“Protection of the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States"

[TBoneTX 46,823]

6 hours ago, yuna628 said:

The acting USAG has revolted and refused to allow the DoJ to defend the order.

And she paid with her job.

[cyclone27 710]

5 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

And she paid with her job.

More a PR stunt she was out the door as a political appointee once AG Sessions takes the post. 

[Dashinka 25,318]

I have a feeling the left will generally forget all about this today/tonight after Trump announces his pick for SCOTUS.  I expect there will be a huge cry of outrage once this person is revealed and the discussion will turn in that direction as far as the left wing press and congressional leaders are concerned.

[smilesammich 10,727]

33 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I have a feeling the left will generally forget all about this today/tonight after Trump announces his pick for SCOTUS.  I expect there will be a huge cry of outrage once this person is revealed and the discussion will turn in that direction as far as the left wing press and congressional leaders are concerned.

from the get go the move by yates was symbolic. she stayed on to serve as ag until sessions (shudder) is confirmed. trump and bannon jumped right in week one head first to tag team 'the system' to tear it all down and yates couldn't just fall in line. her allegiance is to the law, not king ding a ling. sessions should be weary of his responsibility to law over bannon/trump too but i'm sure he won't - it's the whole reason he was picked. don't expect the left to forget there are checks and balances for a reason, as bannon/trump are proving their necessity to us in real time..

[Dashinka 25,318]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

from the get go the move by yates was symbolic. she stayed on to serve as ag until sessions (shudder) is confirmed. trump and bannon jumped right in week one head first to tag team 'the system' to tear it all down and yates couldn't just fall in line. her allegiance is to the law, not king ding a ling. sessions should be weary of his responsibility to law over bannon/trump too but i'm sure he won't - it's the whole reason he was picked. don't expect the left to forget there are checks and balances for a reason, as bannon/trump are proving their necessity to us in real time..

Have the legal questions been answered yet?  It is my understanding that there are cases pending, but apart from the emergency stay which did not address the legality of the EO, nothing has as of yet been decided.  So claiming her allegiance is to the law is not correct unless she is clairvoyant regarding the outcomes of the pending cases.  It seems to me that her allegiance is more to the leftist movement, and I agree, it was purely symbolic.

 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Have the legal questions been answered yet?  It is my understanding that there are cases pending, but apart from the emergency stay which did not address the legality of the EO, nothing has as of yet been decided.  So claiming her allegiance is to the law is not correct unless she is clairvoyant regarding the outcomes of the pending cases.  It seems to me that her allegiance is more to the leftist movement, and I agree, it was purely symbolic.

 

She is free to interpret the law, and likely based on her interpretation it isn't legal and she doesn't want to support it. As a lawyer she can make that choice. I'm sure she knew the consequences (and honestly she knew she was out very soon anyway so she might as well stick to her convinctions).

 

You can say it is her "left leaning" but that is no different then saying the new temporary appointee isn't respecting the law he is just a crony for the right as Sessions will be. You can politicise all of it and you're probably right. The left and right tend to have differences with interpretation of the law all the time, and it tends to be related to their ideological differences. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

15 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Have the legal questions been answered yet?  It is my understanding that there are cases pending, but apart from the emergency stay which did not address the legality of the EO, nothing has as of yet been decided.  So claiming her allegiance is to the law is not correct unless she is clairvoyant regarding the outcomes of the pending cases.  It seems to me that her allegiance is more to the leftist movement, and I agree, it was purely symbolic.

 

what bcking said. 

and concerning the part in bold, i wonder if you understand what her job entails and the level of law expertise she wields? she's not just a joe blow leaning left because the eo made her feel icky.

[yuna628 9,812]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

And she paid with her job.

During her interview for her 'job', Sen. Sessions asked her if she would be willing to tell a President 'No'. Her potential job, he said wasn't to the defend the President carte blanche. She was to uphold the law for all people, and say no if necessary. Hope those words don't come back to bite him in the backside.

[bcking 3,157]

16 hours ago, OriZ said:

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) . . .

This provision is the key to the power Mr. Trump claims. It says: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The provision “gives the president capacious authority to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens,” Professor Spiro said. “No court has ever reversed a presidential order under it.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating-trump-immigration-refugee-order.html

 

We can certainly object to some elements of it and in fact in this thread we have....but what we can't do is call it illegal because it is legal.

 

I wasn't necessarily talking about the situation we are in now, just like you I was speaking more generally. I think the way he wrote the executive order was legal (he bypassed the issues he would have if he called for just a ban of muslims), though I do think strongly that it violates the principles our country was founded on. Specifically with respect to refugees. Unfortunately "principles" aren't necessarily laws.

[Inikamoze 86]

Principles that allowed his great great granddaddy to enter the country on.

whats a couple of generations between friends eh...

Does he possess a British passport as his mummy was a Scot....  will help to bypass the furore over in the U.K. About not letting him come over. He's desperate for Queen Lizzie to bestow the full regalia of a State visit. An invite done in record time by the way!

took George W 900+ days and Obama 700+ days to get an invite. Taken Trump 168 hours approx to be afforded the same honour.

i think the desperation is clearly demonstrated by the UK government too by the looks of it. Pathetic attempt to appease the egomaniac and a decision to be ashamed of.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:10 AM, Bill & Katya said:

I have a feeling the left will generally forget all about this today/tonight after Trump announces his pick for SCOTUS.  I expect there will be a huge cry of outrage once this person is revealed and the discussion will turn in that direction as far as the left wing press and congressional leaders are concerned.

Oddly off on predicting the future here. Trump's EO remains restrained, and his SCOTUS pick seems fine.