Attorney General orders Justice Department to not defend Muslim Ban Executive Order

[Commodus]

So what, if Trump didn't want to carry Obama's defiant baggage. She was only serving in the interim, until Sessions is confirmed. This is only for a few more days anyway. Hardly anything for peeps to be having a hissy fit over.

The President is not supposed to fire the attorney general because she wouldn't guarantee that his policy was legal. Trump is abusing his power to avoid being held to account for violations. He, like you, is a traitor to the country's values.

 

[compuwiz1]

Her job was upholding the Constitution, which she did, and for which she was fired by Trump.

The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. This is not about supporting the constitution, but her own conscientious objection. She defied the POTUS and he was her boss. Fired was the correct action. Tell your boss no, next time you are asked to perform a task and see where that gets you. At best, you get written up, worst case you get fired.

 

[Commodus]

The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. This is not about supporting the constitution, but her own conscientious objection. She defied the POTUS and he was her boss. Fired was the correct action. Tell your boss no, next time you are asked to perform a task and see where that gets you. At best, you get written up, worst case you get fired.

The attorney general's job is to uphold the law, not bend the law to fit the President's interpretation of it.

 

[compuwiz1]

The President is not supposed to fire the attorney general because she wouldn't guarantee that his policy was legal. Trump is abusing his power to avoid being held to account for violations. He, like you, is a traitor to the country's values.

Thank you for your opinion. Trump acted within his authority, even though you don't like it. What values am I a traitor to, the liberal ones? Yep, you're right.

 

[Jhhnn]

The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. This is not about supporting the constitution, but her own conscientious objection. She defied the POTUS and he was her boss. Fired was the correct action. Tell your boss no, next time you are asked to perform a task and see where that gets you. At best, you get written up, worst case you get fired.

That doesn't make her a traitor. Well, unless we're going for that "The Leader is the State!" thing.

 

[compuwiz1]

Still fired without recourse.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thank you for your opinion. Trump acted within his authority, even though you don't like it. What values am I a traitor to, the liberal ones? Yep, you're right.

Only years of legal wrangling can reveal the truth, one way or the other.

 

[Jhhnn]

Still fired without recourse.

Tell us something we don't know.

 

[Cozarkian]

No, this is on Trump voters, 100%. If you voted for Trump, this disgrace is on you.

I'm going to put most of the blame on the primary voters that nominated Trump. Anyone could have beaten Hillary and they chose Trump.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm going to put most of the blame on the primary voters that nominated Trump. Anyone could have beaten Hillary and they chose Trump.

In that case, don't forget to blame the DNC's Pied Piper strategy.

 

[ivwshane]

The acting attorney general has now been fired. No one around now to sign foreign surveillance warrants...

https://nyti.ms/2jLQdi3

What fucking amateurs! Lol

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm going to put most of the blame on the primary voters that nominated Trump. Anyone could have beaten Hillary and they chose Trump.

Never pass up a chance to tear down the evil Hillary, even a highly contrived one.

 

[Brainonska511]

The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. This is not about supporting the constitution, but her own conscientious objection. She defied the POTUS and he was her boss. Fired was the correct action. Tell your boss no, next time you are asked to perform a task and see where that gets you. At best, you get written up, worst case you get fired.

I bet you were singing a different tune about the constitutionality of many executive orders about 2 weeks ago.

 

[compuwiz1]

Speaking of blame, what about all the whiny liberals out protesting, saying #notmypresident, but yet, couldn't be bothered to vote?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Speaking of blame, what about all the whiny liberals out protesting, saying #notmypresident, but yet, couldn't be bothered to vote?

They did vote, you moron. 3 million more of them than those that voted for Trump, in fact. They just didn't have the good fortune of having some 70,000 in the places where some citizens votes count more than others.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, the candidate crushed by Clinton in states she would't carry in the general election, and the only candidate capable of blocking Trump's narrow path to victory through the rust belt.

Uh, Bernie lost Pennsylvania and Florida, he won Wisconsin and Michigan by less than 160k votes total, whereas Clinton beat Sanders by 200k in Penn alone and by over 500k in Florida.

Your math skills aren't too great are they. Your concerned trolling though, top notch!

 

[Commodus]

Sad irony: at Sally Yates' confirmation hearing, Jeff Sessions asked her a question: "do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say 'no' to the President if he asks for something improper?" Of course, she answered that she had to uphold the law and the Constitution.

