5 Reasons Fired
AG Sally Yates Stands Against Trump
By Steven Rosenfeld
/ AlterNet
January 31, 2017
dThis
Sharing Buttons
Share
to Facebook229Share to TwitterShare to Google+Share to
Diğer57Share to E-posta
Photo Credit: www.youtube.com
With the firing of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates
late Monday, President Trump has made it clear there is no room for dissent,
and no moral compass, in his increasingly authoritarian regime.
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House statement said. “This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House statement said. “This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”
On Friday, Trump issued executive orders banning war
refugees from Syria from entering the U.S. and suspending entry from six other
Muslim counties for 90 days. Immediate implementation of that order Saturday
morning led to chaos at airports across the country and globally, extensive
spontaneous protests and a series of federal district court rulings suspending
the directive on multiple grounds for being unconstitutional.
Take a look at the letter Sally Yates sent to the White House that caused her firing. It clearly explains why the nation’s top law enforcement official decided to stand with U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution and the Department of Justice’s historic mission to protect minorities, not a presidential decree that was ill-prepared, poorly executed and institutionally damaging.
Here is the full letter, broken down into five thematic sections.
1. A nation of laws, not a dictatorship. Yates began her letter by saying that as acting Attorney General, she had to determine how the Justice Department would defend the executive order when it inevitably would be drawn into court challenges. She wrote:
Take a look at the letter Sally Yates sent to the White House that caused her firing. It clearly explains why the nation’s top law enforcement official decided to stand with U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution and the Department of Justice’s historic mission to protect minorities, not a presidential decree that was ill-prepared, poorly executed and institutionally damaging.
Here is the full letter, broken down into five thematic sections.
1. A nation of laws, not a dictatorship. Yates began her letter by saying that as acting Attorney General, she had to determine how the Justice Department would defend the executive order when it inevitably would be drawn into court challenges. She wrote:
“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.”
2. A moral compass, not a rubber stamp. The White House, which
issued a scathing statement Monday night accusing Yates of betrayal, said that
the executive order had been reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel, the same
office that approved the use of torture techniques by the George W. Bush administration
after the 9/11 attacks. Yates said her responsibility was larger, which is to
say that OLC opinions often create narrow justifications that are politically
expedient. She wrote:
“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.”
3. The order did not come in a vacuum. Here Yates began to
lay out how Trump’s campaign rhetoric, his calling for a ban on refugees and
visitors from Muslim counties, his administration’s later declarations that the
orders were not a Muslim ban, and the 11th-hour manner immigration authorities
were informed of its implementation, all raised political, administrative and
constitutional difficulties beyond OLC’s review. She wrote:
“Its [OLC's] review does not take account of
statements made by an administration or its 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.”
4. Upholding the Constitution, not
trashing it. Yates says her role as acting attorney general is to ensure that the
Justice Department does what its career lawyers are sworn to do—defend and
uphold the Constitution based on established legal precedents. The immigration
orders didn't meet that legal standard, nor did they fall within what she said
was the Justice Department’s historic role—at least in the past 50 years—of upholding
civil rights laws and protecting minorities. She explained:
“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.”
5. Defying the president, leading to her
firing. Yates directly challenged Trump’s executive order by concluding that the
immigration policies failed to meet basic constitutional and moral tests, and
then said she would not assign any federal attorney to show up in court to
defend them when challenged by lawsuits, as civil rights attorneys started
doing this weekend. When the government doesn’t respond to a lawsuit in court,
those who are suing automatically win. She wrote:
“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.”
Yates surely knew her clear-eyed defiance would lead
to her dismissal. She was only going to be acting attorney general for a short
while anyway, as the Senate was moving ahead with the president’s nomination of
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL. But instead of resigning in protest, she took a stand
on behalf of all government attorneys who have dedicated their lives to
defending civil rights, voting rights, the rights of minorities, and defensible
constitutional processes.
Steven Rosenfeld covers national political
issues for AlterNet, including America's democracy and voting rights. He is the
author of several books on elections and co-author of "Who Controls Our
Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privization is Destroying Democracy and the
Charter School Industry" (AlterNet eBook, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment