Trump's Immigration Ban
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2017, 11:27 PM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
Do you all suppose the honeymoon period of this presidency is over? Consider

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dancefortwo's post
30-01-2017, 11:28 PM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:20 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 09:58 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is part of the executive branch and as the head of that branch he does have that authority.

Is this frightening or what? I can't believe that in an (alleged) democracy, one individual can hold all that power. In Australia, our Prime Minister (equivalent status to Drumpf) cannot make any decision without the approval of the parliament. A bill has to be tabled—which is sometimes difficult in itself—and then voted on before any "executive"-type decision can be legislated. Sometimes this can take 12 months or more in the worst cases.

Currently, the most nominally powerful person in Australia is our Governor General—the Queen's representative here—which is a throwback to the colonial days of the British Empire. And which is the reason that when Betty pops her clogs, Australia will become a republic, and give the British fucking Royals the arse.

Anyway... Drumpf is a law unto himself apparently? Is there any way he can be reined in? What would it take to reject his decisions outright?

You do not have an Executive head as it is the Queen. Under a non-monarchy Democracy the President is in charge of the Executive branch and thus all agencies heads are appointed by the President. Your Prime Minister is the equivalent of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
30-01-2017, 11:35 PM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
Quote:Nixon fired two attorney generals because they wouldn't fire his special prosecutor.

Watching CNN I've already heard several references to this being almost as bad as the Saturday Night Massacre. But what is this? Day 10 or 11 of this administration. This isn't like anything we've ever seen before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2017, 11:37 PM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:20 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 09:58 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is part of the executive branch and as the head of that branch he does have that authority.

Is this frightening or what? I can't believe that in an (alleged) democracy, one individual can hold all that power. In Australia, our Prime Minister (equivalent status to Drumpf) cannot make any decision without the approval of the parliament. A bill has to be tabled—which is sometimes difficult in itself—and then voted on before any "executive"-type decision can be legislated. Sometimes this can take 12 months or more in the worst cases.

Currently, the most nominally powerful person in Australia is our Governor General—the Queen's representative here—which is a throwback to the colonial days of the British Empire. And which is the reason that when Betty pops her clogs, Australia will become a republic, and give the British fucking Royals the arse.

Anyway... Drumpf is a law unto himself apparently? Is there any way he can be reined in? What would it take to reject his decisions outright?

It's terrifying actually. Congress can muzzle him, so they're silence means approval. McCain did speak out against him but he's alone or standing with democrats on this. It's looking like he's going to have his way of cabinet picks too.

But if this goes on long enough and midterm elections are looming, it's possible they'll flip on him -- I just hope their constituents remember how long it took them when they do go to the polls to vote. The only thing shorter than the average American's attention span, is their ability to rembember the bullshit that went on when they vote. They'll forget that their congressman or senator didn't act or acted too slowly.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
30-01-2017, 11:54 PM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:26 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Nixon fired two attorney generals because they wouldn't fire his special prosecutor.

attorneys general Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-01-2017, 11:58 PM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:35 PM)ImFred Wrote:  
Quote:Nixon fired two attorney generals because they wouldn't fire his special prosecutor.

Watching CNN I've already heard several references to this being almost as bad as the Saturday Night Massacre. But what is this? Day 10 or 11 of this administration. This isn't like anything we've ever seen before.

Well, there's your problem. Don't watch 24/7 cable news, and there will be much less unnecessary drama in your life.

The controversy is way overblown. Yates was out the door as soon as Sessions is confirmed. She knew it, Trump knew it, everyone knew it. This was a short-lived protest on Yate's part, and nothing more. Pretty much any career attorney of sufficient level within the DOJ can function as an acting AG until a permanent one can be appointed. This is in legislative code, and Trump is only following what Congress has authorized the president to do when an AG position is vacated and the Senate has yet to approve a nominee. As part of the executive branch, the DOJ is expected to serve at the discretion of the President, and no president is obligated to keep an AG--acting or otherwise--that is insubordinate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 12:00 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 11:26 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Nixon fired two attorney generals because they wouldn't fire his special prosecutor.

attorneys general Yes

Ready, Aim, Litigate!

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 12:04 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
As I understand it, the Republicans hold 52% of the Senate seats, and 55% of the House of Reps.

My question is—because of this small majority—do any of the Republicans ever and/or often cross the floor and vote with the Democrats to defeat proposed legislation? Why is Drumpf so confident that Congress will support him if this is in fact the case?

I'm also not sure of the voting process in the Congress. If 5 Republicans cross the floor, it means that the vote goes to the Democrat side in the Senate does it not? Assuming that 48 Republicans don't cross the floor (unlikely?) in the House of Reps., how does this affect Congress' yea or nay? Don't both houses have to agree to carry legislation?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 12:04 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:35 PM)ImFred Wrote:  
Quote:Nixon fired two attorney generals because they wouldn't fire his special prosecutor.

Watching CNN I've already heard several references to this being almost as bad as the Saturday Night Massacre. But what is this? Day 10 or 11 of this administration. This isn't like anything we've ever seen before.

It's still a little different, but not at all encouraging. First the crap with Mexico and now this. It's not looking too good for ppp (petulant puppet president).

What we need are republicans to start standing with some democrats against him...if the shit show continues it might be quick or might take a year, if they figure out a way to muzzle him -- but they can only do so much. He'll have to be neutered by congress and senate or impeached -- which is dodgy.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 12:17 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 12:04 AM)SYZ Wrote:  As I understand it, the Republicans hold 52% of the Senate seats, and 55% of the House of Reps.

My question is—because of this small majority—do any of the Republicans ever and/or often cross the floor and vote with the Democrats to defeat proposed legislation? Why is Drumpf so confident that Congress will support him if this is in fact the case?

I'm also not sure of the voting process in the Congress. If 5 Republicans cross the floor, it means that the vote goes to the Democrat side in the Senate does it not? Assuming that 48 Republicans don't cross the floor (unlikely?) in the House of Reps., how does this affect Congress' yea or nay? Don't both houses have to agree to carry legislation?

It's convoluted.

Basically a bill is proposed by either house. Then it goes to the other side (changes are usually made) then it returns to the original house....it can continue to go back and forth or die...or be ratified.

A usually simple majority is needed for ratifying a bill, then it goes to potus to be signed. If potus refuses then it can still be passed with 2/3 majority of both houses.

So yes, unless republicans jump ship and decide to vote with democrats and provided no dems jump their own ship, a bill or appotment will fail.

But it looks as though the only one brave enough might be Senator McCain...I dunno tho if he alone would try to stop all things PPP.

I guess what I'm saying that it shouldn't be a Democrat verses Republican thing. Some bills are passed with support of both parties.

But yes the numbers are what you basically describe.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: