illegal? Or the illegality is unreliable?

I’m saying that even though the court ruled that the dismissal of Cox by Bork was illegal, that ruling is not strong evidence that the action was actually illegal: it was a non-precedent district court ruling that the government did not appeal, and in fact did not even really fight at trial.

So “the illegality is unreliable” is a pretty good summary, I guess.

> [@](#):
>
> Can we not hold Bork responsible for his actions, because he only did it as Acting Attorney General, and was thus ordered by the President? Is legal culpability avoided by just following orders?

The legality has nothing to do with just following orders. The Special Prosecutor was a creature of the President’s, and the President had the authority to fire him.

From a moral perspective, Bork was willing to resign rather than carry out the order, but both Elliot Richardson and Bill Ruckelshaus urged him not to. They believed that since both of their own resignations had failed to sway Nixon, Nixon was prepared to keep firing people until he found a mail room supervisor down the line who would sign the termination letter. So Ruckelshaus urged Bork to not resign, lest the Department lose the most senior leadership it had left.

> [@](#):
>
> If you have the time, please do link on of your dissections. I have no problem reading more on the subject.

[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19923952&postcount=94](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19923952&postcount=94)

And as a result of this discussion, a good (if simplified) analogy from **DSYoungEsq** :

> [@Is there any chance that Trump will renominate Garland for the SCOTUS?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-that-trump-will-renominate-garland-for-the-scotus/771497/47):
>
> Please. This is silly.
> 
> Imagine you are at work. At the request of your boss, you take an action. It turns out to be an unpopular action. I file a suit against your employer, asserting that what you did was illegal. You are not a named party to the suit. Your employer, supremely embarrassed over the fallout, refuses to defend the suit, and allows judgment to be entered saying: “What CarnalK did at the request of the employer was illegal.”
> 
> Now, I go out and spread the word that you have been found to have committed an illegal act. You are contemplating running for assistant dog catcher in your home town, but sadly, you are deemed to be unqualified for the position, because, after all, you did something illegal, as determined by a court.
> 
> Would you not find this a bit unfair to you? :smack:

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/milwaukee-county-sheriff-david-clarke-harasses-threatens-packer-fan/777636)._