World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[CRTGAMER]

Will Yates lose her bar?

No. While attorneys have a duty to zealously represent their clients' interests, government attorneys have no duty to defend a law that they perceive as unconstitutional. Certainly, there will be differences of opinion regarding the constitutionality of a controversial law - and no lawyer will be sanctioned for making good-faith arguments in support of a law that is ultimately found to be unconstitutional - but government attorneys are given wide-latitude in this respect.

Clients, however, are free to fire their lawyers, and they are also free to find lawyers that will make arguments in support of their positions. Moreover, the AG serves at the President's pleasure, and as much of a stir as it has caused, Donald Trump was well within his rights to fire an AG that would not defend his executive orders in court.

In sum, the AG was within her rights to refuse to defend Donald Trump's executive orders; Donald Trump was within his rights to fire her; the AG will not be sanctioned by the bar for her refusal to defend Donald Trump's executive orders; and any lawyer who ultimately ends up defending the orders in court will not be sanctioned for his or her efforts either.

Thanks for that. I am just imagining the resume and job interview, fired by her boss who happens to be the President of the United States. Then again, could be a positive as the bulldog holding ground against such power who stood by her beliefs.

[Ack]

Will Yates lose her bar?

No. While attorneys have a duty to zealously represent their clients' interests, government attorneys have no duty to defend a law that they perceive as unconstitutional. Certainly, there will be differences of opinion regarding the constitutionality of a controversial law - and no lawyer will be sanctioned for making good-faith arguments in support of a law that is ultimately found to be unconstitutional - but government attorneys are given wide-latitude in this respect.

Clients, however, are free to fire their lawyers, and they are also free to find lawyers that will make arguments in support of their positions. Moreover, the AG serves at the President's pleasure, and as much of a stir as it has caused, Donald Trump was well within his rights to fire an AG that would not defend his executive orders in court.

In sum, the AG was within her rights to refuse to defend Donald Trump's executive orders; Donald Trump was within his rights to fire her; the AG will not be sanctioned by the bar for her refusal to defend Donald Trump's executive orders; and any lawyer who ultimately ends up defending the orders in court will not be sanctioned for his or her efforts either.

Thanks for that. I am just imagining the resume and job interview, fired by her boss who happens to be the President of the United States. Then again, could be a positive as the bulldog holding ground against such power who stood by her beliefs.

A former attorney general who fought on behalf of her beliefs regard the unconstitutionality of an executive order? She'll have no issue finding work.

[prfsnl_gmr]

She'll have no issue finding work.

+1

She'll be just fine.

[Sarge]

She probably should have handled it differently, but yeah, she'll have no problems finding work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... ba2fffb9ff

[Blu]

I'll take the bait:

16. Two For One Regulation Reduction - Absurd notion. I doubt it will do what it intends. You can start with PAC's and soft money.

15. Remove Lobbyist - Not enough. It's a great idea and financial contributions to our electoral system are a pay-to-play type of governing. I have no proof that Rex Tillerson among others as cabinet members dispel the idea that lobbying is going to be a ting of the past.

14. Refugees and terror - We have a reputable system for refugees that allows for thorough vetting before the granting of any type of visa. However, not having senior leadership in the State Department does not make this task an easier one.

13. Reshaping the military - I do not believe we have much to worry about with reshaping the military. We have plenty of military expenditures, perhaps this reshaping can focus on the veterans in need that we have neglected to serve after fighting two decade-long wars.

12. Border wall - Needless spending. Beef up other avenues to enforce immigration law. I still believe in the rule of law and it should govern anyone who is here.

11. Deportations and Sanctuary Cities - Sanctuary Cities do not adhere to a litmus test regarding supremacy clauses. Oppressive state laws that limit cities from effectively governing their people should be taken to the Supreme Court. I hope that the injustices in which red states are trying to overtake such cities are met remedied and that the veiled reasons for why sanctuary cities are under fire can actually be ironed out with nuance and dignity.

10. Review manufacturing regulations - We should be considering that manufacturing jobs are not sustainable. The regulations however, should adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement, as it is founded in scientific, verifiable proof and fact that adheres to the scientific method.

9. American steel in pipelines - Don't care. DAPL and Keystone XL should actually be a rail system, since rails are proven 3x safer than pipelines for spills, allow for longer investment in permanent jobs, and allow for improvements in infrastructure that the common American can benefit from.

8. Speeding up environmental reviews for all priority infrastructure. No. I'm all for expediency, but not at the cost of long-term environmental impact. Being close to our Great Lakes, anything that comes at the detriment to our clean drinking water is a nonstarter. Environmental reviews allow for oversight, information for the local citizenry, and advocacy for people over profits. This is an economic power grab by corporate interests.

6 + 7. Speeding approval of Dakota Access and Keystone Oil Pipelines. Nonstarter, see #9. The pipelines are foolish and we should be looking to improve rail systems instead of more pipelines.

