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.
well if you can't click a link....lemme repost it for ya.
Lots of stupid in here. People keep repeating the same tired arguments that have been blown out of the water.
OMG ILLEGAL!!!! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
The Office of Legal Counsel in the DOJ goes over Executive Orders before they are signed, they determine the official opinion of the DOJ on the constitutionality of the orders. This order was deemed constitutional. There is ZERO argument from any credible source claiming this order to be unconstitutional. No judge has struck down any portion of this order. Every judges ruling that I have read so far has simply barred the deportation of Visa holders already in the US. This was later clarified by the Trump admin, that it did not in fact include Visa holders. Gripe all you want about them doing a crappy job of rolling it out, but please stop acting like a fool and claiming this is unconstitutional or unprecedented.
SHE WAS DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION!!!! ITS HER JOB TO STAND UP TO THE PREZ IF SHE THINKS ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanokie
People need to slow down and read a bit. Start with her own words.
Quote:
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Right there she admits the Office of Legal Counsel reviewed the EO and found it to be constitutional. She knows this because thats their job. So the official position of the DOJ is that the EO is lawful. Now its her job to make sure the EO gets defended against legal challenges.
She is saying that she knows its a lawful EO but because of some statements made by the administration and because it might not be wise or just...she isn't going to do her job.
In other words, pure political BS. No foundation based in any law at all...or she would have surely pointed that out.
Even the great liberal mind Alan Dershowitz said she made a serious mistake and that it was a political one instead of a legal one. He went on to state that the order was clearly constitutional.
SHES A HERO!!!! THAT TOOK GUTS!!!!!!
No. She is just grandstanding for her next gig. She knew she was out the door the day Sessions gets confirmed which will be shortly. She used this to score points with clueless liberals.
WOW!!!! OMG!!! LOOK SESSIONS GRILLED YATES ABOUT THIS AND SAYS ITS HER JOB TO STAND UP TO THE PREZ!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanokie
lol... read your own source better. watch the video.
Quote:
Sessions: But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?
YATES: Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.
This EO has already been determined to be lawful by the Department of Justice which Yates admitted in her statement about not defending the EO.
It had nothing to do with it being constitutional or lawful, it was pure politics.
She lied. She failed to do what she said she would do which is follow the law and the Constitution.
Her job is to provide legal advice to the president.
The President(any president) is not obliged to accept that advice and when its not accepted, the job of the AG is to defend the signed EO in court if its challenged. Failure to do so is failure to do the job and insubordination. Grounds for being fired in most all organizations on the planet.
I am not going to be derailed by this stupid pondering.
Go find a safe space and ponder worthless things on your own. You were taken to task for you first lie, I won't cater to your delusional suppositions any longer.
Bye!
I don't need a "safe space" lol. You are the one who cannot answer questions lol.
What lie did I tell?
I'm only providing an opinion of the situation. Basically that this AG would not even have been in office by Friday after Sessions is confirmed, there was no reason to fire her due to that, and a part of her job is to provide legal advice to the president.
Also please see previous post, Yates actually is not a political figure and has a history of being known and respected by both parties. She disagreed with the President and was fired. It is as simple as that. You and others who are okay with blindly following a public servant - the President, are the ones who are delusional IMO.
I'm only providing an opinion of the situation. Basically that this AG would not even have been in office by Friday after Sessions is confirmed, there was no reason to fire her due to that, and a part of her job is to provide legal advice to the president.
Very good reason to fire her. She stated publicly she was going to try to sabotage any defense of his EO. Unprecedented in the history of the US.
Jordan, Turkey and other countries have already taken on far more than us. We were completely responsible for around 200,000 civilians being killed in Iraq we also have degree of responsibility in Syria. There are around 4 million refugees on the move, we funded a war for 10 years we are going to lock out the refugees because of cost?
Just about every other country throughout the world is accepting them, even Africa and we are going to shut the door on Syrians and Iraqi's, not a proud moment.
And you see the problems they're having with them.
The President(any president) is not obliged to accept that advice and when its not accepted, the job of the AG is to defend the signed EO in court if its challenged. Failure to do so is failure to do the job and insubordination. Grounds for being fired in most all organizations on the planet.
I agree that the President is not obligated to accept any legal advice. I also agree on insubordination; but still, the firing was unnecessary and is just a media attention grabber by the President IMO and not "political" on the part of the ousted AG.
Many of you Trump supporters are also stating that Yates did this for political reasons. Everything I have read on the subject shows that she was not involved with the EO and that it was a surprise to her like the rest of the country. She had been privy to conversations and discussions about the fact that the President was looking for a way to ban a particular religious group from entering the country and that, along with the stays issued in federal courts drove her to be hesitant in enforcing the order. Those conversations and the intent made her uneasy with following through with the order. I think demonizing her on this is unnecessary and that she was placed in a tough position but I don't think her move was political. I think Trump's move was political and that he likes to stay in the news and our country doesn't need to have new political controversies every other day just because he wants no one to say anything "bad" about him and his intentions. Any rational leader IMO would have looked at her letter and hurried up and got their guy into the positions and not worry about it going forward.
Many of you Trump supporters are also stating that Yates did this for political reasons.
Get real. She even acknowledged that the DOJ had already reviewed the EO and said it was good to go and then went on to say she didn't think it was just or whatever. No attempt to justify it with any sort of legal defense because there isnt one.
Seriously, you need to actually make an argument rather than repeating the same lie over and over.
You have been shown why your claim is a lie, you only keep repeating yourself.
Either you think repeating a lie over and over will eventually find traction (many progressives believe this, they studied Hitlers "Big Lie") or you are severely ignorant on the issue and lack the knowledge and the means to properly argue your point and so, merely repeat talking points over and over again.
Originally Posted by — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
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.
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.
No, but she does have the right to resign.
