Republicans complain about "unprecedented" obstruction

[shortylickens]

You're an ignorant jackass. You know nothing of the "Deep South" other than the BS you see from Hollywood.

Fern

I've spent some time in thedeep south. The stereotype about overt racism is sure as hell true. The stereotype about aversion to education is up for debate.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're an ignorant jackass. You know nothing of the "Deep South" other than the BS you see from Hollywood.

Fern

It seems unlikely that they'd be better off, that's for sure-

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

 

[zinfamous]

On top of it, her dept's (DoJ) Office of Legal Counsel had reviewed the E.O. 'ban' and approved it both as to form and legality.

The DoJ has confirmed they approved it:



http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/justice-department-wont-defend-trumps-immigration-order

Fern

It was issued without review. It was purposefully withheld from the DoJ (not to mention DoD, HS, DoS) because Bannon and Drumpf didn't want anyone to see it. It is the job of the AG to decide whether or not it is lawful. Therefore, she did exactly her job to request that it not be enforced until review.

When Taj says "a lawful order" he is directly using Trump's words in firing her. It is not lawful simply because Trump says it is. That isn't his fucking job and don't be an idiot, Fern: you know as well as anyone that if Trump is saying it, it is very likely unlawful. The guy is pondscum and don't try to pretend that you have ever stopped knowing that.

 

[fskimospy]

On top of it, her own dept's (DoJ) Office of Legal Counsel approved the EO as to form and legality before it was issued.

The DoJ has confirmed that:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/justice-department-wont-defend-trumps-immigration-order

Fern

It might be helpful if you hadn't cut your quote off quite so soon.

The next two paragraphs:

But the objections Yates raised in her letter pointed out that the OLC review didn't consider statements "made by an administration or its surrogates...that may bear on the order's purpose."

That passage appeared to refer to comments by Trump about the plight of Christians in the Middle East, and to remarks by Rudy Giuliani, who told Fox News that Trump had wanted to impose a "Muslim ban" but wanted advisers to find a way to do it "legally." Immigrants rights advocates said Giuliani's words could offer them evidence to prove the administration had a "discriminatory purpose."

Considering the courts pay close attention to what the drafters of laws and EOs say, this is highly relevant information. North Carolina learned this the hard way when they tried to pass those voting restrictions which may have been facially valid but since the court was made aware that they were part of a racist attempt to limit black voting... out they went.

 

[zinfamous]

You're an ignorant jackass. You know nothing of the "Deep South" other than the BS you see from Hollywood.

Fern

The "Deep South" is typically Mississippi, Arkansas, LA, most of Georgia, Alabama, Florida panhandle, probably SC or at least parts of it. It isn't necessarily the same as western NC...though as an NC native, I can assure you that my home state has sure gone to utter shit in recent years, trying to emulate the bronze aged dumbassery of the rest of much of the south with their new draconian laws. But, outside of Georgia and Florida, I daresay most of those states would have real trouble surviving without the north or the Feds. Those are federal welfare states.

 

[Fern]

It was issued without review. It was purposefully withheld from the DoJ (not to mention DoD, HS, DoS) because Bannon and Drumpf didn't want anyone to see it. It is the job of the AG to decide whether or not it is lawful. Therefore, she did exactly her job to request that it not be enforced until review.
-snip-

Jeebus, you can't be serious?

I quoted and linked the DoJ itself confirming they reviewed it and approved it !!!!!!!!

WTH?

Fern

 

[Fern]

DP

 

[Fern]

TP

Damn, this getting annoying.

 

[Fern]

It might be helpful if you hadn't cut your quote off quite so soon.

The next two paragraphs:



Considering the courts pay close attention to what the drafters of laws and EOs say, this is highly relevant information. North Carolina learned this the hard way when they tried to pass those voting restrictions which may have been facially valid but since the court was made aware that they were part of a racist attempt to limit black voting... out they went.

READ IT: THE DOJ APPROVED IT. PERIOD.

Her objections do not change that FACT.

Fern

 

[agent00f]

My senators are Democrats, I'm not a Republican and I have no power because no one represents me. I don't count on consideration because there's never been any given. Let the Dems and Reps eat each other alive. I have no dog in their fight.

Funny you keep saying this but somehow end up on the same side of these arguments as import. I guess he's an independent, too.

 

[fskimospy]

READ IT: THE DOJ APPROVED IT. PERIOD.