5. Federal hiring freeze - Moot. It will impact people who are recently hired and fall into the realm of being impacted. I can think of many people who were looking forward to governmental internships, but the freeze has all but cancelled that out. This executive order I hope sorts out the baggage though, as long as critical posts do not go unfilled.

4. TPP - Good, as long as there are no global ramifications in being able to shape our trade policy. Pay workers equitable, fair wages. TPP may or may not have done that. We certainly won't get back manufacturing jobs as a result of pulling out of it, nor were we going to get any if it went into effect.

3. Abortion - It's law. Put it to rest, allow for safe abortions for anyone who needs one. That's a broad interpretation. Broaden the options for anyone who's unsure. Make adoption easier. Make birth control not an issue of sexual promiscuity when it's a sexist double standard and is actually responsible when you're considering the burden on the state to take care of a child on various entitlement-related costs.

2. Regulation Freeze - Sorry, no. Regulations are actually an important thing and I think this gives far too much latitude to operate in while the freeze is in effect.

1. Affordable Care Act rollback. - There's been no alternative proposed for the past six years. Give ACA its criticism, but the 19% approval rating in Congress tells me they like to sit on their hands, and let the President be the one who calls the shots, when they have an equally important job on their hands. Single payer may or may not be the solution, but I doubt that Congress has done anything to put pressure on insurers or the business wing of the hospital system, to make the average American feel like they can go to the doctor for their health without going into debt over it.

This is pretty spot on with my feelings as well, except I know virtually nothing about the pipeline, so where those issues are concerned I have no opinion. Some good points here Blu, I forgot to mention my concerns about the Paris agreement and net neutrality, even though the latter doesn't have anything to do with these executive orders it hasn't seen much discussion.

I'm afraid that most of my concerns are about the possible intent behind these orders rather than the direct action at face value. Perhaps that is unfair, but our dictator has done little since entering office to show me he is owed any trust.

In addition I think killing the ACA is nothing short of murder for the people who will surely die without any health coverage and are depending on it currently. Trump and his party have no intent of "making sure everyone has coverage". Of that I'm quite sure.

Thanks, jp1. I would expect we'd fall somewhere in the same category on a lot of these things. Based on our past conversations, we tend to share a lot of the same opinions on the approaches. Looking forward to hear what else you might say when you have the time.

[ZeroAX]

I think it's going to be a golden time for rights lawyers, with all the unconstitutional evil laws trump passes and with all the grassroot movements against him.

Unless he goes full Putin / Erdogan and just completely abolishes justice and the rule of law.

[ElkinFencer10]

Unless he goes full Putin / Erdogan and just completely abolishes justice and the rule of law.

He's already implied a willingness to impose martial law on Chicago. From there, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to making up some excuse to declare a national state of emergency and suspending the Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down an action like that, he could just pull a Jackson and refuse to comply.

[Blu]

She probably should have handled it differently, but yeah, she'll have no problems finding work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... ba2fffb9ff

Paywall on that article, what's the opinion piece say, Sarge?

[Ack]

I think it's going to be a golden time for rights lawyers, with all the unconstitutional evil laws trump passes and with all the grassroot movements against him.

Comedians too. It's almost too easy.

[Sarge]

Weird, it's not paywalling me.

Here's the text, in all its unfettered glory (originally written by Jonathan Adler):

Here, via the Huffington Post, is the announcement from acting attorney general Sally Yates:

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, 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.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

A few quick observations. First, the statement seems to indicate that the executive order was reviewed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which apparently concluded that the executive order was lawful. Second, Yates does not claim that she cannot defend the executive order because it is unconstitutional or because the Justice Department would be unable to offer good-faith arguments in defense of its legality. To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not “wise or just.” This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis.

Yates is supposed to remain the acting attorney general until Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is confirmed. The question now is whether she will remain in office that long.

UPDATE: Perhaps coincidentally, the Honorable William Pryor, one of the federal judges reportedly under consideration for President Trump’s initial Supreme Court nomination delivered a lecture in 2014 discussing when it is (and is not) appropriate for an executive branch official to refuse to enforce and defend a duly enacted law. His lecture was published in the Case Western Reserve Law Review here.

SECOND UPDATE: Some have asked what I think AAG Yates should have done, given her views of the EO. My answer is simple: Resign, and then publicly explain her reasons for doing so. If Yates believes that the President’s various comments about a “Muslim ban” undermine her ability to defend (or oversee the defense of) an executive action that OLC concluded (and she does not dispute) is “lawful on its face,” she should have stepped down as Acting Attorney General.

There is some precedent for this sort of thing. Recall the “Saturday Night Massacre,” when Attorney General Eliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckleshaus resigned rather than fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox at President Nixon’s insistence. If AAG Yates believes she is being asked to do something that violates her conscience — as she apparently does — this is the model she should have followed.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Monday evening, President Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and appointed Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in her place.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: I also recommend Jack Goldsmith’s parsing of Yates’ statement here.

That link at the end goes here, which is also an interesting read.