President Trump Had To Fire Sally Yates, And Here’s Why [VIDEO]

President Trump Had To Fire Sally Yates, And Here’s Why [VIDEO]

President Trump Had To Fire Sally Yates, And Here’s Why [VIDEO]

President Trump’s Executive Order regarding a temporary halt on immigration from seven countries has thrown everyone’s knickers into a twist. One who should’ve known better, acting Attorney General Sally Yates, decided to step way out of her lane.

“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,” she added, “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.”

You can read the rest here and here. Did you notice something? Her statement wasn’t about the DOJ, the Constitution or the rule of law. Instead it was about HER opinion on what the law should be, not what the law IS. And therein is the problem. In the Executive Branch, the President and the Constitution have the power, officials such as Sally do not. Sally Yates had a choice, enforce the Executive Order or resign. Blatant insubordination was never an option.

(Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images)

That certainly didn’t bother those who happily gave her a pass because TRUMP!

Including former DOJ flacks

Eric Holder himself just had to chime in…yay.

And the DNC

Truth to Power?? Oh boy. Meanwhile, others with a more realistic view of life said Uh oh – this won’t end well.

Jonathan Adler at WaPo’s Volokh Conspiracy pointed out a few fallacies in her statement.

A. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel said the Executive Order was lawful.

B. Sally Yates DOESN’T claim that the EO was unconstitutional nor that the DOJ couldn’t defend it

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.

Not only that, but Adler directs our attention to Justice William Pryor (on the SCOTUS list) who lectured on when it is and isn’t appropriate to enforce and defend a law duly enacted. Maybe Yates should’ve done some more research before tilting at this particular windmill??

Many others understood how problematic her stance was. Heck, I’m not an attorney and even I knew her statement was wrong! When you lose Alan Dershowitz…

https://youtu.be/dYqx-lVLBJY

When you lose Carl Bernstein…

And so, her insubordination came back to bite her on the butt. Which left President Trump no choice. Sally Yates had to be fired.

Sally Yates put politics above her job. She made it personal, she was blatantly insubordinate, and that made her a detriment. She was in a job, in a position, that meant her objectivity was an absolute must. Her boss was the federal government. Her boss was the Constitution of the United States and the laws therein. She didn’t and shouldn’t have played politics. But she did.

Yates was supposed to defend the EO on the merits of its LEGALITY. She did not. Instead, as Jack Goldsmith at Lawfare blog points out, she put policy and political analysis above her duties and responsibilities as Attorney General of the United States.

Perhaps she decided her boss was still Obama, and given her recent actions it seems like she did. But he’s not. And it doesn’t matter that he applauded the protestors; he’s a civilian now. Her REAL boss at the time the Executive Order was issued was President Trump, the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law. Therefore, she should’ve done her job…Period.

Sally Yates made it abundantly clear that she would do everything in her power to undermine this administration. By doing so she stepped WAY out of her lane and shoved our Constitution and the rule of law under the bus. She showed that she would always put politics and personal animus above country. Therefore, President Trump was fully justified in firing her.

Written by

2 Comments
  • GWB says:

    “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.”

    No. You are responsible for ensuring that the positions you take in court remain consistent with the CONSTITUTION and the LAW as it corresponds to the Constitution. Period.

    Though you might believe otherwise because of your SJW leanings, you are not to “seek justice” in any fashion except to enforce the laws and the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram has returned invalid data.