Trump fires acting Attorney General

[biggunsbob]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0

 

[biggunsbob]

Oh and acting immigration & custom enforcement leader also.

 

[sggatecl]

Oh shit. I can see the Nixon / Saturday Night Massacre comparisons coming from a mile away.

This is going to be so much fun if we all live to see it through!

 

[biggunsbob]

Yup. It started just like you said and right away. I am starting to think Bannon wants this type of chaos sadly.

 

[tomdalton22]

I would have fired her ass too. Of course, I wouldn't have had to because I wouldn't have closed the borders.

 

[Michchamp]

someone dug up video of her confirmation hearing, Jeff Sessions of all people was grilling her and asking if she would refuse to enforce an illegal/unconstitutional order from the president. she said yes.

of course a Democrat was president at the time...

 

[Spartanmack]

yeah, but since she didn't hold that position until January 20, 2017 she wouldn't have served under a Democrat President and she probably knew that when she answered those questions.

Anyway, if lefties continue to ratchet their outrage up to 11 every time Trump does something, they're going to destroy what little credibility they have left. Trump is going to win this kind of fight virtually every time.

Allow me to preempt your response by saying this is not an endorsement of Trump and everything or even anything he has done so far. I'm just saying, if you cry wolf and have a fit about everything he does, you're going to lose.

 

[Thumb]

yeah, but since she didn't hold that position until January 20, 2017 she wouldn't have served under a Democrat President and she probably knew that when she answered those questions.

Anyway, if lefties continue to ratchet their outrage up to 11 every time Trump does something, they're going to destroy what little credibility they have left. Trump is going to win this kind of fight virtually every time.

Allow me to preempt your response by saying this is not an endorsement of Trump and everything or even anything he has done so far. I'm just saying, if you cry wolf and have a fit about everything he does, you're going to lose.

HAHA you think lefties are the ones destroying their credibility?:lmao:

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think we'll see more of this. Keep your head down, do what Trump wants, nobody knows who you are. Stand up to him and get fired, half the nation thinks you're a hero. Yates will land on her feet.

 

[Spartanmack]

HAHA you think lefties are the ones destroying their credibility?:lmao:

what's left of it, yes.

 

[deathroh]

I think we'll see more of this. Keep your head down, do what Trump wants, nobody knows who you are. Stand up to him and get fired, half the nation thinks you're a hero. Yates will land on her feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI2oS2hoL0k

 

[tinselwolverine]

I would have fired her ass too. Of course, I wouldn't have had to because I wouldn't have closed the borders.

It was a temporary gig for her from the get go.

This really isn't that much of a thing.

 

[Monster]

I hate to agree with Trump, but she definitely should be fired. He has that power and the disobedience has to be answered for.

Sorry, but Liberals flew off the handle when that Kentucky clerk refused to give out gay marriage licenses after gay marriage was made the law of the land. She was jailed for not carrying out the law. If I apply that same standard, Trump had every right and I don't blame him.

On the other hand, in that same scenario, conservatives whined and cried that she was being punished for exercising her deeply held personal beliefs. Now they're suddenly against it.

Are we not better than this? I guess not.

 

[Michchamp]

I hate to agree with Trump, but she definitely should be fired. He has that power and the disobedience has to be answered for.

Sorry, but Liberals flew off the handle when that Kentucky clerk refused to give out gay marriage licenses after gay marriage was made the law of the land. She was jailed for not carrying out the law. If I apply that same standard, Trump had every right and I don't blame him.

On the other hand, in that same scenario, conservatives whined and cried that she was being punished for exercising her deeply held personal beliefs. Now they're suddenly against it.

Are we not better than this? I guess not.

It's not the same thing.

In Kentucky, the clerk violated the law based on her own personal religious beliefs.

Here, the acting AG, refused to enforce a law that - in her professional judgment after 27 years of practicing law - was clearly Unconstitutional (and it is).

there's some subjectivity there, I guess, but it's very different in each case.

 

[deathroh]

I hate to agree with Trump, but she definitely should be fired. He has that power and the disobedience has to be answered for.

