Dark morning in America - talk of Model S seems - frivolous

[kort677]

No, she's a hero for standing up and doing her job despite the pressure from on high.

an extremely clueless response.
her job is defend the lawful executive order. it is not her job to interject her opinions, political ideology. she is to execute her job based on the law, nothing else. she was an obambi holdover, she played grandstander and she was rightfully and immediately removed from office.
unlike the past 2 AGs who ran the office politically this president apparently will not allow that incompetence to continue.

 

[bonnie]

an extremely clueless response.
her job is defend the lawful executive order. it is not her job to interject her opinions, political ideology. she is to execute her job based on the law, nothing else. she was an obambi holdover, she played grandstander and she was rightfully and immediately removed from office.
unlike the past 2 AGs who ran the office politically this president apparently will not allow that incompetence to continue.

Jeff Sessions would disagree with you.

Watch Sally Yates answer the question that got her fired by President Trump

 

[McRat]

No, she's a hero for standing up and doing her job despite the pressure from on high. As the top person in DOJ she believed the Executive Order was illegal and it was her responsibility to speak up and do something. That's not insubordination particularly when the DOJ is supposed to have a level of independence in this regard.

What code or decision did she quote as a basis for her belief the executive branch cannot deport or halt issuances of visas?

Didn't the President recently deport 35 Russians last month for purely political reasons? Russians who had legal visas?

 

[S'toon]

What code or decision did she quote as a basis for her belief the executive branch cannot deport or halt issuances of visas?

Didn't the President recently deport 35 Russians last month for purely political reasons? Russians who had legal visas?

First of all, they didn't have legal visas, they had diplomatic credentials which can be revoked by the country they're appointed to.

Second of all, the decision she quoted as a basis for her belief was the Constitution, which she swore an oath to uphold. This is basic. I learned this in the army. It is a person's duty not to obey unlawful orders.

All government officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not an oath of Omertà to obey the President no matter what the Constitution says.

 

[bonnie]

What code or decision did she quote as a basis for her belief the executive branch cannot deport or halt issuances of visas?

Seriously? You haven't read the numerous lists of the unconstitutionality of the EO? The reality is she did exactly what she told Jeff Sessions she would do in the job, the WH portrayed it as a 'betrayal' (implying she should do what told). Do you think Dana Boente would have been given the job if he'd said he'd have to evaluate the lawfulness of the order before supporting it? (Note that some courts have already found parts of the EO unconstitutional.)

Didn't the President recently deport 35 Russians last month for purely political reasons? Russians who had legal visas?

No, he deported 35 Russians in retaliation for Russian meddling in US elections, as supported by every single intelligence agency. I guess you could call that 'political', but I save the word 'political' when there is no other valid reason.

 

[ohmman]

In the adult/real world this is what happens when someone defies their bosses wishes.

In the real world, this is not what happens. Maybe in 1930 it was. In the real world, we have a discussion about it and act like adults. Allowing workers to be adults who make valuable decisions is called empowerment.

I've been in work situations where those who work "for" (or, as I like to say, "with") me have gone against policies I've put in place. In some cases, I've agreed strongly with their choice and have adapted my policies. In no case have I just sent an edict down to fire them. I wouldn't treat my 7 year old that way, let alone an adult.

Jeff Sessions would disagree with you.

Oh, I'm sure @kort677 opposes Sessions. Well, unless he's terrified of being fired for having a mind of his own.

 

[kort677]

Jeff Sessions would disagree with you.

Watch Sally Yates answer the question that got her fired by President Trump

and I am sure that once sessions is running the shop and he refuses to enforce a LEGAL executive order he too would be removed.
nice try

 

[Skipdd]

and I am sure that once sessions is running the shop and he refuses to enforce a LEGAL executive order he too would be removed.
nice try

The President doesn't define what is legal. The courts do. And the Justice Department interprets the law and enforces it. Fact is, we don't know yet whether this a legal policy yet. We are about to find out through the courts..

 

[bonnie]

and I am sure that once sessions is running the shop and he refuses to enforce a LEGAL executive order he too would be removed.
nice try

Well at least we're in agreement that the AG should not enforce an unlawful order.

That means we're down to discussing the constitutionality of the order, and not Yates' action. If the EO is unlawful, then she absolutely had a requirement to do what she did. You think it's lawful. I think it's not. So do a number of courts.

How do you rationalize the WH's words that this was about betrayal and not about the law? I'm curious.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

an extremely clueless response.
her job is defend the lawful executive order. it is not her job to interject her opinions, political ideology. she is to execute her job based on the law, nothing else. she was an obambi holdover, she played grandstander and she was rightfully and immediately removed from office.
unlike the past 2 AGs who ran the office politically this president apparently will not allow that incompetence to continue.

She refused to act on something that she deemed to be illegal. She was fired by people who believe it's legal.

The courts will decide which party is wrong, but at this point I don't think that either party did anything wrong.

 

[ABC2D]

Second of all, the decision she quoted as a basis for her belief was the Constitution

It's easy to just blanket cover "constitution" - which part of it? Your statement also allude that the the Tramp's order was unconstitutional - again, which part of constitution?

