Trump fires acting Attorney General

[Thumb]

Rather, she was acting as a judge declaring something that most likely isn't unconstitutional to be unconstitutional.

Just stop.

The EO specifies to give preferential treatment to Christians, if you knew anything at all about the Constitution you wouldn't make such statements.

The EO is absolutely unconstitutional, as was already called out by a federal judge, a good portion of congress, and most of the world, not just the "lefties".

 

[Spartanmack]

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

the order wasn't written by Trump - it was written by lawyers and approved by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Council, presumably by folks with experience and knowledge of the law.

It doesn't openly violate the equal protection clause and saying it does doesn't make it so. While it may be controversial it is markedly not a Muslim ban, it hasn't been fully interpreted, and that is still being adjudicated. So it's a bit premature to say it is on it's face, unconstitutional.

Here's the Trump Admin's statement on the firing:

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country. Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons. “I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.

Firing Yates was the right thing to do. This hubbub is a giant nothing burger.

Also, Guiliani didn't say what you think he said. It's not designed to keep Muslim's out and allowing Christians or Jews from those countries seems reasonable since, unlike many or even most of the Muslims who are displaced but not refugees, they fit the legal definition of a refugee.

Here's the definition for you:

Refugees are a special class of migrants who under international law deserve specific protection by their host state. According to Article 1 of the 1951 UN Convention, as modified by the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is defined as a person who ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country

 

[Spartanmack]

Just stop.

The EO specifies to give preferential treatment to Christians, if you knew anything at all about the Constitution you wouldn't make such statements.

The EO is absolutely unconstitutional, as was already called out by a federal judge, a good portion of congress, and most of the world, not just the "lefties".

see post 22 for why you're wrong. Do a little research, maybe read at least the first paragraph of the equal protection clause before you start accusing other people of not knowing anything about the Constitution. Here's the wikipedia link to it.

 

[sggatecl]

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.

Get the fuck out of here with that 'deeply held religious beliefs' bullshit. I expect more from you.

 

[Thumb]

see post 22 for why you're wrong. Do a little research, maybe read at least the first paragraph of the equal protection clause before you start accusing other people of not knowing anything about the Constitution. Here's the wikipedia link to it.

I didn't invoke the equal protection clause, I was thinking more 1st amendment: The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

By specifically mentioning a government department giving preferential treatment to Christians (or Jews) it violates the 1st amendment.

 

[Michchamp]

Get the fuck out of here with that 'deeply held religious beliefs' bullshit. I expect more from you.

You do? Why? No one else does.

LOL, this is great.

Why do they always make it so easy?

 

[biggunsbob]

Btw you better be able to say no to the President.

https://youtu.be/-3yDjylQ5Ps

 

[Spartanmack]

I didn't invoke the equal protection clause, I was thinking more 1st amendment: The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

By specifically mentioning a government department giving preferential treatment to Christians (or Jews) it violates the 1st amendment.

Well you should have because your first amendment claim is even dumber. Allowing people who meet the definition of a refugee because they're being persecuted for their religious belief isn't establishing a religion and it's not violating the first amendment. That's obvious - if you knew anything about the Constitution you'd know that. It would help if you educated yourself on the definition of refugee before you started hurling insults. It would help even more if you read about the EO itself and realized it wasn't a Muslim ban, rather than watching CNN or whatever you get your news from and spouting off based on misinformation.

 

[Spartanmack]

Get the fuck out of here with that 'deeply held religious beliefs' bullshit. I expect more from you.

lots of religious people get divorced.

 

[Spartanmack]

You do? Why? No one else does.


LOL, this is great.

Why do they always make it so easy?

you're one to talk - aren't you a Bernie Sanders supporter? Does it get any easier than discrediting that moronic, insane old windbag? I mean besides disproving all your moronic drivel, of course. Nothing is easier than that.

 

[Thumb]

Well you should have because your first amendment claim is even dumber. Allowing people who meet the definition of a refugee because they're being persecuted for their religious belief isn't establishing a religion and it's not violating the first amendment. That's obvious - if you knew anything about the Constitution you'd know that. It would help if you educated yourself on the definition of refugee before you started hurling insults.

Why are you trying to limit this to refugees?

You are doing a poor job of dancing around the issue once again.

 

[Thumb]

lots of religious people get divorced.

You overlooked the children out of wedlock/adultery. Isn't that one of your pet peeves?

 

[biggunsbob]

How much more vetting should we do ? Look's pretty intensive to me ?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...fugees-trump-extreme-vetting-column/97043442/

 

[Spartanmack]

Btw you better be able to say no to the President.

I'm pretty sure Sessions was referring to saying no to the President when the justice department is asked to engage in illegal acts like running guns, taking over or forcing massive changes at municipal police departments based on bogus investigations and things of that ilk. No choosing to not defend the legality of an EO. This is not a big "gotcha Jeff Sessions".

 

[Spartanmack]

You overlooked the children out of wedlock/adultery. Isn't that one of your pet peeves?

Ooh, good one! Except, no. I haven't overlooked that. When did I condemn people for having children out of wedlock? I said it's a scourge on society and a leading cause of poverty but I'm not judging people for it, unless saying people who do that are making bad choices is judging them. Sorry, but you whiffed again. keep trying though, one day you might get lucky.

 

[Spartanmack]

How much more vetting should we do ? Look's pretty intensive to me ?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...fugees-trump-extreme-vetting-column/97043442/

well, if you say so, it must be intensive. Of course, you and the article missed the very significant fact that there isn't much if any information available on many, or even most of the people from these particular countries. So no matter how "intensive" the process is, it's only as good as the information that's available, which again, isn't much.

Does anyone recall that Clinton State Department saying as much in one of the leaked emails - that they have no way of verifying who these people are or performing any reliable background checks on them? To be fair, I believe that email was talking specifically about people from Syria, but the list of countries came from the Obama Admin which identified the other 6 as having the same problems. Or does that not matter because the procedures are intensive?

 

[biggunsbob]

well, if you say so, it must be intensive. Of course, you and the article missed the very significant fact that there isn't much if any information available on many, or even most of the people from these particular countries. So no matter how "intensive" the process is, it's only as good as the information that's available, which again, isn't much.

Does anyone recall that Clinton State Department saying as much in one of the leaked emails - that they have no way of verifying who these people are or performing any reliable background checks on them? To be fair, I believe that email was talking specifically about people from Syria, but the list of countries came from the Obama Admin which identified the other 6 as having the same problems. Or does that not matter because the procedures are intensive?

The refugees from Syria are already facing 1 to 2 years worth of vetting process so I am pretty sure the process is pretty secure. So i just disagree with you.

 

[biggunsbob]

I'm pretty sure Sessions was referring to saying no to the President when the justice department is asked to engage in illegal acts like running guns, taking over or forcing massive changes at municipal police departments based on bogus investigations and things of that ilk. No choosing to not defend the legality of an EO. This is not a big "gotcha Jeff Sessions".

He said right in the first sentence can you say No to the President if he ask for something improper ? Yeah it is a big Gotcha no matter what you think.

 

[sggatecl]

lots of religious people get divorced.

I'm sure they do, despite it going against their doctrine. In this case, along with adultery. If she can't follow the teachings of her own religion, she sure as shit shouldn't be shoving that religion and it's rules down someone else's throat. Throwing stones in glass houses...black kettles...etc.

 

[Spartanmack]

Why are you trying to limit this to refugees?

You are doing a poor job of dancing around the issue once again.

I'm not.