> Why is Ms. Yates comfortable allowing the judiciary to make its decisions on Mr. Obama's illegal EOs but not comfortable allowing it to do so on Mr. Trump's EOs?
Firstly, Obama's EO's were not "illegal": they were well thought out and released only after much consultation with the DOJ to precisely ensure that such a situation does not occur. Now, we have a week-old President with no political experience rapidly firing off EO's without consulting the DOJ. And the EO's themselves seem to be unconstitutional and disrupting the lives of many people.
But the answer to your question is: she is more comfortable because in her opinion as a lawyer, the Immigration ban is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. She voiced that opinion knowing that she had the possibility of being fired. I don't understand why you keep going off on tangents (Obama passed illegal EO's!) instead of simply accepting the fact, the fact that Ms. Yates did precisely what she had sworn to do: uphold the constitution.
> In ordinary conditions, a fair decision cannot be rendered by an attorney sitting alone in a room, and, barring a blatant constitutional violation, it's improper to redirect the resources of the DoJ based on such decisions.
Precisely. In her opinion, this IS a blatant constitutional violation.
Firstly, Obama's EO's were not "illegal": they were well thought out and released only after much consultation with the DOJ to precisely ensure that such a situation does not occur. Now, we have a week-old President with no political experience rapidly firing off EO's without consulting the DOJ. And the EO's themselves seem to be unconstitutional and disrupting the lives of many people.
But the answer to your question is: she is more comfortable because in her opinion as a lawyer, the Immigration ban is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. She voiced that opinion knowing that she had the possibility of being fired. I don't understand why you keep going off on tangents (Obama passed illegal EO's!) instead of simply accepting the fact, the fact that Ms. Yates did precisely what she had sworn to do: uphold the constitution.
> In ordinary conditions, a fair decision cannot be rendered by an attorney sitting alone in a room, and, barring a blatant constitutional violation, it's improper to redirect the resources of the DoJ based on such decisions.
Precisely. In her opinion, this IS a blatant constitutional violation.