Sorry, but Liberals flew off the handle when that Kentucky clerk refused to give out gay marriage licenses after gay marriage was made the law of the land. She was jailed for not carrying out the law. If I apply that same standard, Trump had every right and I don't blame him.

On the other hand, in that same scenario, conservatives whined and cried that she was being punished for exercising her deeply held personal beliefs. Now they're suddenly against it.

Are we not better than this? I guess not.

This is not a good comparison at all. A county clerk should absolutely adhere to the what the law says. But while one of the responsibilities of an Attorney General is to perform or supervise actions related to an Executive Order, another is to "Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law." If an AG feels that an order they are being asked to enforce is illegal, they should absolutely challenge the President and raise the issue. That's their job. Why do you think Sessions pressed her so hard on that point? Now if trump fired her because she raised the issue to the wrong party and in an inappropriate manner, I guess that's that. But to me it reeks of something worse than that.

 

[deathroh]

It's not the same thing.

In Kentucky, the clerk violated the law based on her own personal religious beliefs.

Here, the acting AG, refused to enforce a law that - in her professional judgment after 27 years of practicing law - was clearly Unconstitutional (and it is).

there's some subjectivity there, I guess, but it's very different in each case.

Damn...you type faster than me.

 

[tomdalton22]

It's not the same thing.

In Kentucky, the clerk violated the law based on her own personal religious beliefs.

Here, the acting AG, refused to enforce a law that - in her professional judgment after 27 years of practicing law - was clearly Unconstitutional (and it is).

there's some subjectivity there, I guess, but it's very different in each case.

It is your opinion that it is unconstitutional, there are many that believe it's not.

The president has broad legal authority to restrict immigration. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he can restrict any class of aliens he deems ?detrimental to the interests of the United States? without needing legislation or congressional approval.


IMO he jumped the gun with this stupid executive order but she also jumped the gun saying the entire AG department would not defend the order against legal challenges. I believe this was more of a political move on her part...she was just in place for another week or so.

 

[deathroh]

It is your opinion that it is unconstitutional, there are many that believe it's not.

The president has broad legal authority to restrict immigration. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he can restrict any class of aliens he deems ?detrimental to the interests of the United States? without needing legislation or congressional approval.


IMO he jumped the gun with this stupid executive order but she also jumped the gun saying the entire AG department would not defend the order against legal challenges. I believe this was more of a political move on her part...she was just in place for another week or so.

Why give people who believe in a minority religion in a particular country preference over one who believes in the majority religion? (Section 5, b)

I don't think there's anything wrong or just simply political about questioning the legality of that.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's not the same thing.

In Kentucky, the clerk violated the law based on her own personal religious beliefs.

Here, the acting AG, refused to enforce a law that - in her professional judgment after 27 years of practicing law - was clearly Unconstitutional (and it is).

there's some subjectivity there, I guess, but it's very different in each case.

that's right, it's not the same thing. In this case, the acting AG wasn't exercising her right to freedom of religion by not violating her deeply held religious beliefs. Rather, she was acting as a judge declaring something that most likely isn't unconstitutional to be unconstitutional.

This is a political stunt. She's pulling a Kamala Harris here - and why not, Harris parlayed her defiance of the will of the people overwhelming voted in favor of Proposition 8 into a Senate seat. Yates herself did not explain how the EO was unconstitutional - she just took the opportunity to grand stand, probably as a ticket out of obscurity and into the spotlight as a new leftist hero.

 

[Michchamp]

It is your opinion that it is unconstitutional, there are many that believe it's not.

...

I know in Trump's America things like "knowledge" "wisdom" and "experience" are frowned upon, but come the fuck on man... This AG had practiced law for nearly 30 years, and been a federal prosecutor for 27 of them. I'm not denying politics played a role here, but Trump's order is so extreme, it's like insisting the sky is Orange and anyone who says it's Blue is "playing politics."

It openly violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Its practically unconstitutional on its face.

and if that's not enough, they need to explain the damning statements of Rudy Giuliani, who told the press he helped craft it and it is intended to keep Muslims out of the country, and also the clarifications they've issued that the ban on individuals doesn't include Christians or Jews from the 7 countries listed