The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[brandymac27]

This!

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Well, ****.

[brandymac27]

From the cops twitter account:

 

 

[brandymac27]

 

 

 

 

 

That mofo should rot in hell.

[brandymac27]

 

[brandymac27]

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

11 hours ago, nonniey said:

Just want to point out that Franken is the best (admittedly maybe only?) recent example where a study showed he most likely won (against Norm Coleman) due to fraudulent voting. And BTW he is actually one of the Democratic Senators I fully respect but totally disagree with  (he opposed Iraq yet still did USO tours there and admired and respected the troops).

I remember that recount vividly. 

Do you think that just because he was against a war, he didn't want to support the folks who VOLUNTEERED to do W's bidding?  They could've deserted, or worse.

 

Of course he "admired and respected the troops".  They're his defense as well as yours & mine.  I served during peace time, but still in the Cold War.  I cannot imagine not having my country's respect if we had encountered a more difficult mission at the time.

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by visionary

[LD0506]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by visionary

[FanboyOf91]

 

I congratulate the House GOP on their unconditional surrender to Bannon. Losing control of your staff within the first two weeks of a new administration takes quite a lack of backbone.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Popeman38]

So I have a question, and it's a serious question.  Remove feeling from the equation when reading, because I am asking just to understand and not defending Trump's EO (if you have read this thread, you know where I stand on this issue).  I know the (acting) AG is supposed to provide legal advice to WH/POTUS on pending legislation.  But I though the AG was bound to defend legislation in court, regardless of personal feelings or political leaning.  So when AG Yates issued a memo to DoJ not to defend the EO, she was not fulfilling her obligations as acting AG, correct?  Federal judges issued stays on specific parts of the EO, not EO in it's entirety, so the AG should have been enforcing all parts of the EO not covered by the stay, correct? That would be her obligation, until either a federal judge, appellate judge, or SCOTUS issued final ruling?

 

Yates made it clear it wasn't the Constitutionality of the EO she was objecting to:

Quote

Yates does not claim that she cannot defend the executive order because it is unconstitutional or because the Justice Department would be unable to offer good-faith arguments in defense of its legality. To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not “wise or just.” This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis.

 

Judge Donnelly:

Quote

..enjoined and restrained from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States .

 

DoJ:

Quote

The Justice Department confirmed its Office of Legal Counsel had done a review of the order to determine whether it was "on its face, lawful, and properly drafted."

 

In my reading of the situation, the Yates stepped outside of any set precedent for an AG defying an EO. For that, she was rightfully fired (regardless of your personal feelings on the EO). The parts not stayed by a federal judge were lawful, and the AG failed to enforce them.

 

Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Law):

Quote

Goldsmith wrote: "she wrote a letter that appears to depart sharply from the usual criteria that an Attorney General would apply in deciding whether to defend an EO in court. As such, the letter seems like an act of insubordination that invites the President to fire her. Which he did."

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Popeman38

[LD0506]

Here's my take, you're right, she got fired for her actions, she knew she'd get fired for it and probably expected to be gone soon anyway, and knowing that, because she's no dummy if she's AAG, she pulled the trigger anyway and took the consequences. THAT'S the part I like, not the nuances of it but she took a hit knowing it was coming. The same way the guy that punched Spencer would get more regard from me if he'd done it and then waited for a cop, owned it.

[PeterMP]

25 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

So I have a question, and it's a serious question.  Remove feeling from the equation when reading, because I am asking just to understand and not defending Trump's EO (if you have read this thread, you know where I stand on this issue).  I know the (acting) AG is supposed to provide legal advice to WH/POTUS on pending legislation.  But I though the AG was bound to defend legislation in court, regardless of personal feelings or political leaning.  So when AG Yates issued a memo to DoJ not to defend the EO, she was not fulfilling her obligations as acting AG, correct?  Federal judges issued stays on specific parts of the EO, not EO in it's entirety, so the AG should have been enforcing all parts of the EO not covered by the stay, correct? That would be her obligation, until either a federal judge, appellate judge, or SCOTUS issued final ruling?

 

She took a normal oath of office and that includes defending and upholding the Constitution.  If she felt like the EO and its defense was unconstitutional, then she should have not obeyed it and refused to defend it.

 

Just like military personal have the right (and even duty) to disobey illegal orders, she had the right (and even duty) to not support something she feels is illegal.

 

Realistically, the courts can only decide if the EO is unlawful.  Same thing with a (military) order (and you will see military people go to court and try and claim the order was unlawful be found wrong and get punished).

Edited January 31, 2017 by PeterMP

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

She took a normal oath of office and that includes defending and upholding the Constitution.  If she felt like the EO and its defense was unconstitutional, then she should have not obeyed it and refused to defend it.

 

Just like military personal have the right (and even duty) to disobey illegal orders, she had the right (and even duty) to not support something she feels is illegal.