Her objections do not change that FACT.

Fern

The DOJ did not approve it, the OLC offered its position on the facial aspects of the EO. That is in no way the 'DOJ approving it'. As the AG she was the head of the DOJ and her position represents the position the DOJ, so her objections literally change that fact, haha. Additionally as those other paragraphs you left out state (and recent court precedent shows), facial validity and actual validity are not even close to the same thing.

Simmer down, big guy!

 

[ivwshane]

The DOJ did not approve it, the OLC offered its position on the facial aspects of the EO. That is in no way the 'DOJ approving it'. As the AG she was the head of the DOJ and her position represents the position the DOJ, so her objections literally change that fact, haha. Additionally as those other paragraphs you left out state (and recent court precedent shows), facial validity and actual validity are not even close to the same thing.

Simmer down, big guy!

Again, our resident righties demonstrate their inability to understand how laws work and how the courts look at those laws when brought before them.

 

[Fern]

The "Deep South" is typically Mississippi, Arkansas, LA, most of Georgia, Alabama, Florida panhandle, probably SC or at least parts of it. It isn't necessarily the same as western NC...though as an NC native, I can assure you that my home state has sure gone to utter shit in recent years, trying to emulate the bronze aged dumbassery of the rest of much of the south with their new draconian laws. But, outside of Georgia and Florida, I daresay most of those states would have real trouble surviving without the north or the Feds. Those are federal welfare states.

You'd be wrong assuming a lack of economical viability.

We have manufacturing all over the place.

We produce a lot of food. I do the grocery shopping for my family. All the produce I purchase is local. However, during Winter months some comes from South America (Peru mostly). The proteins are all from the SE. (I suppose if I ate guacamole I would buy Mexican, or nuts (other than peanuts) I would buy CA produce.)

The so-called 'welfare' is partially or primarily the result of so many Yankees retiring here. They all draw SS and Medicare. Most states in the SE don't have expansive and expensive Medicaid, so they use less federal money for that.

Some SE states have a lot of military contractors receiving DoD money (some count that cash flow as 'welfare'). The ones I personally know design and build robots for the military.

From driving around the country several times over the years the only real difference I see in rural areas is that we have pockets (gated developments with golf courses) of wealthy retirees (from up North/Midwest) and rural areas in the North generally don't. Oh, the other diff is our weather here isn't as harsh in the Winter and our mosquitoes aren't as large.

Upstate NY or the UP in Mich? I don't see a whole hell of a lot of diff.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Again, our resident righties demonstrate their inability to understand how laws work and how the courts look at those laws when brought before them.

The process for approval of EO's by the DoJ is the OFL. So yes, it was approved by the DoJ.

The courts have consistently upheld a President's authority for such temp bans. The law grants them broad discretion. Yes, one can venue shop and find a liberal judge who will be sympathetic but it will not hold.

All you guys demonstrates is the hysterical spewing of your talking points.

"Fascists! Nazis! Islamophobes! Impeach! etc etc etc".

Carry on.

Fern

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Looks like the Dems boycotted the Scott Pruit vote, rules were suspended and he was approved.

 

[John Connor]

Republicans complain about "unprecedented" obstruction

Telling the truth since the Civil War.

 

[realibrad]

I think this should help clear some things up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-doj-trump-executive-orders_us_588f8bfae4b0522c7d3c1006

“OLC has continued to serve this traditional role in the present administration, and to date has approved the signed orders with respect to form and legality,”

“OLC’s legal review has been conducted without the involvement of Department of Justice leadership, and OLC’s legal review does not address the broader policy issues inherent in any executive order.”

So the OLC did say it was legal. The OLC's legal review did not involve the DOJ leadership, but it did not have to.

 

[fskimospy]

The process for approval of EO's by the DoJ is the OFL. So yes, it was approved by the DoJ.

The courts have consistently upheld a President's authority for such temp bans. The law grants them broad discretion. Yes, one can venue shop and find a liberal judge who will be sympathetic but it will not hold.

All you guys demonstrates is the hysterical spewing of your talking points.

"Fascists! Nazis! Islamophobes! Impeach! etc etc etc".

Carry on.

Fern

Today I learned that if the Attorney General's subordinates come to a different conclusion than Attorney General, the view of the AG's subordinates represents the official position of the DOJ.

