That sounds like strong language, but what else should we call government officials who rule by fiat, replacing the laws passed by the people's representatives and the Constitution with their own personal preferences?
Her own words say she refused to defend Donald Trump's executive order because she doesn't think it is "right," not because it is unconstitutional or illegal.
Isn't a government where individuals impose their will on the people tyrannical? If so, then what Yates did is a soft-power revolution aimed at denying the people their right to decide how they are to be ruled. Yates wants a tyranny where she and her ilk tell us deplorables how we are to live and what we are to believe.
Of course, Sally is following a long established liberal tradition of tyranny.
The people of California overwhelmingly approved Prop. 8, which preserved the definition of marriage. Yet the liberal governor and attorney general refused to defend the people's vote because they simply didn't like it. Strangely, even though a huge majority of blacks voted for Prop 8, the liberals' refusal to defend it wasn't deemed racist.
---
During the election, liberals told us Hillary had a moral obligation to use legal chicanery to ensure that a 41-year-old man who raped a 12-year-old girl had to serve only a few months in prison. Yet those same liberals tell us that lawyers in the government are morally obliged to not defend laws they don't like.
That's right: in the minds of liberals, lawyers have an obligation to help murders and rapists but not to defend laws they personally don't like.
That's either telling us liberals really like child rapists, which seems unlikely, or that they're hypocrites when they say people like Yates are doing the right thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