She did her job and got fired for it. And Sessions, who was supposed to be the moral guidance in that hearing, is likely to turn a blind eye to Trump's violations simply for the sake of becoming Attorney General.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Uh, Bernie lost Pennsylvania and Florida, he won Wisconsin and Michigan by less than 160k votes total, whereas Clinton beat Sanders by 200k in Penn alone and by over 500k in Florida.

Your math skills aren't too great are they. Your concerned trolling though, top notch!

Florida is not the rust belt. Bernie would have won PA, WI and MI over Trump. As I said, Trump had one narrow populist path to victory and Sanders could have blocked it.

My concerns were valid given who is now in the White House.

 

[K1052]

Sad irony: at Sally Yates' confirmation hearing, Jeff Sessions asked her a question: "do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say 'no' to the President if he asks for something improper?" Of course, she answered that she had to uphold the law and the Constitution.

She did her job and got fired for it. And Sessions, who was supposed to be the moral guidance in that hearing, is likely to turn a blind eye to Trump's violations simply for the sake of becoming Attorney General.

Sessions is being referred to as the ideological godfather of a lot of the stuff going on now, so there're that.

I'm wasn't surprised by Yates' decision since the odds she would have cared to work under Sessions in a Trump admin are probably between fuck no and die. I'm sure a lawyer with decades of DOJ experience will do fine in private practice.

 

[MongGrel]

Apparently the new acting AG may not be able to sign off on FISA warrants as he has not been vetted or confirmed by the senate.

Kind of what I thought myself.

 

[Demo24]

The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. This is not about supporting the constitution, but her own conscientious objection. She defied the POTUS and he was her boss. Fired was the correct action. Tell your boss no, next time you are asked to perform a task and see where that gets you. At best, you get written up, worst case you get fired.

So the previous top law official states that it may not actually be legal, and yet you continue to claim it is? Kind of think she knows a lot more than you do. Nevermind the fact she's actually quite conservative. She worked her way up through the Bush administration and then later appointed by Obama. So this isn't some "liberal idea".

Also, no one can "defy the POTUS"? Do you not see how damn fascist that is, and you said it?

 

[fskimospy]

Florida is not the rust belt. Bernie would have won PA, WI and MI over Trump. As I said, Trump had one narrow populist path to victory and Sanders could have blocked it.

My concerns were valid given who is now in the White House.

So you use the fact that Sanders beat Clinton in some states as evidence he would have beaten Trump there but then say Bernie would have beaten Trump in Pennsylvania despite Clinton crushing Sanders by 12 points there. This makes no logical sense.

Sanders was a bad candidate. He lost for a very good reason and it wasn't because the DNC said mean things about him.

 

[fskimospy]

The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. This is not about supporting the constitution, but her own conscientious objection. She defied the POTUS and he was her boss. Fired was the correct action. Tell your boss no, next time you are asked to perform a task and see where that gets you. At best, you get written up, worst case you get fired.

So far the courts strongly disagree with your claim that the EO is constitutional. Let me guess though, they are all activist democrats to.

 

[Bowfinger]

The EO is constitutional and was cleared through the DOJ legal dept. ...

Well, yes, that is Donnie's talking point. What evidence do you have that he's right? Unlike Yates, he is not a lawyer and has no expertise in Constitutional law. The one court that weighed in so far ruled there is a "strong likelihood" that at least parts of Trump's order are unconstitutional. Perhaps Yates and Judge Donnelly are both wrong, and Trump will eventually win in the courts, but that's pure speculation. For now, declaring "the EO is constitutional" seems to be a statement of feelings rather than a statement of fact.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, yes, that is Donnie's talking point. What evidence do you have that he's right? Unlike Yates, he is not a lawyer and has no expertise in Constitutional law. The one court that weighed in so far ruled there is a "strong likelihood" that at least parts of Trump's order are unconstitutional. Perhaps Yates and Judge Donnelly are both wrong, and Trump will eventually win in the courts, but that's pure speculation. For now, declaring "the EO is constitutional" seems to be a statement of feelings rather than a statement of fact.

Not disagreeing in substance but some people think that things are Constitutional or not and really that's not the case until there is a final judicial review declaring the fact. Why I think that is important to mention is that some people have the attitude of "He can't do that, it's unconstitutional!!!" without understanding just what can and cannot be done and how the process works.