The Sally Yates letter

Sally Yates was the acting U.S. Attorney General who was fired by Donald Trump for failing to support his executive order which restricted processing of immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries. As pointed out in my previous post, this executive order was legal and binding.

Fired Sally Yates letter devoid of legal argument. Reeks of moral preening, grandstanding. pic.twitter.com/J7RdnRrzxs

— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 31, 2017

There is a fine line between "moral preening" and "taking an ethical stand". So which is it?

Brit Hume is correct about the lack of legal argument in the letter. While Yates does mention the questionable legality of the executive order, she doesn't explain why. Even more telling is this one sentence:

In addition, 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. 

Justice and standing for what is right are more philosophical questions than legal ones. While justice is something which the law aspires to, it doesn't always succeed. As far as "what is right", that isn't even a legal consideration (sorry lawyers!).

What Yates did was take a moral stand. Sadly, she either took the wrong one, or explained it very badly. Nowhere in her letter does she give a good explanation for not defending the executive order, other than she considered it wrong. Based on the evidence, she deserved to be fired.

Now if she had taken a stand against America's unjustified wars on Islam, which are leading to the necessity for Trump's executive order, then I would be fully on board with her.

Instead, she provides no valid reasoning for her inaction, thereby providing support for Hume's "moral preening" accusation.