| >Your point on it being "the Judiciaries" role is just plain wrong. Officers of the government, just like officers in the military have discretion about following illegal orders. You are technically correct that there is an element of obligation and personal responsibility to refuse to carry out wholly unconscionable orders (i.e., orders that would fundamentally violate the constitutional oath of office), but bear in mind this typically applies only in seriously extreme instances. Just as complaining to your CO that you believe his order may violate the Obscure Act on Military Textiles and Linens will get you laughed out of the room and given a swift kick in the ass, inappropriately misapplying the moral duty to refuse to comply with unconscionable orders will get you fired from the DoJ, which everyone knows and expects. It should also, again, be noted that Yates was not given any specific order which she is singling out as unconscionable, nor was she personally asked to do anything. She obstructed the president's access to the DoJ. I guess it was in another comment you've left somewhere further down the chain, but yes, the DoJ does have an explicit legal duty to represent the government/executive branch in court, and Ms. Yates chose to pull lawyers off that task. >4) You seem to be confused about the difference between the "Department of Justice" and the "Department of Homeland Security". I'm not sure why you think I'm confusing these. I know that DHS subsidiaries run the border. Did I say something that misleads about that? >Those kinds of things are all "due process" and all actions that you did not cover because the Trump Administration did not do them. No, lol, those things are not due process. Due process means that the persons whose rights are being deprived received the necessary hearings, etc., before the deprivation occurred. "Due process" does not mean that the president has to ask Congress before he does something "that may tick off many of our major allies". |