This just in..

[KierenHby 899]

Acting AG says Trump travel ban not legal, sparks showdown with White House

http://us.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html

 

(Cut and pasted from cnn.com).

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

15 minutes ago, KierenHby said:

Acting AG says Trump travel ban not legal, sparks showdown with White House

http://us.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html

 

(Cut and pasted from cnn.com).

Imagine that. An Obama appointee attacking something Trump did . This will be here Swan song

[yuna628 9,744]

Now will Trump hold in his temper or are we going to approach a 1973 on a Saturday situation?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

YOU'RE FIRED. LOL

 

I love this guy. Zero tolerance for stupidity 

[smilesammich 10,727]

pretty sure she saw that coming, nb. 

[jg121783 3,921]

There is a law that allows the president to bar any group of aliens from entering the US for national security reasons for as long as they decide it is needed. Trump is following the law. Obama used the same law. As did Carter. The acting AG needs to quit being a whining snowflake and follow the law.

[KierenHby 899]

A blanket ban, I think, is not the way to go 'to bar aliens from entering the US'. 

No matter what anyone calls this, this of course is a muslim ban. Too bad trump insisted, during the campaign, that one is needed. 

[yuna628 9,744]

Just now, jg121783 said:

There is a law that allows the president to bar any group of aliens from entering the US for national security reasons for as long as they decide it is needed. Trump is following the law. Obama used the same law. As did Carter. The acting AG needs to quit being a whining snowflake and follow the law.

In her moral feeling and judgment of that law, she felt that it was against the Constitution. That was her position. Would you do something that you in all your professional opinion and legal experience, sincerely held beliefs, principles, and moral conscience was against the law? I don't think many of you would. You can disagree with her position all you like, but she had enough guts to say no. And in doing so, she knew the likely consequences. That's it really. We will ultimately see who will win in court.

[jg121783 3,921]

If it was a Muslim ban there are more countries that would be included. The ban targets countries where anti US terrorist groups exist and we don't have a system of vetting in place.

[jg121783 3,921]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

In her moral feeling and judgment of that law, she felt that it was against the Constitution. That was her position. Would you do something that you in all your professional opinion and legal experience, sincerely held beliefs, principles, and moral conscience was against the law? I don't think many of you would. You can disagree with her position all you like, but she had enough guts to say no. And in doing so, she knew the likely consequences. That's it really. We will ultimately see who will win in court.

There was no claim about the law being unconstitutional when Obama used it was there?

[yuna628 9,744]

Just now, jg121783 said:

There was no claim about the law being unconstitutional when Obama used it was there?

It was not the same thing. I know there are claims it was the same thing, but it was not. The bar was placed on the VWP. That meant individuals who could come into our country without any vetting pretty much, but it didn't prevent them from trying for other visas so that they could be vetted. They had options to enter the country. LPRs were not affected either, or were persons who had already stood in line like the rest of us and were coming here legally. You can argue how much vetting really goes on, sure. But that's the facts of what Obama did. I would also argue he did work with all agencies to institute it in a manner that while did affect people (a lot of UK people in fact that love their MENA holidays!), went a heck of a lot more smoothly, and left all of our agencies better prepared to cope. I am not a great fan of EOs. I don't think you are either exactly are you? Things tend to become problematic when you run the government by fiat.

[KierenHby 899]

17 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

If it was a Muslim ban there are more countries that would be included. The ban targets countries where anti US terrorist groups exist and we don't have a system of vetting in place.

Iraq? 

We practically ran (run?) that country. 

 

Shame for the $3 Trillion in treasure and blood we spent there. Only to be put on a 7-country ban? 

[OriZ 3,157]

This law is legal. I am personally not a fan and my opinions are known in the other thread, however you cannot, to my understanding of the law, say that it is illegal, as per section 1182(f). 

 

She's of course allowed to have the same feelings we have about it and not like it but her job is to nevertheless do her job objectively and follow the law. She didn't do that and she got fired and that's all there is to it. That, and the fact I believe she did it because she wanted to get fired.

[cdneh 3,112]

He fired her because she doesn't seem to understand that she doesn't get to choose what parts of the law are enforced, and what parts are not. That administration is gone. Out the door. She had one job, enforce the law.

 

If she's not acting in accordance with the law, she's out. Full stop. She's lucky she isn't facing charges for willful non compliance.

 

And for those of you comparing this to Nixon, he ordered AG Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. The AG refused, and resigned. Nixon then ordered the Deputy AG to fire Cox, who ALSO refused and resigned. No one was fired. Apples and oranges.

 

The democrats brought this on themselves. If they hadn't been dragging the chain and confirmed Sessions as AG, this would not have happened. This is no Saturday Night Massacre.

[yuna628 9,744]

10 minutes ago, OriZ said:

This law is legal. I am personally not a fan and my opinions are known in the other thread, however you cannot, to my understanding of the law, say that it is illegal, as per section 1182(f). 

 

She's of course allowed to have the same feelings we have about it and not like it but her job is to nevertheless do her job objectively and follow the law. She didn't do that and she got fired and that's all there is to it. That, and the fact I believe she did it because she wanted to get fired.

There are many Constitutional lawyers examining this issue. Some feel it is totally illegal. But others, suspect that merely parts of it are illegal, on several fronts, quite possibly because of the very poor language utilized in it's crafting. It's my belief that's very likely where we could end up, especially where it relates to LPRs, and there are also several lawsuits filed on behalf of those who were coerced by the CBP to sign away their rights yesterday. We always argue that SCOTUS is very important to rule one way or another, but to a large degree it often comes down to the little things, and I believe they will find the administration in the wrong for some of the order. But by that time the damage and insult has already been done, hasn't it. Rather inartful way to run the government. There's usually a reason why they get multiple qualified individuals to vet such language before signing it. There is by all accounts a lot going on behind the scenes on all fronts, and there are a plethora of disturbing leaks in exactly how this order was crafted. I believe the head of the RNC will be resigning shortly and there are rumblings of something larger going on.

 

The head of the USCIS was just also fired.

Edited January 31, 2017 by yuna628