-
@NTA said in US Politics:
Acting AG Sally Yates instructed the DoJ that it should not follow through with Trump's ban as a question of legality.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/
"Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has told Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees, according to sources familiar with the order."
So he fired her:
He had to fire her. Her position was untenable.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Trump and his administration have been incredible so far, transparent, productive, and strong.
Perhaps also illegal and unconstitutional. That will only be determined, in this case, if the Executive Order is tested in a court of Law.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
He had to fire her. Her position was untenable.
I agree - basically she could not conduct her office under that statement, with a hostile administration.
I'm not a lawyer. Sally Yates is, and if she says "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful" then I'm inclined to go with her, until it can be proven one way or the other.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Trump and his administration have been excellent so far, transparent, productive, and strong. The next interesting thing to watch will be the Senate conformation of his S C pick and whether that leads to the nuclear option.
I just want to see what this awesome negotiator has up his sleeve for dealing with China after throwing away the trump card in the TPP...
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Trump and his administration have been incredible so far, transparent, productive, and strong.
Perhaps also illegal and unconstitutional. That will only be determined, in this case, if the Executive Order is tested in a court of Law.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
He had to fire her. Her position was untenable.
I agree - basically she could not conduct her office under that statement, with a hostile administration.
I'm not a lawyer. Sally Yates is, and if she says "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful" then I'm inclined to go with her, until it can be proven one way or the other.
Seriously? You think she did this for legal reasons and not political ones??? I have some sand to sell you.
This was 100% political,. an Obama appointment playing politics, nothing more, nothing less. -
Clinton is applauded, Trump vilified for the same words. The left in America are behaving too politically, nonsensical. Well, nothing new there.
@antipodean Meh, TPP was always a goner, another example of transparency and keeping his word, and much better to get it out of the way and focus on producing real change, as he is doing.
China will be difficult indeed, so let's wait and see. Peter Navarro and Carl Icahn are tough nuts, and Trump has already staked out a number of assertive positions.@NTA as bsg just said, you are now heading into another area, the obvious lack of impariality of Obama appointed officials, and judges. It's another part of the swamp to be drained. Furthermore, are you just referring to this EO, or all of them. On the assumption you are being selective, why only this one? And, what parts of it are unconstitutional?
that's my limit in here for today... -
@Wairau said in US Politics:
. It's another part of the swamp to be drained
Before or after Gingrich and the other nepotistic appointment of his children?
As for whether it's Constitutional or not: the lawyer with 30 years' experience, including the last seven in the AG's office, doesn't believe it is. So I'm going with her until it's appropriately tested.
It doesn't actually matter if it's a political move - what possible gain does it have for Obama, Yates, or the Democrats in general? Trump is going to replace anyone they don't like.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
. It's another part of the swamp to be drained
Before or after Gingrich and the other nepotistic appointment of his children?
As for whether it's Constitutional or not: the lawyer with 30 years' experience, including the last seven in the AG's office, doesn't believe it is. So I'm going with her until it's appropriately tested.
It doesn't actually matter if it's a political move - what possible gain does it have for Obama, Yates, or the Democrats in general? Trump is going to replace anyone they don't like.
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
If a Republican appointee did the same thing to a Democrat administration would that also be due to concerns about the law. Like hell it would.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
@antipodean Meh, TPP was always a goner, another example of transparency and keeping his word, and much better to get it out of the way and focus on producing real change, as he is doing.
Yeah he's kept his word, but to what end?
China will be difficult indeed, so let's wait and see. Peter Navarro and Carl Icahn are tough nuts, and Trump has already staked out a number of assertive positions.
Being tough nuts doesn't equate to sensible, workable policy positions. In torpedoing the TPP, Trump lost the best-known case for containing China in the South East and Pacific. He's removed a trading block to deal with China's economic power and in doing so, harmed strategic relationships.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
It isn't really the point.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the others: how does this score any political points for a (very) weak Democrat movement? Trump was going to remove anyone he didn't like, anyway.
Yates has been in the acting AG job 10 days, probably doesn't give a fuck actually, so she's happy to jump.
But tell me, what political gain can these 20 Republicans hope to make by protesting the move?
Forget about the party bullshit for a second: if this is tested in a Court of Law and found to be Unlawful or Unconstitutional, then everything about the EO is fucking wrong from start to finish; firstly not consulting the right people, to then implementing it rapidly, without actual plans of how to handle the many and varied cases covered under protecting US borders.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA I expect it will be tested because Trump isn't about to flip flop on the issue
There are already a few legal actions up and running that will probably result in court cases.
