(01-31-2017 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 09:37 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 07:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is hilariously ironic about this, is that the current AG nominee questioned Yates during her confirmation about whether or not she would stand up to Obama and say no if he asked her to do something illegal. She responded that the AG's responsibility was to uphold the law and Constitution.

I can't wait to see how Sessions responds to questions about this, because they will come and he will have to figure out how to say he thinks it is OK for his potential future boss to fire him because he disagrees with Trump - the very thing Sessions wanted Yates to do in case Obama went full dictator as he and the rest of the Reps were worried he would do.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politi...d=33958539

This shouldn't be hard at all. Sessions can simply say: "Of course the President can fire me. Like any Cabinet member, I would serve at the pleasure of the President. In fulfilling my office, I do not intend to act against my own considered judgment, but if the President's judgment differs from mine, he can certainly dismiss me. He has the right to do so at any time, for any reason or no reason at all."

It is perfectly consistent to say that (1) an AG should be willing to be defy the President, and (2) the President has every right to fire him or her.

What exactly is "hilariously ironic"?

I agree it should not be hard at all for Sessions to answer the question, and answer it just how you stated. However, I do not have a lot of faith that this will be what happens, and would love to be proven wrong.

The irony is that Trump does not take dissent well (see Yates firing and the subsequent statement released), and yet Trump has nominated an AG who believes (rightfully) that it is the AG's duty to stand up to the POTUS when they understand a law to violate the Constitution. Yet, when that happened to this president, that AG was fired because they stood up to the POTUS.

I think that Sessions was in the right with his line of questioning, but I was not expecting, in the slightest, to find out that line of questioning existed after news of Yates firing.

There is no irony in the belief system or understanding of how an AG should operate, it is in the players involved and the situation that has unfurled. Maybe coincidental is a better word?

Good points. And come to think of it, irony is probably as good a word as any. I interpreted "hilariously ironic" as an allegation of hypocrisy, which is not what you actually said.

As for Yates, it is not entirely clear what her basis for not defending the order really was. In her press release [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-Letter-From-Sally-Yates.html?_r=0] announcing that she would not defend it, she did not say that her considered judgment is that the order is unconstitutional, or violates an existing statute (and around the country, legal opinion on those questions seems to be mixed). The character string "constitution" does not appear anywhere in the document. She did say that she was "not convinced that the Executive Order is lawful", but without naming any particular law that it might conflict with. Rather, she emphasized that the "policy choice embodied" in the order is not "wise or just" or, alternatively, does not comport with "justice and ... what is right". So her stance seems somewhere between "I believe this order is patently illegal" and "I just don't agree with it."

I was trying to be diplomatic toward Yates, and perhaps I was overly charitable.

Alan Dershowitz (as reliable a liberal as there is) has much harsher words for her:
Sally Yates was wrong and should have resigned
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 01/31/17 10:51 AM EST

But you have to admit: it was a clever career move.