Trump's Immigration Ban
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2017, 09:07 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(30-01-2017 11:20 PM)SYZ Wrote:  What would it take to reject his decisions outright?

Republican lawmakers with back bones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr. Boston's post
31-01-2017, 09:10 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 08:54 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 11:58 PM)BryanS Wrote:  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.

The executive order wasn't thought out in the least. It was an impulsive move from Trump and it had bad consequences for people who got stuck at airports - not to mention for others with travel plans who had no warning and have to switch gears - because it wasn't thought out. Due to the lack of proper planning, the details weren't even clear and this was part of why Yates refused to comply with it. This man is leading our country in a willy nilly fashion and when Yates decided it wasn't acceptable, Trump reacted with the knee-jerk firing. I find it completely amazing that you think this is "overblown".

I was referring to the controversy over dismissing Yates being overblown, not that EO itself. Your other points are true on the merits of the EO. It was not well executed or planned for. It could have been done in a way that was less controversial--in particular, it should never have applied to green card holders. Even among conservative circles, he is getting criticism over those aspects of the order.

Yates was dismissed not for choosing to "not enforce the EO". She was dismissed for refusing to respond to legal challenges to the order AT ALL. The EO was not entirely indefensible--only its application to green card holders is not legally defensible ( though there is legal precedent for additional scrutiny applied to green card holders who leave the country and want re-entry). Even the Trump admin has had to back away from banning green card holders from entry.

The justice department had a legal review of the order and determined it was legally defensible, but she chose to ignore those legal opinions entirely. Yates was not being asked to defend the indefensible--she chose to refuse doing her job which is to represent the federal government in court. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. If she won't resign, she deserved to be fired. She was acting overtly in a political way, knowing she was only going to be in her position for just a few more days until Sessions is approved. Such a person should not be allowed to continue in their position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 09:12 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2017 09:18 AM by Grasshopper.)
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 12:17 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(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.

Actually, the numbers are off. Remember that if someone "crosses over", it simultaneously adds one to the other side and subtracts one from his/her own side. So you don't need "one more than the difference" to cross over -- all you need is "one more than half the difference". So 3 would be enough in the Senate, and 25 would be enough in the House.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
31-01-2017, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2017 09:54 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 09:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  The justice department had a legal review of the order and determined it was legally defensible, ...

Can you give me a source for that? I was under the impression the EO skipped almost all of the normal checks. Mattis and Kelly indicated that Defense and DHS were caught unaware. CBP clearly weren't consulted or briefed as evidenced by the chaos at the airports. Who at Justice reviewed the EO?

Yates knew she was gonna get fired from acting AG for it but what did she care? As a career civil servant she gets to make her political point and go back to a nice cushy job in DOJ without the responsibilities of the AG until someone in the private sector pays her 10x as much for being a hero. No brainer. No courage required.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
31-01-2017, 09:36 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 09:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  I was referring to the controversy over dismissing Yates being overblown, not that EO itself.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the firing has a context and it shouldn't be viewed in isolation from that context.

(31-01-2017 09:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Your other points are true on the merits of the EO. It was not well executed or planned for. It could have been done in a way that was less controversial--in particular, it should never have applied to green card holders. Even among conservative circles, he is getting criticism over those aspects of the order.
So, if you believe the other points are true, then you recognize the context I'm referring to. That same context is what concerned Yates and caused her to refuse to defend against the legal challenges.

(31-01-2017 09:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Yates was dismissed not for choosing to "not enforce the EO". She was dismissed for refusing to respond to legal challenges to the order AT ALL.
Actually, neither of those is correct. She was fired for refusing to defend against the legal challenges.

(31-01-2017 09:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  The EO was not entirely indefensible--only its application to green card holders is not legally defensible ( though there is legal precedent for additional scrutiny applied to green card holders who leave the country and want re-entry). Even the Trump admin has had to back away from banning green card holders from entry.
Partially indefensible is indefensible enough to take a stand against it.

(31-01-2017 09:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  The justice department had a legal review of the order and determined it was legally defensible, but she chose to ignore those legal opinions entirely. Yates was not being asked to defend the indefensible--she chose to refuse doing her job which is to represent the federal government in court. If she cannot do her job, she should resign. If she won't resign, she deserved to be fired. She was acting overtly in a political way, knowing she was only going to be in her position for just a few more days until Sessions is approved. Such a person should not be allowed to continue in their position.
She being asked to defend something which wasn't even clearly defined. That is indefensible. Furthermore, it apparently violated her conscience (which it certainly should have) and she has a right to stand up and say so. Where I find fault most with Trump in this firing is he didn't care about that aspect - something that is very fundamental to what this country is supposed to stand for; the freedom to speak one's mind - he just simply fired her without further discussion. Put it together with all the other freedoms Trump has been limiting since he took office and it certainly is not overblown.