If you attempt to rule through poor legislation, except it to be used as the political weapon with which you are ousted.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
It isn't really the point.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the others: how does this score any political points for a (very) weak Democrat movement? Trump was going to remove anyone he didn't like, anyway.
Yates has been in the acting AG job 10 days, probably doesn't give a fuck actually, so she's happy to jump.
But tell me, what political gain can these 20 Republicans hope to make by protesting the move?
Forget about the party bullshit for a second: if this is tested in a Court of Law and found to be Unlawful or Unconstitutional, then everything about the EO is fucking wrong from start to finish; firstly not consulting the right people, to then implementing it rapidly, without actual plans of how to handle the many and varied cases covered under protecting US borders.
Are you serious? Now why would an Obama appointee want to try and make Trump look bad? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
There are many Republicans who are strong open-border advocates (not to mention Trump opponents) so it is absolutely no surprise whatsoever that some are protesting.
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
I think its going to be very important - the content of the order can be debated under law, and so can many aspects of its implementation.
It'll be a drawn-out process for the top legal minds in the Supreme Court at a constitutional level, but a lot of the cases I'm reading about pertain to individuals, and even institutions and companies whose ability to move/trade/employ etc are limited by what is (potentially) illegal.
Expedia and Amazon, based in Washington State, are backing the state AG over this.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
I think its going to be very important - the content of the order can be debated under law, and so can many aspects of its implementation.
It'll be a drawn-out process for the top legal minds in the Supreme Court at a constitutional level, but a lot of the cases I'm reading about pertain to individuals, and even institutions and companies whose ability to move/trade/employ etc are limited by what is (potentially) illegal.
Expedia and Amazon, based in Washington State, are backing the state AG over this.
How can it be debated under law when one side is told not to argue?
-
@NTA ah, ok, one more. Since you didn't reply properly.
-
What relevance does Gingrich have now? Can't you see how off topic and selective it is, how can I believe anything you write when you spout such nonsense?
-
So, you blindly follow Loretta Lynch and all her statements. And Eric Holder? Or just this one because it's the latest topic to whinge about? Your post is one of the most laughable I have read, Shady Gollum would be jealous.
There is a term for liberals who acquiesce so easily: useful idiots.
Notice: I never said you were either....but maybe.... -
I can see you have no idea about whether the EO is constitutional or not. But, you never answered my other questions either:
.....the obvious lack of impartiality of Obama appointed officials, and judges. It's another part of the swamp to be drained. Furthermore, are you just referring to this EO, or all of them. On the assumption you are being selective, why only this one?
I remembered a while ago you had a vituperative response to my questions on unvetted muslim immigration from war zones. I ignored it at the time as toooo busy and couldn't give a toss. But now you are focusing on this EO. Hmmm...
What I like is Trump's move to make a viable safe zone. I have been wanting that for years. -
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Furthermore, are you just referring to this EO, or all of them. On the assumption you are being selective, why only this one?
Here's how I differentiate them, based on these examples:
- ACA repeal is going to need a lot of work, mainly to figure out how to build a better, cheaper one.
- Pipeline construction as another example isn't really "start breaking ground", more that it allows those companies interested in building the pipeline to restart/continue the application process.
- Wall needs a lot of investigation into the logistics and project costs of actually doing it; they're not just running out and putting slabs of prefab into place today.
This one is different, in that it has more immediate effect. There are existing procedures, but suddenly they're adding special treatment to a bunch of countries. This can be done relatively swiftly, perhaps before the full ramifications, both legal and political, can be assessed.
The implementation is clumsy, but the policy itself needs to be questioned when there is little real justification for those countries, and not others, being included. Why isn't Pakistan on the list? And Afghanistan?
They probably have their own markers, I suppose. But its a genuine shame that people like Iraqi interpreters who helped the US military effort are getting stiffed, despite being targets of assassination in their homeland.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
They probably have their own markers, I suppose. But its a genuine shame that people like Iraqi interpreters who helped the US military effort are getting stiffed, despite being targets of assassination in their homeland.
They wont get stiffed. None of them have been refused entry, they just had to jump through some extra hoops.. Big deal
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
They wont get stiffed. None of them have been refused entry, they just had to jump through some extra hoops.. Big deal
If, at the end of the 90 day period, things like the SIV are allowed to continue, then sure.
In the meantime, they're not allowed in. No extra hoops applicable under the word "ban".
I'm less than convinced by the language around the implementation, as it relates to a possible end to the ban in its current form, or modification to something better or worse.
US Politics