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

[Starbuck1975]

Nah, Lynch was a perfectly fine AG. She did a lot of good work, especially in cracking down on systemic racism within police departments. We need a lot more of that.

Regardless the courts agree with her judgment so far so in this case it seems to be good.

Law enforcement is literally the last step in a process that is failing on many levels. To target law enforcement is to place a band aid at the toe for an injury that requires a tourniquet at the thigh.

Obama appointees agreeing with other Obama appointees? Didn't see that coming. So far, the two federal judges I've identified as ruling are both Obama appointees. Allison Burroughs in Boston and Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn.

Makes sense, as the residue of the Obama administration is still in denial they lost an election. What Trump is doing is a departure and a jolt, but not necessarily unconstitutional. These cases are heading to SCOTUS, which is appropriate. Will be interesting to see where Kennedy falls on this one.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Your bullshit & a lot more like it are a big part of the reason Trump is there. You helped to troll him into the White House.

And now you're trolling us again to justify him being there.

It's my turn

 

[fskimospy]

Law enforcement is literally the last step in a process that is failing on many levels. To target law enforcement is to place a band aid at the toe for an injury that requires a tourniquet at the thigh.

Obama appointees agreeing with other Obama appointees? Didn't see that coming. So far, the two federal judges I've identified as ruling are both Obama appointees. Allison Burroughs in Boston and Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn.

Makes sense, as the residue of the Obama administration is still in denial they lost an election. What Trump is doing is a departure and a jolt, but not necessarily unconstitutional. These cases are heading to SCOTUS, which is appropriate. Will be interesting to see where Kennedy falls on this one.

These people are federal judges, trying to declare them partisans is just an attempt to undermine the basis of the rule of law in our country and that's shameful.

Judges ruling blatantly unconstitutional things like this unconstitutional is simply them doing their job. You should be applauding it, not undermining it.

And no, going after predatory law enforcement agencies is the first step, not the last. Targeting these predators was great work, I just wish they had started years earlier because there's a lot of swamp in law enforcement left to be drained.

 

[dainthomas]

She was dealt with harshly by the people in power for not doing her job. Works for both of them.

I saw her confirmation hearing two years ago. She was being grilled by Republicans, and one of their questions was whether she would ignore an order from the president if she thought it was illegal. They seemed happy that she said yes.

Of course back then we had a Kenyan Muslim as president, I guess.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No. Davis was required by law to comply with that court order. The AG was not required by law to comply with an EO she considers unconstitutional.

One of them is following the rule of law, the other, Davis, did not.

I'll ask again, what law did she cite for not complying with her lawful orders?

 

[PokerGuy]

Trump is proving to be much much better than I thought he would be. That idiot obummer AG doesn't want to do the job, you don't put up with that crap. It's fine for idiot protesters to stomp their feet and act like a three year old, but when the AG does it, Trump showed he doesn't put up with that crap. Fire the idiot, and put someone in there that will do the job.

No surprise that lefty judges appointed by obummer in MA and NY would go that way, just another reason to make sure Trump fills as many federal judicial positions as quickly as possible. Have to get rid of the lefty trash asap.

 

[Starbuck1975]

These people are federal judges, trying to declare them partisans is just an attempt to undermine the basis of the rule of law in our country and that's shameful.

Judges ruling blatantly unconstitutional things like this unconstitutional is simply them doing their job. You should be applauding it, not undermining it.

And no, going after predatory law enforcement agencies is the first step, not the last. Targeting these predators was great work, I just wish they had started years earlier because there's a lot of swamp in law enforcement left to be drained.

There's been increased partisanship in the judiciary since the late 80s, with both parties looking to stack things in their favor. To deny that as true is naive

I will applaud the SCOTUS ruling

Targeting law enforcement to solve what is, at its core, a socio economic issue, is shameful and lazy.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'll ask again, what law did she cite for not complying with her lawful orders?

She cited the universal law of "hey, liberals just know what's right and what isn't!".

 

[thraashman]

She cited the universal law of "hey, liberals just know what's right and what isn't!".

Well, the Constitution, which is one of the most liberal documents ever written and unlike conservatives, liberals actually follow. But we all know that there's exactly 14 words in the Constitution that conservatives have ever read and they begin halfway through the Second Amendment.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

She cited the universal law of "hey, liberals just know what's right and what isn't!".

YOU WIN!

