>It's not a tangent. Ms. Yates apparently feels the president does not have the legal authority to make orders of this nature when President Trump is in office, but that he does have the authority when President Obama is in office.
There's a very simple answer to this:
She did not believe that the Obama EO was unconstitutional, whereas she believed that this one was. Then, everything makes sense. You can rant about how "there's no credible argument", but I'm inclined to believe an Attourney General over someone on an internet forum with regards to the law.
So tell me this: what should she have done if she believed the EO, as applied, would be unconstitutional?
Edit: also the judiciary is moving swiftly, in the past two days, the EO has been practically gutted in the courts.
There's a very simple answer to this:
She did not believe that the Obama EO was unconstitutional, whereas she believed that this one was. Then, everything makes sense. You can rant about how "there's no credible argument", but I'm inclined to believe an Attourney General over someone on an internet forum with regards to the law.
So tell me this: what should she have done if she believed the EO, as applied, would be unconstitutional?
Edit: also the judiciary is moving swiftly, in the past two days, the EO has been practically gutted in the courts.