Thursday, February 02, 2017

Former U.S. Attorneys rise up! (UPDATED)

Well, well, well... what do we have here?  35 former prosecutors, including 3 former U.S. Attorneys from the S.D. Florida, have penned this open letter concerning Trump's executive order, which led to Sally Yates' firing.  The whole thing is worth a read, and it's interesting to look at all of the signatories, but here is the conclusion:
In short, the Executive Order is inimical to the values of the Justice Department and the United States, most significantly, that individuals may not be treated more harshly under the law solely on account of their religion. In our view that is exactly what the Executive Order does, and is intended to do. It would be our job, if we were representing the United States today, to say, no, this Executive Order is wrong and should not be defended.
UPDATE -- Jay Weaver from the Herald covers the letter here:

 Three dozen former federal prosecutors — many Democrats, but some Republicans — issued a statement Thursday denouncing President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning people from the predominantly Muslim countries of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen from entering the United States.
“If we were called upon to defend the executive order, could we do it within the guidelines we learned and lived by as lawyers for the United States?” said the statement signed by 36 former federal prosecutors who worked in South Florida, including three U.S. attorneys in Miami. “We could not. ...
“It would be our job, if we were representing the United States today, to say, no, this executive order is wrong and should not be defended,” the statement reads.

Read more here:


Anonymous said...

Ridiculous letter, especially given the positions some of the authors have taken.

The Executive Order may be bad policy, but that is not the AG's call.

Anonymous said...

That's right 1:50, the Attorney General, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States, should just shut up and do what he is told whether he believes it is illegal or Unconstitutional.

- Limited Fake Robert Bork

Bob Becerra said...

The letter clearly states the obvious--the illegality of the order.

Anonymous said...

It is a silly letter insofar as it claims a DOJ lawyer could not and should not ethically defend the order. Whether the order is good policy or not is one thing. Whether the order is legally defensible is another. It clearly is. One quick reach of 8 USC s. 1182(f) provides all the basis you would need to defend the order, successfully or not.

Unaccountable government lawyers, yes even all powerful AUSAs, are not operating on a plane above our democracy, and the Constitution creates a democratically elected president in charge of the executive branch just as much as it creates anything else. The letter's authors should remember that and not stretch just those portions of the Constitution that suit their political opinions and distaste for the president, well-founded or not.

Anonymous said...

Wow 8:58! So you think an AG who views a presidential mandate as illegal or unconstitutional should just follow orders?! I hope you are just that crazy trash guy and not a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Yates never said it was illegal or unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

Yes, she did:

"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."