Fascinating!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Republicans complain about "unprecedented" obstruction

Telling the truth since the Civil War.

hahahahahahaha. oh conner, you are a funny one

 

[fskimospy]

I think this should help clear some things up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-doj-trump-executive-orders_us_588f8bfae4b0522c7d3c1006

“OLC has continued to serve this traditional role in the present administration, and to date has approved the signed orders with respect to form and legality,”

“OLC’s legal review has been conducted without the involvement of Department of Justice leadership, and OLC’s legal review does not address the broader policy issues inherent in any executive order.”

So the OLC did say it was legal. The OLC's legal review did not involve the DOJ leadership, but it did not have to.

Not really, it's the same thing Fern is saying. OLC reviewed the orders as written and determined they were FACIALLY legal. The AG said that statements by people involved in drafting them showed that they were created with discriminatory intent, making them illegal. The OLC did not consider these statements.

As I mentioned before, this is similar to North Carolina. The voting restrictions they tried to pass could very well have been legal on their face, but after it came out that they were implemented for the express purpose of limiting the vote of black people, they were unconstitutional. Fern is attempting to pretend that the second part (and the crux of the AG's argument) doesn't matter, and that's badly wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

the country has been in far more divisive places in the past. You thinking we cant hold it together is a reflection of your own shortcomings.

Or rather, a reflection of my feelings towards our partisan divide.

Democrats are vowing to obstruct _everything_. Maybe it's a bluff, maybe they'll sit back down and participate in Government. Maybe the Republicans don't want to get anything done and are willing to be obstructed. OR, at present course the filibuster is eliminated, majority rules, minority walks out in protest, and Republicans alone operate the government. It's simply a series of logical steps I see the parties taking based on current levels of vitriol being thrown around both during and now after the election. The raw visceral hatred on display from 2016 has not let up, or abated in any way. It's continuing and being put into practice now in the Senate.

I suppose we could wait until Republicans force majority rule, before discussing the next step. But you could learn to think and plan ahead. To examine the path before us, and where it leads.

 

[realibrad]

Not really, it's the same thing Fern is saying. OLC reviewed the orders as written and determined they were FACIALLY legal. The AG said that statements by people involved in drafting them showed that they were created with discriminatory intent, making them illegal. The OLC did not consider these statements.

As I mentioned before, this is similar to North Carolina. The voting restrictions they tried to pass could very well have been legal on their face, but after it came out that they were implemented for the express purpose of limiting the vote of black people, they were unconstitutional. Fern is attempting to pretend that the second part (and the crux of the AG's argument) doesn't matter, and that's badly wrong.

Agreed. But it is true that the DOJ through the argument of the OLC did say it was legal. The AG disagreed but that does not mean the DOJ disagreed because of how it inherently works where the OLC can give an opinion for the DOJ without the AG's input. Bad idea or not, it is currently legal. The AG disagreeing with it does not make it illegal. Its supposed to be temp, but if its not it will get challenged and I'm sure be removed.

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed. But it is true that the DOJ through the argument of the OLC did say it was legal. The AG disagreed but that does not mean the DOJ disagreed because of how it inherently works where the OLC can give an opinion for the DOJ without the AG's input. Bad idea or not, it is currently legal. The AG disagreeing with it does not make it illegal. Its supposed to be temp, but if its not it will get challenged and I'm sure be removed.

No. If the Attorney General disagrees with the OLC then the DOJ's position is that of the Attorney General. The OLC INFORMS the Attorney General's opinion, it does not override it. What the AG says, goes.

As for if it's legal or not, that's not really accurate either. It currently has at least three injunctions against it in various jurisdictions. At best you could say its legality is contested.

 

[Blackjack200]

Or rather, a reflection of my feelings towards our partisan divide.

Democrats are vowing to obstruct _everything_

It's weird that you focus on that, but ignore the fact that the administration and congressional leadership have shown no interest in any kind of compromise or concession to the substantial majority that voted for other leadership. I think your post is an excellent example of why our differences are irreconcilable: compromise cannot be a one way street, you're blaming the politicians that are using the only tools available to them to try to represent the 65+ million people that voted against this administration. Somehow they're the villains here. So no, I agree, not very good prospects for compromise when one side has no interest in it.

 

[nakedfrog]

73 million, BTW.

 

[Blackjack200]

73 million, BTW.

I thought about using that number, but I consider Johnson/Stein/McMullin voters to be symbolic and effectively meaningless votes. If they were serious about not wanting the Trump agenda, they would have voted for Clinton.