Trump doesn't represent us, the American people. He doesn't understand or at least doesn't care about the very founding principles of this country. He cares about Trump and anything that benefits him. Period. This is what completely amazes me that too many people STILL don't get. Dodgy

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
31-01-2017, 10:14 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(30-01-2017 04:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 03:48 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  However, at least one of them seemed to be a pretty decent human being, and that was Jimmy Carter. And he was undeniably a bad president.

Carter spoke and acted the way I think someone who claims to be Christian should. At least that's what they preach. And like Jesus, he is the perfect example for why following Jesus too closely might not be such a good idea, you're gonna get fucking crucified.

You're correct, Girly. The only other person who I ever considered to be an actual Christian was Mr. Rogers of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. He wouldn't have made a good president either.

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
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
31-01-2017, 10:38 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 09:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-01-2017 09:10 AM)BryanS Wrote:  The justice department had a legal review of the order and determined it was legally defensible, ...

Can you give me a source for that? I was under the impression the EO skipped almost all of the normal checks. Mattis and Kelly indicated that Defense and DHS were caught unaware. CBP clearly weren't consulted or briefed as evidenced by the chaos at the airports. Who at Justice reviewed the EO?

Yates knew she was gonna get fired from acting AG for it but what did she care? As a career civil servant she gets to make her political point and go back to a nice cushy job in DOJ without the responsibilities of the AG until someone in the private sector pays her 10x as much for being a hero. No brainer. No courage required.


According to NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/...tion-order

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."

But the objections Yates raised in her letter pointed out that the OLC review didn't consider statements "made by an administration or its surrogates...that may bear on the order's purpose."

So Yates was intuiting a purpose of the order outside the legal text of the order itself in judging whether or not to do her job. She made no attempt to legally justifying her position. This was pure politics at its worst from a civil servant. I think it is worth noticing that the person Trump placed in charge in her stead was an Obama appointed, Eric Holder recommended lawyer. He is following through on carrying out his duties to represent the Federal government position in legal challenges. Either he is a spineless bureaucrat that Holder and Obama should have never entrusted with his job, or there is genuine disagreement over whether Yates's actions were proper.

Frankly, if politics were not involved, Yates would be held to a legal ethical standard which might result in her disbarment due to her behavior. Lawyers have an ethical duty to represent their client even if they personally disagree with the position they are asked to take, to give legal justifications for refusing to take a client's position, and are obligated to resign or withdraw if their disagreement is insurmountable. Yates made a moral, not legal, determination. My guess is that she "knows" that this is a "Muslim ban", which it most certainly is not--it is a ban from 7 countries that prior administrations have determined are terrorist risks. She doesn't explicitly state this position because it would expose her political motivations, but one can read between the lines on her ability to determine the "purpose" (which she never identifies) of this EO. A smart lawyer knows what to leave out in order to avoid personal liability or disbarment--being unclear about one's position is what a lawyer does when they have something to hide.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 10:59 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 10:38 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(31-01-2017 09:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Can you give me a source for that?

According to NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/...tion-order

I found this - How Many Lawyers Actually Looked At Trump’s Executive Order Before It Was Signed?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 11:25 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(31-01-2017 10:14 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 04:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Carter spoke and acted the way I think someone who claims to be Christian should. At least that's what they preach. And like Jesus, he is the perfect example for why following Jesus too closely might not be such a good idea, you're gonna get fucking crucified.

You're correct, Girly. The only other person who I ever considered to be an actual Christian was Mr. Rogers of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. He wouldn't have made a good president either.

I agree too. My idea of a good Christian is a benevolent, kind person. That often doesn't make for a good leader unless all sorts of other characteristics are present also. Theoretically, such a person is possible but I have yet to see one.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions
(31-01-2017 10:59 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-01-2017 10:38 AM)BryanS Wrote:  According to NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512534805/...tion-order

I found this - How Many Lawyers Actually Looked At Trump’s Executive Order Before It Was Signed?

I don't find Buzzfeed to be a trustworthy source for anything, really. And the question of how many lawyers reviewed the EO is irrelevant to the question of its legality now. But here is a well reasoned argument laying out how Yates's actions were inappropriate, amounting to insubordination and justifying her termination (he is critical of the wisdom of the EO and how it was rushed out, but does a thorough job outlining Yates's impropriety) :

https://lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-s...-statement


And if TV legal personalities are your thing, take it from Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley who both argue for the position that Yates should have resigned:







Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: