slugsrbad wrote:All I learned from the Nightman/Pac exchange is that JH is the protagonist of a RPG and it's on him to fulfill his destiny.

HE HAS NO AGENCY

jerseyhoya wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Luzinski's Gut wrote:A quick thought or two about the Yates firing.

I am in favor of it.

My opinion is that you don't want Executive Branch bureaucrats - regardless of what "rank" or status they possess - becoming the sole determiner of national policy or law. The Executive Branch bureaucracy is already a shadow fourth branch of our Federal government, and within that framework, precedent matters a great deal.

So in the future, if a new Democratic President had an acting Republican AG who acted in the same manner as Yates, I would fully the firing of the AG for the same exact reason as I stated above.

Yates' decision plays well within the political arena if one is against Trump. From a process and precedent perspective, Trump had no choice.

I defer to your wisdom on a lot of things that are just outside of my ken, but I disagree with your assertion of the Attorney General's role. Their duties, among others, are to represent the US in legal matters and to furnish advice and opinions on legal matters, as provided by law. If the Attorney General feels that a federal law is unconstitutional, then it is well within their purview to write a memo regarding that issue.

As it has been stated previously, the AG serves at the pleasure of the President. It has also been argued (mainly by Jack Goldsmith of Lawfare blog, posted by JH) that the AG did not make the case that the EO was illegal or that there were no reasonable defenses to the legality. This may be true, but I think that merely shifts the argument from Yates was well within her bounds, to Yates was well within her bounds to argue its legality, but failed to do so.

What this does truly boil down to is the incompetency of the Trump administration. Yates was to serve probably less than a week more until the feet dragging on Sessions ended. Instead, he passed this questionable EO with very little input from his advisors and relevant congresspeople, and passed it while there was an AG that was not of his choosing. Yates got to be a martyr for the left, and Trump once again looked incompetent.

I think this is mostly wrong.

The Trump administration has erred at almost every step along the way with the travel executive order - it's bad policy, it was poorly implemented, there was limited or no consultation with key stakeholders, once the flaws were apparent they have been slow to adapt, the usage of some Hill staff seems likely to further strain relations w/ Congress, etc etc. But they were absolutely right to fire Yates. She says the EO is not just or wise, which isn't really where the line gets drawn for the AG. She says in her letter the Office of Legal Counsel found it lawful on its face and doesn't say it's illegal or unconstitutional - just that she isn't convinced of its constitutionality. As someone who has worked in the Obama administration the past couple of years, one imagines she's been involved in defending plenty of policy she wasn't (or shouldn't have been) convinced was constitutional given the administration's track record in the courts. If she's asked to defend something that she believes to be illegal or unconstitutional, that's one thing, but not what happened here according to her.

I don't really think it makes a hell of a lot of difference if she resigned on principle or sends the letter knowing she'd get fired, but there was no way for her to remain in the job if she wasn't going to defend the order.

That's a really simplistic view of the AG's role IMO.

This has been an issue here in Virginia twice in the past decade, once under a Republican AG and once under a Democratic AG, and I agree with the decision not to defend the law in both of those cases. Similarly, I have no problem with what Yates did. At a certain point, the question of whether a legal argument is a "good faith argument" as required by the law, court rules, and our ethical obligations becomes a personal judgment call. She felt that it didn't meet that standard, so she directed the attorneys under her not to defend it.

The Office of Legal Counsel vetted the EO, but their role is different from the DOJ as a whole. They're just looking to see if there's any legal support for an EO whatsoever. (Frankly, I don't know their justification for that conclusion. I have yet to see an opinion from an immigration attorney that can't be boiled down to "LOL WUT, and that isn't just liberal pundits--it includes some of my former classmates who practice as immigration attorneys. For all we know, Ms. Yates might've been equally dismissive of their conclusion without wanting to tar and feather the career attorneys who are charged with a difficult task.)

Besides, she knew she was going to get fired. She knew that she was merely tilting at windmills, but she took a stand anyway. Good for her.

JFLNYC wrote:

traderdave wrote:I don't give two #$!&@ how long Obama's DOE nominees spent testifying or how many questions they had to answer, I am concerned about THIS nominee. Alexander says he believes she is the most questioned DOE nominee in history; maybe that is because she is the most controversial and least qualified nominee.

First of all, if the point is she's the most questioned ever, the response is: "So what?"

Secondly, I'm sick and tired already of this administration's cynical invoking how things were done by Obama as a defense. You want to go back to those rules? Fine, no consideration of a new SC justice. No immigration reform. No new infrastructure, etc.

To paraphrase Bannon & Spicer: If you don't like how the game is being played just shut your mouth or resign.

We certainly agree. I do wish, however, that the Ds on this committee would stop whining about not being able to ask a second round of questions. They probably have a point but I think their constant complaining on that issue overshadows the many legitimate reasons why Betsy DeVos is a ill-equipped to head our nation's education system. There is no doubt that DeVos is going to pass through committee on a party vote but I am still holding out hope that the Ds can peel four Rs off in the full vote (Collins and Murkowski could be two on the fence - Murkowski actually said she should not yet be counted as a Yes vote during the full vote).

LG, looking for some handicapping on this: odds of Mattis cutting Bannon's balls off & feeding them to him before the All Star break?

drsmooth wrote:LG, looking for some handicapping on this: odds of Mattis cutting Bannon's balls off & feeding them to him before the All Star break?

9 million to 1

Gimpy wrote:regrets.img

i feel bad for these people and i hope the Dems can better craft and deliver their message next time around. i think a lot of people are for universal health care without knowing it (not meant to sound pompous but i know it does)

jh, this is a few days old, so you may have already read it, but this article features annotations from a prominent immigration law professor and former counsel to DHS. He kinda knows what he's talking about. It's not even criticism so much as helpful context and clarification of a very muddled document.

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/28/14416616/executive-order-immigrants-sanctuary-trump

Yates did a great thing and is a hero and also Trump had no choice but to fire her

td11 wrote:

Gimpy wrote:regrets.img

i feel bad for these people and i hope the Dems can better craft and deliver their message next time around. i think a lot of people are for universal health care without knowing it (not meant to sound pompous but i know it does)

One thing I keep hearing is Trump voters who actually liked Obamacare but resented that the "others" (including whites) in their communities who didn't work got much cheaper and easier/better care through Medicaid. We can call them stupid for thinking the Democrats were the problem there or Trump the solution, but I'd sooner try to explain these things much more simply and clearly

td11 wrote:Yates did a great thing and is a hero and also Trump had no choice but to fire her

He had a choice. He chose to be a sniveling coward and fire her instead of admitting his error.

pacino wrote:

td11 wrote:Yates did a great thing and is a hero and also Trump had no choice but to fire her

He had a choice. He chose to be a sniveling coward and fire her instead of admitting his error.

he's a known petty bitch. he had no other choice. his base would have revolted.

a reasonable person would have had the choice you laid out

Grotewold wrote:

td11 wrote:

Gimpy wrote:regrets.img

i feel bad for these people and i hope the Dems can better craft and deliver their message next time around. i think a lot of people are for universal health care without knowing it (not meant to sound pompous but i know it does)

One thing I keep hearing is Trump voters who actually liked Obamacare but resented that the "others" (including whites) in their communities who didn't work got much cheaper and easier/better care through Medicare. We can call them stupid for thinking the Democrats were the problem there or Trump the solution, but I'd sooner try to explain these things much more simply and clearly

I assume you mean medicaid, and there is certainly an aspect where some are upset that they have to pay part of their premium when people on medicaid who are making a little bit less money have Medicaid instead.

Grotewold wrote:

td11 wrote:

Gimpy wrote:regrets.img

i feel bad for these people and i hope the Dems can better craft and deliver their message next time around. i think a lot of people are for universal health care without knowing it (not meant to sound pompous but i know it does)

One thing I keep hearing is Trump voters who actually liked Obamacare but resented that the "others" (including whites) in their communities who didn't work got much cheaper and easier/better care through Medicaid. We can call them stupid for thinking the Democrats were the problem there or Trump the solution, but I'd sooner try to explain these things much more simply and clearly

agreed

@alexburnsNYT wrote:Point is, sometimes the story erupting in full view is actually the most important thing - not some connect-the-dots House of Cards fantasy.

I agree with this, a lot. We cannot stand idly by thinking that this is some opening feint in Chess that we have to dissect. There are already real stakes, and guess what, when he comes for LGBTQ rights, or voting rights, or some other atrocity du jour, we will be there for that too.

republicans already gutted the VRA last cycle so you can cross that one off

jk they can do lots more damage

td11 wrote:republicans already gutted the VRA last cycle so you can cross that one off

jk they can do lots more damage

Hell, I wouldn't put it past Trump to call for something that's already unconstitutional (poll tax for Mexican descendants to pay for the wall!).

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:jh, this is a few days old, so you may have already read it, but this article features annotations from a prominent immigration law professor and former counsel to DHS. He kinda knows what he's talking about. It's not even criticism so much as helpful context and clarification of a very muddled document.

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/28/14416616/executive-order-immigrants-sanctuary-trump

I don't think this is the order she refused to defend.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:jh, this is a few days old, so you may have already read it, but this article features annotations from a prominent immigration law professor and former counsel to DHS. He kinda knows what he's talking about. It's not even criticism so much as helpful context and clarification of a very muddled document.

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/28/14416616/executive-order-immigrants-sanctuary-trump

I don't think this is the order she refused to defend.

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/ ... -annotated

Right sight, wrong analysis.

All toomey's offices either busy signals, full voice mail boxes or disconnects

DeVos moves on straight down lines but, as I stated above, I think Ds could get a few Rs to cross lines in the full vote.