 

[fskimospy]

There's been increased partisanship in the judiciary since the late 80s, with both parties looking to stack things in their favor. To deny that as true is naive

I will applaud the SCOTUS ruling

That makes no sense. If you didn't like this order because you think it is partisan than SCOTUS should be the same.

It's naive to think that results come from partisanship. Presidents have views on what the constitution means and they tend to select judges that believe similarly. This isn't partisanship, it's just different schools of legal interpretation. To impugn a federal judge's ruling as a fit of pique for losing an election is both silly and irresponsible. Again, I can't help but notice a strong undercurrent of hatred of liberalism from you.

Targeting law enforcement to solve what is, at its core, a socio economic issue, is shameful and lazy.

The issue to be solved is police and local governments preying on the citizens they are tasked with protecting, often by race. This is a direct betrayal of their duties and should be addressed immediately. The idea that we shouldn't bother protecting citizens from their predatory governments because the US has larger social problems is literally the epitome of shameful laziness.

On one hand you complain about how governance under the Democrats hasn't worked well enough for the white working class and you agitate for that to change but when confronted with government that is literally preying on the black community you throw up your hands and say that not only should we not take that government to task for their actions, but to do so is shameful. That's a truly disgusting opinion. Your supposed liberalism seems to be more tribalism than anything.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll ask again, what law did she cite for not complying with her lawful orders?

The Constitution. Duh? She said quite clearly that she did not believe they were lawful orders because the EO is unconstitutional. The courts agreed so far.

Again, this is one of the things that is literally part of the AG's job, as noted by the incoming AG Sessions.

As usual, conservatives love to talk about how much they love the Constitution but then immediately start whining as soon as it doesn't go their way. Why not just admit that you think people should follow the Constitution only when it does what you want?

 

[thraashman]

The Constitution. Duh? She said quite clearly that she did not believe they were lawful orders because the EO is unconstitutional. The courts agreed so far.

Again, this is one of the things that is literally part of the AG's job, as noted by the incoming AG Sessions.

As usual, conservatives love to talk about how much they love the Constitution but then immediately start whining as soon as it doesn't go their way. Why not just admit that you think people should follow the Constitution only when it does what you want?

The problem is that a huge majority of the Constitution doesn't ever go conservatives' way. Though they seem to have the biggest problem with the 1st and 14th Amendments. And Trump's biggest issue appears to be the Emoluments clause

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Hindsight is 20/20 guy, Florida was one potential path to the white house. But hey, feel free to ignore Florida, he still lost big in Pennsylvania and that was a must win state as well.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The Constitution. Duh? She said quite clearly that she did not believe they were lawful orders because the EO is unconstitutional. The courts agreed so far.

Again, this is one of the things that is literally part of the AG's job, as noted by the incoming AG Sessions.

As usual, conservatives love to talk about how much they love the Constitution but then immediately start whining as soon as it doesn't go their way. Why not just admit that you think people should follow the Constitution only when it does what you want?

She did not cite any pertinent law and got booted for her political stance. Thanks.

 

[fskimospy]

She did not cite any pertinent law and got booted for her political stance. Thanks.

Today I learned the Constitution isn't 'pertinent law'. Lol.

Someone needs to buy you a Civics for Dummies book.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that a huge majority of the Constitution doesn't ever go conservatives' way. Though they seem to have the biggest problem with the 1st and 14th Amendments. And Trump's biggest issue appears to be the Emoluments clause

I can't wait to see what knots they twist themselves into when the same decision that they cheered for allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion is used to prevent Trump from defunding sanctuary cities. Their heads are going to explode.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That makes no sense. If you didn't like this order because you think it is partisan than SCOTUS should be the same.

It's naive to think that results come from partisanship. Presidents have views on what the constitution means and they tend to select judges that believe similarly. This isn't partisanship, it's just different schools of legal interpretation. To impugn a federal judge's ruling as a fit of pique for losing an election is both silly and irresponsible. Again, I can't help but notice a strong undercurrent of hatred of liberalism from you.



The issue to be solved is police and local governments preying on the citizens they are tasked with protecting, often by race. This is a direct betrayal of their duties and should be addressed immediately. The idea that we shouldn't bother protecting citizens from their predatory governments because the US has larger social problems is literally the epitome of shameful laziness.

