President Trump’s travel ban for immigrants may be unraveling but the manner in which the president moved forcefully to put the restrictions in place is still a matter of controversy.
Trump characteristically made his feelings known about a federal jurist’s decision to block the ban, calling him a “so-called judge.” Based on that court decision, the Department of Homeland Security today restored the ability to travel to the U.S. for 60,000 visa holders.
But Trump’s assertiveness in defending his executive order came across in blunt terms on Monday when he fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates – a temporary holdover from the Obama administration – for refusing to defend the new rules in court.
Democrats registered howls of protest, with some liberals foolishly comparing the move to former President Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.” Freelance writer Dennis Lennox, a Michigan political consultant, wrote on Friday that the Dems are to blame because of their continuing attempt to block the confirmation of Trump’s choice for AG, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
Lennox also called Trump’s decision to ax Yates the right move, because she was acting only as a temporary replacement and had gone rogue by refusing to act on the new president’s behalf.
Here’s a portion of what Lennox had to say in an Op-Ed column for The Detroit News:
Make no mistake. Yates is no martyr, notwithstanding what the partisans and the commentariat are saying.
The question of whether now-acting Attorney General (Dana) Boente agrees with the policy behind the executive order that his Justice Department is now defending is irrelevant because by convention an acting secretary (or attorney general, in this case) is a caretaker with no legitimacy to make decisions on important policy and political matters.
The caretaker’s only concern is ensuring continuity of government until the designees of the new administration are confirmed by the U.S. Senate and in place.
Instead, Yates decided to politicize her caretaker role and create a troubling situation in which, albeit only for the three hours between her decision not to defend the president and when she was fired, the Justice Department was rogue. Regardless of party or the president of the day, what Yates did was unacceptable not least because she took an oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of her office.
