Sally Yates deserved to get canned. Now, the bar association should consider yanking her license to practice law.
In defying President Trump’s executive order on immigration, the Acting Attorney General flouted the law and violated ethics that govern lawyers.
It is not the prerogative of the Attorney General to decide what laws are constitutional. That is the job of the courts. As the chief law enforcement officer, she does not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. She is duty-bound to defend and enforce all laws, including presidential executive orders.
If an Attorney General disagrees with an executive order, her ethical obligation under the code of Professional Responsibility is to communicate that to the president. If it cannot be resolved to her satisfaction, she has two choices: enforce the order or resign her position. This is plainly set forth in sections 1.13 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for the District of Columbia.
Yates did neither. Instead, she violated legal ethics by actively undermining the President and issuing her own order countermanding the President. She has no such authority. What would happen if other cabinet secretaries or federal officials committed the same acts as Yates? The result would be chaos and anarchy. The rule of law would vanish.
President Trump had ample justification for firing Yates. She committed an egregious violation of ethical standards and a serious breach of her duties.
Yates Is Not Qualified To Make A Constitutional Determination
Yates is not a constitutional law expert. Her career has been in prosecutions. But within the Department of Justice, there are experts on constitutional law. Some of them are in the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ. They reviewed the president’s executive order and gave it their approval as to form and legality. Yates deliberately chose to ignore their sound reasoning.
It is clear that Yates’ decision was political, not legal. How do we know? Look at what she wrote in her memorandum ordering attorneys not to defend the president’s executive order in legal challenges. She questioned whether the policy was “wise or just”. That is a political judgment. She fundamentally misunderstands her job and her duties.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Congress and the executive branch have “plenary power” to regulate immigration. For more than a century the high court has upheld almost every federal immigration regulation against constitutional challenges. Much, if not all, of the Trump executive order is constitutional. Past presidents, including FDR, Truman, Carter and Obama, have excluded people from various countries that pose a threat. Those orders have survived legal challenges.
Why Would Yates Ignore Ethical Rules?
Either Yates does not understand the ethical canons… or she was grandstanding for personal gain. The evidence shows it is the latter.
Consider the address she delivered in November of 2015 to the 10th Annual Prosecution Summit in which she stated the ethical duty owed to clients:“It is your ethical responsibility to represent their interests, regardless of whether you think they’re really right or whether you even like them.”
Obviously, Yates understands the proper role of a lawyer… which means her recent conduct was likely done for political and personal profit.
As a holdover from the Obama Administration, she was already out the door in a few days. Her diplomas were probably off the walls and her boxes packed up. By instigating her own firing, she gets her face on the front page of every newspaper in America and overnight becomes a political darling of democrats and the left. That may pay dividends for her career.
But is a shameless act of self-promotion unworthy of a conscientious lawyer.
【 在 qianjin (前进) 的大作中提到: 】 美国历史上，政府高官卸任后工作都是比较好找的，原因就是他们高官的经历比较值钱 ，律所/掮客游说咨询公司/大公司可以靠他们的关系在华盛顿对接。 这次这个白痴直接被fired，等于宣告她是华盛顿不受欢迎的人，在华盛顿未来的几年 ，她只是个负资产。 这下工作难找了，基本泡汤。只能家里蹲了。 已经有可能被吊销律师执照： Sally Yates deserved to get canned. Now, the bar association should consider yanking her license to practice law. In defying President Trump’s executive order on immigration, the Acting Attorney General flouted the law and violated ethics that govern lawyers. ...................
【 在 qianjin (前进) 的大作中提到: 】 美国历史上，政府高官卸任后工作都是比较好找的，原因就是他们高官的经历比较值钱 ，律所/掮客游说咨询公司/大公司可以靠他们的关系在华盛顿对接。 这次这个白痴直接被fired，等于宣告她是华盛顿不受欢迎的人，在华盛顿未来的几年 ，她只是个负资产。 这下工作难找了，基本泡汤。只能家里蹲了。 已经有可能被吊销律师执照： Sally Yates deserved to get canned. Now, the bar association should consider yanking her license to practice law. In defying President Trump’s executive order on immigration, the Acting Attorney General flouted the law and violated ethics that govern lawyers. ...................
