If they are refusing to defend a law with which they disagree and use such weak arguments as "I'm not convinced it's lawful" then they should definitely be fired. Your job is to defend the law -- if there is any way to reasonably argue that an EO is legal, it is your job to do so. If you have done the legal research and concluded that there is no way that you can defend it because it is not legal, that's a different story. In that scenario you would be explicit that you cannot defend it instead of saying something silly like Yates did.
It's not their jobs to argue for what they personally think is right. Federal government lawyers don't get to deny a case because they think the law is unjust. If they can't handle the requirements of the job that they've chosen to take part in then they shouldn't have that job.
If the White House implements a law according to the Constitution and then federal lawyers refuse to uphold it because they have misgivings then they should be fired. I suppose it would be better to suspend them. These lawyers are setting a dangerous precedent, the government cannot function if every other person decides to do what they want instead of what they legally have to do.
Any federal government employees that do not enforce the laws of the United States executive branch should be fired. Employees of the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the president. If they are unable to support their boss - the president - then they should resign or be fired.
The moment that the White House became the racist central, it is up to other federal agencies including lawyers to stand up and protect the people from illegal and racist orders of the White House. People have to be protected and federal lawyers should have the power to stand up for American people without risking to be fired.
Trump's ban on refugees and immigration will not protect U.S. citizens as he claims it will. By refusing to enforce the order, Sally Yates was following her conscience and upholding America's highest principles. This executive order betrays what America stands for. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
The attorney General is supposed to a neutral servant of the law not a slave of the president. Otherwise it would open the US to Authoritarianism if the President controls the Law. US People have only been through a week of the Trump administration...every weekend there has been major protests, every day has had shocking news (definitely not in a good way). Classic authoritarian move.
Sally Yates was wrongly fired for supporting the Constitution. It's as simple as that. Here's a short list I've compiled of the parts of the Constitution the president's executive order violates:
Due Process Clause (5th Amendment)
Freedom of Religion Clause (1st Amendment)
Habeas Corpus (Wrongly detaining Muslims at airports)
Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment)
This is also why the 9th circuit court of appeals denied his executive order. It's clearly unconstitutional. End of discussion. You shouldn't, as the leader of a country founded on principles you want to ignore, get rid of someone as soon as they inform you that you're ignoring those founding principles.
When the leader of a country has full and unquestionable control over his/her country, that's called a dictatorship.
There are plenty of circumstances in which one's individual ethics conflict with their duties. Such concerns are a good thing, generally - good debate within the executive branch is supposed to serve to help make wise decisions and consider all points of view (of course, the president needs to actually have the conversation with them for that to happen). In extreme cases, a lawyer may need to recuse themselves from enforcing a law that goes against their personal values, and that should be not only permissible but encouraged, and certainly not a fireable offense.
On the other hand, it's one thing to not defend a new law, and quite another to actually IMPEDE the defense of it. Actively speaking out against one's own duties should, indeed, be a fireable offense, and anyone who feels strongly enough about their differences to consider speaking out should respect that, since they obviously don't belong in that environment. Additionally, if it's a pattern that, more often than not, a lawyer needs to step aside, then at some point they're just not worth the paycheck because they're not doing anything. I would say, generously, they should be allowed to step aside a maximum of 1 in 3 (33%) of the time - anything more than that and they're probably working for the wrong employer anyway.
While it is the job of federal government lawyers to enforce the law, they hold the constitutional responsibility to the public to protect our constitutional rights. To eliminate such responsibilities would bring the country ever closer to dictatorship. May she continue to oppose unconstitutional power structures, and may more people realize that there is a difference between insolence and obligation.
They can say what they want from the freedom of speech. They can't be fired for just saying what they want. If there's some kind exception then I don't know because I'm a 10 year-old Canadian k k k k k k k k k k k k k .
Any body has the right to not back up any thing they see as wrong. If the government can fire employs for disagreeing it would turn into a dictatorship. How about the government focus on important issues like human rights. Free or affordable college, universal healthcare, making the housing market reasonable again. Forget about immigration, military and comparing dick sizes.