As I wrote above “And it could have ramifications in emboldening other appointed officials to consider themselves unbound by anything other than their own determination of what’s legal or just, whether in lower profile cases or in cases where the officials are better situated strategically.”
Yes. But those are extreme cases.
This is already the case, is it not? If they don’t feel they can obey an order from the administration, they resign or (presumably if they think it’s important enough) state publicly that they won’t follow it. And then they’re probably fired. I don’t see how things are any different now than before.
Or else they can not resign and not state publically that they won’t follow it, and then they’re probably not fired.
To a large extent, society relies on a widespread acceptance of what’s right and wrong rather than on finding and punishing every deviator. And to the extent that attitudes of government officials evolve in the direction of every official having autonomy to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong, then that’s very bad for the democratic system (or any system, really).
And yet, in the Department of State, there is a formal process for State officials to sign “dissent memos” that go to the Secretary of State, objecting to State policies, and with strong protections for the authors of the dissent memo from any reprisals for expressing contrary views.
Good government requires that policies be subject to rational critiques, both from outside government and within government.
200 State officials have taken advantage of that principle in signing a dissent memo critiquing the travel ban: 200 Officials at State Department Sign Dissent Memo Criticising Travel Ban
That’s all great. But that’s not the same as actually performing your official duties in accordance with your dissent versus in accordance with the official policy.
That’s fine too. Also, 51 State officials issued a dissent memo protesting Obama’s policy in Syria. But the point is that they didn’t then go act in accordance with their dissenting position.
So is the Statue of Liberty holding up a torch.
I assume that Yates thought this policy rose to the level of something that absolutely required opposition, beyond a mundane disagreement. Or she was posturing because she wants to be popular with liberals. But either way, it doesn’t seem to me like it changes anything significantly – the consequences for such public disagreement will be being fired, as it always has been.
No surprise here. You don’t defy your boss and expect to keep your job.
She had to know her theatrics would get her fired. The “I won’t quit and you have to fire me” attitude is pretty common among disgruntled employees.
You actually think defending the Constitution is “mere theatrics”?
Defending the Constitution from what? A 90 day travel ban?
I understand people don’t agree with it. I certainly agree Trump’s administration badly bungled it’s implementation. But a temporary travel ban is not a Constitutional crises. Its been widely reported that other Presidents have done the same thing. It’s one of the powers granted to the President.
She was going to be fired in a matter of days when the new AG is confirmed by the Senate. It’s not like she wasn’t already on the way out. This was a matter of going out on her own terms and protesting a policy that she felt was incorrect. Context is very important.
Except that, under no construction was Yates being asked to do something illegal, defending an unlawful order in court isn’t a crime… it’s not even an ethical violation. Can you imagine a mass disbarment anytime an EO or statute was struck down by a court?
And in any event, I’m fairly sure that the obligation of an attorney in that situation is to withdraw (i.e., resign). I don’t think you get to stay on the case, but refuse to present arguments because you think your client is in the wrong.
What really bothers me is that, unlike past cases where attorneys general have announced that they believe a statute was unconstitutional and that it should not/cannot be defended, Yates didn’t argue that. She says that shes “not convinced” that it’s lawful and that, even though OLC concluded that it was, they didn’t take into account whether “any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.” She’s not saying that the EO is unlawful… she’s saying that the policy is not wise. That’s not usually the prerogative of the AG or of any attorney.
No, they didn’t. You should read news site that deal in true news.
There was a tightening up of vetting that resulted in longer wait times for visas but not an outright universal ban.
Don’t foregt Cheeto’s order also stopped people who had visas and holders of green cards. Both entitled to enter the US.
Temporary is not a factor that determines Constitutionality.
Most of the remaining Obama appointees will be gone soon. They are filling temporary positions until Congress approves the new appointments.
Yates wanted to make a political statement. Maybe she’s thinking of running for office someday.
She’ll be yesterday’s news very soon.
Just think how many would already be gone if Cheeto had taken his job seriously instead of tweeting and taking victory tours.
IANAL, but you probably won’t be surprised that I find Peter Smith’s argument more convincing than Gerhardt’s (and those he agreed with).
And maybe she’s a jihadi, clearing the way for the next attack!
Cmon. Have some charity for people who disagree with you - accept that their motives may be misguided but sincere (until you have evidence otherwise)!
This is not a case where something is clearly unlawful. (In fact, the opposite is true, it is almost certainly lawful). When you represent a client, you put the best legal argument forward that you have for the client regardless of your personal beliefs so long as the argument is not so frivolous as to garner sanctions.
Further, the test is not “Would I, as a judge rule this way.” It is “can I make an argument that the clerks won’t snicker at”.
What are you afraid of? Perfectly legal statutes being enforced, and people being fired for publicly refusing to do that? Seriously?
I guarantee you, if she had been the AG under Obama and went right ahead with enforcing the law against his wishes, Obama would’ve fired her. And you would’ve approved.