But she very clearly stated she wasn't objecting on it's Constitutionality. That was my whole point. Even the (multiple) federal judges couldn't find enough fault to stay the EO in it's entirety. She objected because she didn't think it was “wise or just.”

12 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Here's my take, you're right, she got fired for her actions, she knew she'd get fired for it and probably expected to be gone soon anyway, and knowing that, because she's no dummy if she's AAG, she pulled the trigger anyway and took the consequences. THAT'S the part I like, not the nuances of it but she took a hit knowing it was coming. The same way the guy that punched Spencer would get more regard from me if he'd done it and then waited for a cop, owned it.

So your official stance on government operations is anarchy? If you don't like it, don't do it, announce you won't do it, and wait to get **** canned?

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

But she very clearly stated she wasn't objecting on it's Constitutionality. That was my whole point. Even the (multiple) federal judges couldn't find enough fault to stay the EO in it's entirety. She objected because she didn't think it was “wise or just.”

 

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000159-f1c4-de56-a1d9-f5c7068b0000

 

"At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful."

 

She's not convinced it is lawful = unlawful order.

 

She is being asked to defend the whole thing though.  Not just parts of it (she's actually being asked to defend the worse parts of it because that's what is being challenged in court.)

Edited January 31, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

It came off to me as her playing politics with her position......which we have too much of from both sides and has no place in the Justice dept.

Resign and state why would have been the better course.

 

Her job is to defend it unless it is illegal.

 

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

She's not convinced it is lawful = unlawful order.

 

 

That is not valid

She is either convinced it is illegal or it is her job to defend it.....doubts have no bearing

[Popeman38]

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000159-f1c4-de56-a1d9-f5c7068b0000

 

"At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful."

 

She's not convinced it is lawful = unlawful order.

 

She is being asked to defend the whole thing though.  Not just parts of it (she's actually being asked to defend the worse parts of it because that's what is being challenged in court.)

https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

Edited January 31, 2017 by Popeman38

[Kilmer17]

Is that an acceptable reason to not do you job?  Because you arent convinced it's legal?  That's a pretty low bar.  Pretty much anyone anywhere can claim that.

 

I think she was looking to get canned.  (for good reason)

 

 

[Burgold]

37 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

But she very clearly stated she wasn't objecting on it's Constitutionality.

I disagree. In lawyer speak I think she blatantly called it unconstitutional. She said she wasn't sure it was "lawful" and refused to order her subordinates to fill the EO... what does that say?

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, twa said:

That is not valid

She is either convinced it is illegal or it is her job to defend it.....doubts have no bearing

 

I think you and @Popeman38 are leaving out a key detail:

Presumably the AG would have been part of drafting the order, and thus evaluated the constitutionality of it then, and (again, presumably) had the order altered so that it accomplished the desired goals of the administration while also being legal (in the eyes of the AG.)

 

After which, their obligation is to defend the order they helped draft and approve the legality of.

 

Instead, the administration blindsided the AG with the order and to ask her to then defend something she had no ability to review and critique prior seems silly especially when there's so many questions about the constitutionality of it re: religious test (to which there is much debate.)

 

 

Not to take away from playing political games, as has been pointed out she knew she was likely out. That doesn't detract from her actions or thoughts on the issue, and as Jumbo has pointed out she has a long history of being recognized for her work in a way that hardly suggests she's just another political pawn in the system...

[nonniey]

55 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

She took a normal oath of office and that includes defending and upholding the Constitution.  If she felt like the EO and its defense was unconstitutional, then she should have not obeyed it and refused to defend it.

 

Just like military personal have the right (and even duty) to disobey illegal orders, she had the right (and even duty) to not support something she feels is illegal.

 

Realistically, the courts can only decide if the EO is unlawful.  Same thing with a (military) order (and you will see military people go to court and try and claim the order was unlawful be found wrong and get punished).

Disregard already addressed.

Edited January 31, 2017 by nonniey

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I think you and @Popeman38 are leaving out a key detail:

Presumably the AG would have been part of drafting the order, and thus evaluated the constitutionality of it then, and (again, presumably) had the order altered so that it accomplished the desired goals of the administration while also being legal (in the eyes of the AG.)

 

After which, their obligation is to defend the order they helped draft and approve the legality of.

 

Instead, the administration blindsided the AG with the order and to ask her to then defend something she had no ability to review and critique prior seems silly especially when there's so many questions about the constitutionality of it re: religious test (to which there is much debate.)

 

Not to take away from playing political games, as has been pointed out she knew she was likely out. That doesn't detract from her actions or thoughts on the issue, and as Jumbo has pointed out she has a long history of being recognized for her work in a way that hardly suggests she's just another political pawn in the system...

Read the link I posted to a Harvard Law professor's opinion on her reasoning. He says what I am trying to say in much more eloquent terms (him being a lawyer and all).