dirtpusher wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/31/donald-trump-leads-americas-descent-totalitarianism.html
So... did you have to get a permit before posting this ?
The AG stood up to trump, and got trump's standard response "You're Fired!"
But she may get the last laugh when she files a wrongful termination lawsuit! It's happened before when Bush tried to clean house!
She was upholding the US Constitution and the laws of our country when she told the DOJ not to defend the Executive Order in Court!
green
Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20
dirtpusher wrote:
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution....
maybe wait until the weekend... he's on a roll!
Szalajj wrote:
The AG stood up to trump, and got trump's standard response "You're Fired!"
But she may get the last laugh when she files a wrongful termination lawsuit! It's happened before when Bush tried to clean house!
She was upholding the US Constitution and the laws of our country when she told the DOJ not to defend the Executive Order in Court!
That's hardly clear. Several attorneys said on CNN, MSNBC, etc... over the weekend that there was at least a reasonable chance that the courts would ultimately rule that the executive order was constitutional and several of them said that it was constitutional as did members of the justice department that signed off on the order.
She was upholding her political ideology, nothing more or less. Her job is to defend the administration that she is working for in court until the courts decide the legality of the order. And while we are on the subject keep in mind that Obama had more executive orders ruled unconstitutional than any other president in history. Trump may catch him, but he has a long ways to go.
You would probably be correct if it was actually a ban. However, despite Trump calling it a ban it is only a pause, that isn't the same thing. It also isn't a Muslim ban, in spite of how it is being reported. NBC news had interview with several of the individuals and families who were turned back to their own country. One family in particular from Syria was a family of orthodox Christians. That's the whole thing. It isn't a religious test. It's only what country you are from. That might matter, but it should be pointed out that the seven countries in question were placed on a list by the Bush administration and Obama kept that list in place until just a few weeks ago. The Bush administration slowed immigration from those countries. Obama kept immigration at the Bush levels until the last two years of his presidency. Only then did he have immigration numbers increased.
All Trumps order does is prevent individuals from those seven countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days while our vetting process is considered. Until the end of those 90 days it's unlikely if we will know whether or not the Trump administration intends to ignore the constitution or not.
You can disagree with policy all you want, but is up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of the order, and since it is only a pause and not a ban a lot of good legal minds believe it is legal.
btbg wrote:
That's hardly clear. Several attorneys said on CNN, MSNBC, etc... over the weekend that there was at least a reasonable chance that the courts would ultimately rule that the executive order was constitutional and several of them said that it was constitutional as did members of the justice department that signed off on the order.
She was upholding her political ideology, nothing more or less. Her job is to defend the administration that she is working for in court until the courts decide the legality of the order. And while we are on the subject keep in mind that Obama had more executive orders ruled unconstitutional than any other president in history. Trump may catch him, but he has a long ways to go.
That's hardly clear. Several attorneys said on CNN... (
show quote)
Bammer they ruled unconstitutional. How many were. None.
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html
Szalajj wrote:
The AG stood up to trump, and got trump's standard response "You're Fired!"
But she may get the last laugh when she files a wrongful termination lawsuit! It's happened before when Bush tried to clean house!
She was upholding the US Constitution and the laws of our country when she told the DOJ not to defend the Executive Order in Court!
Actually, she was the acting (temporary) AG. She was not fired, she was returned to her full time job and another temporary AG was appointed. If she decided not to accept the 'demotion' the termination was of her choice. In this country the courts decide if a law is unconstitutional, not a lawyer.
Keenan
Loc: Central Coast California
btbg wrote:
You would probably be correct if it was actually a ban. However, despite Trump calling it a ban it is only a pause, that isn't the same thing. It also isn't a Muslim ban, in spite of how it is being reported. NBC news had interview with several of the individuals and families who were turned back to their own country. One family in particular from Syria was a family of orthodox Christians. That's the whole thing. It isn't a religious test. It's only what country you are from. That might matter, but it should be pointed out that the seven countries in question were placed on a list by the Bush administration and Obama kept that list in place until just a few weeks ago. The Bush administration slowed immigration from those countries. Obama kept immigration at the Bush levels until the last two years of his presidency. Only then did he have immigration numbers increased.
All Trumps order does is prevent individuals from those seven countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days while our vetting process is considered. Until the end of those 90 days it's unlikely if we will know whether or not the Trump administration intends to ignore the constitution or not.
You can disagree with policy all you want, but is up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of the order, and since it is only a pause and not a ban a lot of good legal minds believe it is legal.
You would probably be correct if it was actually a... (
show quote)
"One family in particular from Syria was a family of orthodox Christians. That's the whole thing. It isn't a religious test. It's only what country you are from."
And this is just one of many examples of why such clumsy, thoughtless, blanket bans like this is terrible policy, don't you agree? These idiots in the Whitehouse do not what the f#ck they are doing. So far there have been university professors, grad students, researchers, people who have been legal residents for 20 years, refused entry over the last 5 days. How is such stupid bungling chaotic knee jerk policies based on nothing but prejudice and bigotry and simple-minded demagoguery that is destroying America's relations around the world, sparking a brain drain, and strengthening our enemies
making America great again?
imagesintime wrote:
Actually, she was the acting (temporary) AG. She was not fired, she was returned to her full time job and another temporary AG was appointed. If she decided not to accept the 'demotion' the termination was of her choice. In this country the courts decide if a law is unconstitutional, not a lawyer.
Sally Q. Yates will be remembered as a staunch woman of character. "Just say No!" Contrast her with Spicer.
Keenan
Loc: Central Coast California
imagesintime wrote:
Actually, she was the acting (temporary) AG. She was not fired, she was returned to her full time job and another temporary AG was appointed. If she decided not to accept the 'demotion' the termination was of her choice. In this country the courts decide if a law is unconstitutional, not a lawyer.
You seem to have very little understanding of the job of AG. That person is supposed to be able to use their discretion in determining the legality of directives and orders handed down from the executive. An AG is supposed to be a legal expert, with long experience practicing law and making legal determinations. In fact, she was doing her job when she was in good faith using her best judgement to determine the legality of the order, which she determined was most likely not lawful and communicated her opinion to the department as she was authorized to do, until the judiciary can have a full hearing and have the final say.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.