Trump fires acting AG for defying immigration ban

Attorney Generals, as part of their job, are supposed to defend the government and its decisions. She was also a cabinet member(AG is a cabinet position) so her employment is at the complete discretion of the President. So yes, Trump was her "client."

 

An absolutely correct decision by the POTUS. There is no place for political hacks in the U.S judiciary. Obama's administration completely infested and in the process degraded the U.S judiciary. It will take some time to properly 'disinfect' the system, so to speak.

 

No not really - google "separation of powers" which is within your constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html

- - - Updated - - -

No he has stepped over the separation of powers - and he will be lucky if Congress approves of any replacement picked by Trump at this juncture

 

Excuse me, she was working for the Executive Branch.

 

First, the AG works in the executive branch. The separation of powers, well the AG is in the branch with president, so none of that occurred. You should also google the job description of the US Attorney General, heck I'll just do it for you:

The Attorney General is appointed by the President and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time; the attorney general is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".
The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his or her advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."[SUP][1][/SUP] Only in 1870 was the Department of Justice established to support the attorney general in the discharge of their responsibilities. The Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense are generally regarded as the four most important cabinet officials because of the importance of their departments.[SUP][2]

[/SUP]

 

It seems your laws are different - not easy for an outsider but I still stand by the fact he should not have fired someone for doing the job they were employed to do - which is interpret the law

 

The president has the power and the law on his side. BTW, it was already deemed completely legal by the justice department. She is pulling a political stunt.

 

We get into problems when partisans interpret law, a partisan could just as easily interpret that water boarding is not torture.

A partisan could just as easily say, “we reject all efforts to denigrate the beliefs of Trump,” or “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the beliefs of Trump.”

You should stick with climate change; those laws don’t change only the beliefs do, because the traitorous cowards in the face of the enemy previous administration set the stage for this:

“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the climate change beliefs of Trump.”

 

Seems the job requires her to tell the President, "No," if she feels that his orders are unlawful and unconstitutional. Here is Jeff Sessions, Trump's Attorney General nominee, telling her exactly that she must say no to the President…

[video]https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653400/senator-sessions-advising-sally-yates-disobey-improper-presidential-orders[/video]

 

The president had a right to fire the acting AG. That is without question.

She had a right to consider the directive unlawful...and to do what she did. But once she did it, she knew she would be subject to dismissal.

We'll see more of this.

As I said in another thread, I now understand, in ways I never thought possible, how the Germans allowed Hitler to do to Germany what he was allowed to do.

 

The wise leave martyrdom to the religious cults and fanatics.

Oh wait...

.

 

It was deemed legal by her department:

Ms. Yates’s decision had effectively overruled a finding by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which had already approved the executive order “with respect to form and legality.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

So his order is legal. She just opposed it. Political, not law based.

 

Except the people who support the ban outnumber those who don't 2-1...

You are in the minority.

 

That's interesting. So tell me this, why did they have to amend the EO immediately to remove green card holders, if the EO was completely legal? I agree with you that Trump has the ability to make the EO and that it was run through the Legal Counsel office. However, there were problems with it, as evidenced in the amendment.

 

Couldnt tell you. You'd have to ask the people who did that. Maybe they felt they were being unfair to certain people's and wanted to make it right. Unfair =/= illegal or unconstitutional.

 

I'm fairly sure that detaining green card holders is unconstitutional and a violation of due process. So, that pretty much negates the fact that some people in Justice declared this EO lawful. Thus the acting AG was doing her job in telling the President no.

 

Well, Davis went against the Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is legal. She refused for her own beliefs. Yates questioned the legality of the executive order. If it's upheld as legal, she was right. If it's not upheld, she was wrong.

 

The EO never mentioned green card holders and I find it interesting that one of the most anti-trump states, New York, instituted the most restrictive methods possible.

 

Saw this breaking news last night while Tucker Carlson was shutting down some black dude that was always out protesting Trump but didn't know why... I almost texted you so we could laugh about it. This woman was told by multiple attorneys that the Executive Order was in fact legal and she claimed she wasn't convinced. Her tendency to be partisan on issues has cost her the job she had. I don't watch the alphabet news stations anymore but I bet they had all kinds of twists and turns to feed their ill informed audience while they sat there and pouted.

 

She's not the victor. Victors don't lose their jobs. She's a loser. You don't care about the safety of this country, almost 70% of people think Trump is doing a good job. You can continue to sit back and pout every time Trump upholds his promises to the people that voted for him.

You and the rest of the liberals are upset because Trump is following through with everything he said he would, and once again you all have made failed predictions. On an almost daily basis between November 9th and January 20th, you guys on the left were saying he'd let his voters down and wouldn't do anything he promised. Now he does and y'all are all shocked and bewildered and shedding tears.

I'll go out on a limb and guess you weren't whining when Obama put a 6 month ban on Iraqis.

 

She was fired for being partisan and not doing her job. In the real world, that's what happens.

So you don't look ridiculous next time you say Trump is becoming a dictator, read its definition: a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

 

Miss Yates can join Hillary, Lynch, Kerry and all the other rotting pieces of liberal garbage in the trash dumpster.

Good riddance!

 

Her own legal panel passed the order yet she chose to oppose it for strictly personal reasons

Maybe people should read the law

 

Over half of the country supports this ban. It's not as widely unpopular as the news stations tell you it is.

 

Just a reminder. Our Constitution vests all executive power, not some of it but all of it in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power.

If people look beyond the hysterical left wing media they will find that what Trump did was legal and nothing more than what Obama and other past Presidents have done.