On one hand you complain about how governance under the Democrats hasn't worked well enough for the white working class and you agitate for that to change but when confronted with government that is literally preying on the black community you throw up your hands and say that not only should we not take that government to task for their actions, but to do so is shameful. That's a truly disgusting opinion. Your supposed liberalism seems to be more tribalism than anything.

What you depict as preying, others would call policing. You live in NYC. Read up on what William Bratton did for Boston, Los Angeles and NYC. I know many liberals who were appalled by his broken windows approach and accused him of profiling. There is a heavy police presence at the 125th subway stop and also Penn Station, but barely a patrol officer in sight down on Wall Street. That is not predatory. That is precaution.

Both conservative and liberal activists bring their cases before judges they believe are sympathetic to their causes. It is no surprise that Obama appointees are the ones that granted the stay. Are judges beyond criticism? It seems to me that the whole reason we have a tiered court system is because sometimes it is necessary to impugn a judge.

If engaging urban dwelling liberals in dialogue by challenging their echo chamber perspective is hatred, I am guilty as charged.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The Constitution. Duh? She said quite clearly that she did not believe they were lawful orders because the EO is unconstitutional. The courts agreed so far.

Again, this is one of the things that is literally part of the AG's job, as noted by the incoming AG Sessions.

As usual, conservatives love to talk about how much they love the Constitution but then immediately start whining as soon as it doesn't go their way. Why not just admit that you think people should follow the Constitution only when it does what you want?

Good one. I am sure liberals will have the upmost respect for the Constitution, AG, lower courts and SCOTUS once Trump starts swinging the judiciary and Justice Department pendulum back to the right.

 

[fskimospy]

Good one. I am sure liberals will have the upmost respect for the Constitution, AG, lower courts and SCOTUS once Trump starts swinging the judiciary and Justice Department pendulum back to the right.

Sure. I've always respected SCOTUS decisions, even when I don't agree with them. It's not about tribalism for everyone.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Hindsight is 20/20 guy, Florida was one potential path to the white house. But hey, feel free to ignore Florida, he still lost big in Pennsylvania and that was a must win state as well.

Hindsight is very much 20/20. There was no guarantee of a Sanders win against Trump. Given Clinton's liabilities and Trump's narrow path to victory, I still believe strategically that Sanders was the better candidate. Had Clinton won, my argument would have no leg to stand on. Since she fumbled at the goal line, I have one leg to stand on. A glorious, pirate inspired peg leg.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Sure. I've always respected SCOTUS decisions, even when I don't agree with them. It's not about tribalism for everyone.

Then you sir are an exception, and I look forward to your not getting all butthurt over any SCOTUS rulings.

 

[fskimospy]

What you depict as preying, others would call policing. You live in NYC. Read up on what William Bratton did for Boston, Los Angeles and NYC. I know many liberals who were appalled by his broken windows approach and accused him of profiling. There is a heavy police presence at the 125th subway stop and also Penn Station, but barely a patrol officer in sight down on Wall Street. That is not predatory. That is precaution.

You have either not read the DOJ reports on predatory policing in Chicago, Ferguson, Baltimore, etc, or you are deliberately trying to paper over them.

It is absolutely predation. It's not even close.

Both conservative and liberal activists bring their cases before judges they believe are sympathetic to their causes. It is no surprise that Obama appointees are the ones that granted the stay. Are judges beyond criticism? It seems to me that the whole reason we have a tiered court system is because sometimes it is necessary to impugn a judge.

We do not have a tiered court system for that reason, no. (At least not in any large amount)

If engaging urban dwelling liberals in dialogue by challenging their echo chamber perspective is hatred, I am guilty as charged.

I think you should take a long look in the mirror. Complaining about government not working for the white working class and then calling efforts to stop widespread, documented predation on black communities shameful is the epitome of living in a bubble. You've lost all perspective and your positions are based on tribalism.

 

[fskimospy]

Then you sir are an exception, and I look forward to your not getting all butthurt over any SCOTUS rulings.

Of course I'll be angry about the decisions I think are wrong, it doesn't mean I will think that the judges decided them because of their fealty to who appointed them. That is undermining the judiciary, which is shameful.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's my turn

It's apparently your assignment. You know full well that Clinton & Sanders are water under the bridge, immaterial to rational discussion of events as they unfold. You're gaslighting us with the woulda, shoulda, coulda of blame shifting & misdirection, all the while feigning concern.