 

[McRat]

...
No, he deported 35 Russians in retaliation for Russian meddling in US elections, as supported by every single intelligence agency. I guess you could call that 'political', but I save the word 'political' when there is no other valid reason.

A few years ago, "every single intel agency" said Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD's, right?

So I assume the Attorney General proved it was those 35 Russians and their spouses and children that meddled in a foreign country's (USA) elections? And our President shut down the 2 recreational facilities that serviced Russian families because they were spy bases? The State Department refuses to list the Russians deported after multiple requests. Because it would be embarrassing to know that these were just normal embassy staff not involved with subversion.

Do we deport Americans when they do that to other countries? Just curious. Gaddafi, Assad, and Mubarak probably did not get too much help from the Americans. And look how nice that all worked out! How many millions killed so far? It is funny how killing foreigners is not a violation of their rights, but not honoring their visas is.

The nice thing about hypocrisy is that it allows one to cover both sides. Like my friend Elton John once said, "being bi doubles your chances of getting date on Saturday night".

Now I have no love dictators or Putin. Heck, I don't even like the dictator in Cuba, but the USA in the last few years reached a new level of hypocrisy in foreign affairs. We need to stop acting like freakin' spies and saboteurs and more like we care about America instead of secret alliances sworn to overthrow other countries.

 

[msnow]

an extremely clueless response.
her job is defend the lawful executive order. it is not her job to interject her opinions, political ideology. she is to execute her job based on the law, nothing else. she was an obambi holdover, she played grandstander and she was rightfully and immediately removed from office.
unlike the past 2 AGs who ran the office politically this president apparently will not allow that incompetence to continue.

It is her job. She's not there as the Presidents lawyer and his dutiful employee. She's there to uphold the Constitution and four other Federal judges agreed with her by staying the EO writing that they believed parts of the Order would be held unconstitutional. According to the judiciary committee Chairman Jeff Sessions during her confirmation hearings a couple of years ago she is extremely competent and given this exact same hypothetical did the exact right thing.

 

[bonnie]

A few years ago, "every single intel agency" said Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD's, right?

If we shouldn't ever believe evidence from intelligence agencies, then we probably should just get rid of them all. Neither you nor I know the facts that have been presented. I suspect we will see that info soon enough.

On another note, all the people who claim to want rational discussion, but name call (on both sides), imply others are hypocritical etc - well, clearly a rational discussion of issues is not the desired outcome. Use of inflammatory words usually gets escalated responses. And off we go.

 

[S'toon]

It's easy to just blanket cover "constitution" - which part of it? Your statement also allude that the the Tramp's order was unconstitutional - again, which part of constitution?

From the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

The ban makes it explicit it's about religion because it exempts minority religion from the majority Muslim countries.

 

[kort677]

It is her job. She's not there as the Presidents lawyer and his dutiful employee.

this is where you go off the tracks, she is the governments TOP lawyer and the president is her boss. screw what 4 low level judges ruled. You obviously don't know how things work.

 

[S'toon]

A few years ago, "every single intel agency" said Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD's, right?

Incorrect. That's not what happened. The administration cherry picked raw intelligence, not vetted by the intelligence agencies, in order to create a false narrative. They conveniently omitted parts which did not fit that narrative.

For example, the famous Colin Powell speech. I watched it live. He cited a defector, a son-in-law to Saddam, testifying to the UN that Iraq had x tons of this agent, and x tons of that agent. When the speech was over, I hit the web to search out that testimony. Sure enough, the son-in-law did testify to that. However, the speech left out the very last sentence in the testimony. "But we destroyed it all."

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's easy to just blanket cover "constitution" - which part of it? Your statement also allude that the the Tramp's order was unconstitutional - again, which part of constitution?

The ACLU is challenging it on the grounds of the due process clause (people deported not given their right to a hearing and representation by a lawyer) and equal protection clause (intentional discrimination based on national-origin). They are also preparing to challenge it on the establishment clause (favoring Christians over Muslims). This is not a simple case of internet commenters screaming constitution as a blanket cover.

 

[McRat]

From the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

The ban makes it explicit it's about religion because it exempts minority religion from the majority Muslim countries.

So you are saying accepting the Jews into the US before WWII under asylum was unconstitutional?

Or assisting Muslims in Bosnia from slaughter with US tax dollars?

Or is it just Christians who are exempt from asylum per Constitution?

What about Atheists? Yes or no?

 

[kort677]

Well at least we're in agreement that the AG should not enforce an unlawful order.

That means we're down to discussing the constitutionality of the order, and not Yates' action. If the EO is unlawful, then she absolutely had a requirement to do what she did. You think it's lawful. I think it's not. So do a number of courts.

How do you rationalize the WH's words that this was about betrayal and not about the law? I'm curious.

regardless of how some low level courts have ruled, the EO was vetted by justice and found to be legal, she shirked her responsibility and played politics.
this must be the comey precedent. they overstepped their bounds when they determined what is and isn't legal. betrayal is not the word I'd have used, insubordinate would be better.