更何况，presidential executive orders 压根就不是law， the law here, only can be made by Congress, not president. 所以， AD 为law defend 是责任，但为 questionable presidential executive orders defend就不一定是责任。 相反，她如果真的去为哪个不合法的EO defend才是against law.
【 在 qianjin (前进) 的大作中提到: 】 傻逼们看看吧，这女傻鸟都够吊销律师执照的了： Sally Yates deserved to get canned. Now, the bar association should consider yanking her license to practice law. In defying President Trump’s executive order on immigration, the Acting Attorney General flouted the law and violated ethics that govern lawyers. It is not the prerogative of the Attorney General to decide what laws are : constitutional. That is the job of the courts. As the chief law enforcement officer, she does not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. She is duty-bound to defend and enforce all laws, including presidential executive orders. ...................
更何况，presidential executive orders 压根就不是law， the law here, only can be made by Congress, not president. 所以， AD 为law defend 是责任，但为 questionable presidential executive orders defend就不一定是责任。 相反，她如 果真的去为哪个不合法的EO defend才是against law.
老穿是在找死。
这笨蛋被fired 的
腰DC名人 当初可都是希拉里主党的座上客
Sally Yates deserved to get canned. Now, the bar association should consider yanking her license to practice law.
In defying President Trump’s executive order on immigration, the Acting
Attorney General flouted the law and violated ethics that govern lawyers.
It is not the prerogative of the Attorney General to decide what laws are
constitutional. That is the job of the courts. As the chief law enforcement officer, she does not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and
which ones to ignore. She is duty-bound to defend and enforce all laws,
including presidential executive orders.
If an Attorney General disagrees with an executive order, her ethical
obligation under the code of Professional Responsibility is to communicate
that to the president. If it cannot be resolved to her satisfaction, she has two choices: enforce the order or resign her position. This is plainly set forth in sections 1.13 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for the District of Columbia.
Yates did neither. Instead, she violated legal ethics by actively
undermining the President and issuing her own order countermanding the
President. She has no such authority. What would happen if other cabinet
secretaries or federal officials committed the same acts as Yates? The
result would be chaos and anarchy. The rule of law would vanish.
President Trump had ample justification for firing Yates. She committed an
egregious violation of ethical standards and a serious breach of her duties.
Yates Is Not Qualified To Make A Constitutional Determination
Yates is not a constitutional law expert. Her career has been in
prosecutions. But within the Department of Justice, there are experts on
constitutional law. Some of them are in the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ. They reviewed the president’s executive order and gave it their
approval as to form and legality. Yates deliberately chose to ignore their
sound reasoning.
It is clear that Yates’ decision was political, not legal. How do we know? Look at what she wrote in her memorandum ordering attorneys not to defend
the president’s executive order in legal challenges. She questioned whether the policy was “wise or just”. That is a political judgment. She
fundamentally misunderstands her job and her duties.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Congress and the executive
branch have “plenary power” to regulate immigration. For more than a
century the high court has upheld almost every federal immigration
regulation against constitutional challenges. Much, if not all, of the
Trump executive order is constitutional. Past presidents, including FDR,
Truman, Carter and Obama, have excluded people from various countries that
pose a threat. Those orders have survived legal challenges.
Why Would Yates Ignore Ethical Rules?
Either Yates does not understand the ethical canons… or she was
grandstanding for personal gain. The evidence shows it is the latter.
Consider the address she delivered in November of 2015 to the 10th Annual
Prosecution Summit in which she stated the ethical duty owed to clients:“It is your ethical responsibility to represent their interests, regardless of whether you think they’re really right or whether you even like them.”
Obviously, Yates understands the proper role of a lawyer… which means her
recent conduct was likely done for political and personal profit.
As a holdover from the Obama Administration, she was already out the door in a few days. Her diplomas were probably off the walls and her boxes packed
up. By instigating her own firing, she gets her face on the front page of
every newspaper in America and overnight becomes a political darling of
democrats and the left. That may pay dividends for her career.
But is a shameless act of self-promotion unworthy of a conscientious lawyer.
objection.比如snowden, 你可以说他连家都归不得多可怜.但人家都已经有一部好莱坞大制作电影专门去歌颂他了,你特么猥琐男行么?
