Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-30-2017, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,809 posts, read 26,403,608 times
Reputation: 25705

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
CNN is reporting that the Acting Head of the Justice Dept just announced that she has instructed the department not to defend Trump's EO banning Muslims from entering the US. Stunning.
She is a carryover from the Obama administration. What is amazing is just how childish and unprofessional even those in management positions in his administration were, or still are in this case. Every appointee understands that they "serve at the pleasure of the president" (not actually "pleasure", a political terminology). Throughout history, we have had people that didn't agree with and wouldn't carry out the orders of the president. They have all had the honor and integrity to resign with dignity.

Not today, not now. And especially not with an Obama appointee. Instead of resigning when she refuses to carry out her orders, she choses to make a childish, public, political statement. One that degrades herself and her office.

How about "You're Fired!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2017, 07:28 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,366 posts, read 1,642,244 times
Reputation: 2561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grainraiser View Post
Well Trump just fired the acting Attorney General because she said his actions do not pass the muster. Part of the problem is he did not consult her for her expertise before releasing the EO.
Not true. She was fired for insubordination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 07:31 PM
 
6,758 posts, read 13,969,062 times
Reputation: 5671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horizonite View Post
Not true. She was fired for insubordination.
He wanted her to defend his EO without her doing any research on the matter. He did not consult with her before it's release. She refused to cower to his demands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 07:43 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,366 posts, read 1,642,244 times
Reputation: 2561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grainraiser View Post
He wanted her to defend his EO without her doing any research on the matter. He did not consult with her before it's release. She refused to cower to his demands.
Wrong. This is pure politics, as she's an Obama hold over. When the POTUS gives his Attorney General a direct order and she refuses to comply, that's insubordination. But I don't expect liberals to understand facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Secure, Undisclosed
1,984 posts, read 1,695,183 times
Reputation: 3728
I've worked with dozens of DOJ attorneys, and found they fall into three categories:

1. Great lawyers. They can put aside their personal politics and beliefs - and practice exquisite black-letter law.

2. Slugs. Every government department has its share of them.

3. Politically bent attorneys. Those whose personal, professional or political beliefs override their obligation to represent their client (the people of the United States).

I've been privileged to work with a number of attorneys in the first category, and burdened by working with several in the latter two categories.

I assume when I awake tomorrow the acting AG will have resigned...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,105,746 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grainraiser View Post
He wanted her to defend his EO without her doing any research on the matter.
Do you have a credible source for that? Because the AG has an army of subordinates to conduct legal research, and they could certainly work over-time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,885 posts, read 10,935,657 times
Reputation: 14180
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
For following the law? Now that would mean that we a have dictator who is circumventing the rule of law.. you do realize that don't you?
Obviously, you have not read 8 USC 1182. But then, it is obvious the woman under discussion has not read it, either. As Acting AG, one could reasonably and logically expect her to be very familiar with it.
But then, perhaps reason and logic is expecting too much from a political appointee...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 08:23 PM
 
17,380 posts, read 9,207,763 times
Reputation: 11854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rescue3 View Post
I've worked with dozens of DOJ attorneys, and found they fall into three categories:

1. Great lawyers. They can put aside their personal politics and beliefs - and practice exquisite black-letter law.

2. Slugs. Every government department has its share of them.

3. Politically bent attorneys. Those whose personal, professional or political beliefs override their obligation to represent their client (the people of the United States).

I've been privileged to work with a number of attorneys in the first category, and burdened by working with several in the latter two categories.

I assume when I awake tomorrow the acting AG will have resigned...
I said earlier she would "be Walked Out".

Turns out that she was FIRED tonight and won't be allowed to even "walk in".
She can pick up her personal things from her office at the back door.
DONE!

What an idiot, her resume just went from "Acting US Attorney General" to Poop, because she doesn't like her Boss.

Career Suicide
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,085,747 times
Reputation: 33926
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
That's nice, but he's not banning Muslims. There is no mention in Trump's EO of "Muslims." If there is, cite where.
You do not have to ban all Muslims to be banning Muslims. The order prioritizes Christian Refugees. Trump's administration admitted that the 7 countries impacted were not chosen because of some immediate threat. Giuliani has admitted that Trump asked him how to "legally" word a Muslim ban.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 08:26 PM
 
4,739 posts, read 10,406,854 times
Reputation: 4186
Well, she certainly made an example out of herself - FIRED!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top