川普是有恩的，这是后话）。
更重要的是，这种职位上任宣誓是效忠宪法而非总统。川普提名的司法部长Sessions听证会上，民主党参议院问的问题之一就是，如果总统让你干违法的事，你会不会说不？
犯规太严重了
严重违反职业道德
不是因为她不执行总统的EO. 这不是重点。 重点是她 严重违反职业道德
“She is duty-bound to defend and enforce all laws, including
presidential executive orders.”
他说AG的责任是所有的法律辩护，包括总统的行政命令。 事实上，AD是总统，也就是
政府的法律顾问，她为所有的法律辩护没有错，但为总统的行政命令辩护就有两种情形： 1）总统的行政命令是经过AD确认符合法律的； 2）总统的行政命令压根就不合法，或者没有咨询AD，或者征询过AD但并没取得其同意。如果是第一情形，AD应当辩护；
但如果是第二种情况，也就是EO明显不合法的时候
，AD怎么为其辩护？
更何况，presidential executive orders 压根就不是law， the law here, only can be made by Congress, not president. 所以， AD 为law defend 是责任，但为
questionable presidential executive orders defend就不一定是责任。 相反，她如果真的去为哪个不合法的EO defend才是against law.
要不，4个联邦法院的法官把那个EO给办了，就足以说明那个EO不合法。 因此说明，那个被fire的AD压根就没有错。 如果她没有错，她会不会反回去控告联邦政府，就不知
道了。
没有为一个不合法的EO辩护，fire了人家，还要吊销人的律师执照？ 别扯淡了，不告
你就烧高香了。
就算这个EO 100%违宪， 就如同是个杀人犯，但是按法律这个人可以有个公派律师辩护这个代理部长因为自己确信他是个杀人犯，然后发出指示不充许公派律师为他辩护
你也是笨蛋。 这么个简单道理，啰里啰唆写一大篇，连个重点都抓不到。
===========================================================
发信人: CBI (史迪威), 信区: Military
标 题: Re: 被开除的代理司法部长这下傻了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Feb 1 02:09:39 2017, 美东)
你到哪里copy来的？ 这家伙压根乱扯！ 要不你看：
“She is duty-bound to defend and enforce all laws, including
presidential executive orders.”
他说AG的责任是所有的法律辩护，包括总统的行政命令。 事实上，AD是总统，也就是
政府的法律顾问，她为所有的法律辩护没有错，但为总统的行政命令辩护就有两种情形
： 1）总统的行政命令是经过AD确认符合法律的； 2）总统的行政命令压根就不合法，
或者没有咨询AD，或者征询过AD但并没取得其同意。如果是第一情形，AD应当辩护； 但如果是第二种情况，也就是EO明显不合法的时候
，AD怎么为其辩护？
更何况，presidential executive orders 压根就不是law， the law here, only
can
be made by Congress, not president. 所以， AD 为law defend 是责任，但为
questionable presidential executive orders defend就不一定是责任。 相反，她如 果真的去为哪个不合法的EO defend才是against law.
要不，4个联邦法院的法官把那个EO给办了，就足以说明那个EO不合法。 因此说明，那 个被fire的AD压根就没有错。 如果她没有错，她会不会反回去控告联邦政府，就不知 道了。
没有为一个不合法的EO辩护，fire了人家，还要吊销人的律师执照？ 别扯淡了，不告 你就烧高香了。
你这文章要是发在美新版， 肯定一帮川粉跟帖大赞属实，偶尔有几个左臂乱入，也会
被床轮骂的狗血喷头。一旦敢有骂你的或是回骂川粉的，立刻被美新版主封14天。。。自然也就吵不起来了。
与总统的法律顾问ad屁关系都扯不上。 而且，公设律师的配给有个条件，那就是被告
人在没有钱雇佣律师的时候才有法院指派，如果你有足够的affordability，法院压根
就不会给你花钱指派公设律师为你服务。
你瞎扯让ad给总统找个公设律师的说法，实在让人能笑掉牙。
司法部的律师为总统辩护，是法律规定的，
而且不管你这个总统有钱没钱，你这个总统就是富可敌国
也必须用司法部的律师
比法院还严格