GG Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Monday Night Massacre. Trump fired the acting attorney general because she didn't agree that the immigration exectutive order was constitutional and wouldn't enforce it. So now standing up for the constitution is grounds for dismissal. Trump is starting to make Nixon seem rational. I forgot which branch of government the DoJ is part of and who it reports to. Please remind me.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept. Not to Defend Refugee Ban. Imagine what people would say if a Republican holdover did this to a Democratic president. . . . UPDATE: “You’re fired.” You knew that was coming, right? “The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.” Well, if she seriously believed it was unconstitutional, she was right to decline to enforce it. And Trump was within his rights to replace her with someone who would. That’s how it works. ANOTHER UPDATE: From the comments: “Hysterical Facebook friends and insane protesters continue to bolster my confidence that I voted correctly.”
FireChan Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Monday Night Massacre. Trump fired the acting attorney general because she didn't agree that the immigration exectutive order was constitutional and wouldn't enforce it. So now standing up for the constitution is grounds for dismissal. Trump is starting to make Nixon seem rational. Idiot.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 ANOTHER UPDATE: From the comments: “Hysterical Facebook friends and insane protesters continue to bolster my confidence that I voted correctly.” They really don't get it. They really don't see how hard their friends, like this guy, are laughing at them. And their solution: do more. So, we get to laugh more.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Today, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said she won’t defend Trump’s refugee Executive Order.She’s a holdover from the Obama Administration. And she’s only there because the Senate hasn’t yet confirmed Jeff Sessions as the new Attorney General. Tonight on CNN, renowned law professor and Liberal Alan Dershowitz said what he thought of Yates’ move. He called it a “mistake” and “holdover heroism.” From the video: Alan Dershowitz: “Sally Yates is a terrific public servant, but I think she’s made a serious mistake here. This is holdover heroism. It’s so easy to be a heroine when you’re not appointed by this president, when you’re on the other side. She made a serious mistake. I think what she should have done is do a nuanced analysis of what parts of the order are Constitutional, what parts are in violation of the statute, what parts are perfectly lawful. There’s an enormous distinction between green card holders on the one hand, people who are in the country and need to be thrown out on the second hand, and people who are simply applying to get visas. There’s also a distinction between what’s Constitutional, what’s statutorially prohibited . . . by lumping them all together, she has made a political decision rather than a legal one.“ Edited January 31, 2017 by B-Man
OCinBuffalo Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Today, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said she won’t defend Trump’s refugee Executive Order.She’s a holdover from the Obama Administration. And she’s only there because the Senate hasn’t yet confirmed Jeff Sessions as the new Attorney General. Tonight on CNN, renowned law professor and Liberal Alan Dershowitz said what he thought of Yates’ move. He called it a “mistake” and “holdover heroism.” From the video: Alan Dershowitz: “Sally Yates is a terrific public servant, but I think she’s made a serious mistake here. This is holdover heroism. It’s so easy to be a heroine when you’re not appointed by this president, when you’re on the other side. She made a serious mistake. I think what she should have done is do a nuanced analysis of what parts of the order are Constitutional, what parts are in violation of the statute, what parts are perfectly lawful. There’s an enormous distinction between green card holders on the one hand, people who are in the country and need to be thrown out on the second hand, and people who are simply applying to get visas. There’s also a distinction between what’s Constitutional, what’s statutorially prohibited . . . by lumping them all together, she has made a political decision rather than a legal one.“ It's pretty bad when even Alan Dershowitz, famed defense attorney, won't defend you. He knows she doesn't have a case. So? Better leave it for the public defender to deal with. I suppose they'll get Elizabeth Warren. Or better, Nancy Pelosi. If that happens, Yates is sure to get the "death" penalty.
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Tonight on CNN, renowned law professor and Liberal Alan Dershowitz said what he thought of Yates move. He called it a mistake and holdover heroism. Ouch. Someone tell PastaJoe it's time to grab the salt because his people are starting to eat their own.
unbillievable Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Yates is the same person who said during her confirmation that it was her job to follow the President's policies regardless if she personally thought it was constitutional. Outed herself as a partisan hack.
Nanker Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 OUCH: Susan Rice, policy wonk and former Dukakis & Clinton aide, who had no military experience whatsoever* before getting tapped as National Security Advisor by the Obama administration in 2013, blasts Trump’s decision to “remove military advice” from the National Security Council. Conveniently not mentioned is that Rice was replaced as National Security Advisor by LTG Michael T. “Mike” Flynn, USA (Ret). I swear, Susan, self awareness is so rare these days it should be considered a f$cking super power. The troika made up of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton was perhaps the most disastrous foreign policy crew in American history. She’s got no room to talk. And thanks to that braintrust we found out that four Americans died in Benghazi because of a disgusting Internet video which we had NOTHING to do with! Good, majority vote should be the rule Like in the Electoral College... right? 51 votes is better. President picks. Senate advises and consents.* That's how the system is supposed to work. As long as Trump doesn't nominate a penguin, his pick should get approved. Enough with the stupid games. *except in undefined periods in which the Senate need not advise or consent. You trying to make Tom apoplectic? He might have to rewrite the DCT Autobot code to handle stuff like that. Ted Cruz would not get confirmed with 51 votes. You're right. It would probably be 99 to 0 only because he wouldn't vote for himself. In case you haven't noticed, that august body would like to see him removed from it faster than a squeezed pimple on a teenager on prom night.
Keukasmallies Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Today, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said she won’t defend Trump’s refugee Executive Order.She’s a holdover from the Obama Administration. And she’s only there because the Senate hasn’t yet confirmed Jeff Sessions as the new Attorney General. Tonight on CNN, renowned law professor and Liberal Alan Dershowitz said what he thought of Yates’ move. He called it a “mistake” and “holdover heroism.” From the video: Alan Dershowitz: “Sally Yates is a terrific public servant, but I think she’s made a serious mistake here. This is holdover heroism. It’s so easy to be a heroine when you’re not appointed by this president, when you’re on the other side. She made a serious mistake. I think what she should have done is do a nuanced analysis of what parts of the order are Constitutional, what parts are in violation of the statute, what parts are perfectly lawful. There’s an enormous distinction between green card holders on the one hand, people who are in the country and need to be thrown out on the second hand, and people who are simply applying to get visas. There’s also a distinction between what’s Constitutional, what’s statutorially prohibited . . . by lumping them all together, she has made a political decision rather than a legal one.“ So, instead of being concerned about the Supreme Court nominees, or the court itself; we should just re-route legal concerns to Sally for her learned determination? Em, maybe not.
Nanker Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 So, instead of being concerned about the Supreme Court nominees, or the court itself; we should just re-route legal concerns to Sally for her learned determination? Em, maybe not. Well, to be fair, that's the approach that Holder and Lynch took. I'll follow the law if I like the law. Otherwise, go pound salt.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Senate committee approves DeVos nomination http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317044-senate-committee-approves-devos-nomination
Nanker Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 But, but, but... she's never even seen the inside of a school!
GG Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 I continue to be amazed at the blatant conflicts that Congresspeople have with their securities holdings. If anyone in the industry had a fraction of the issues that Price had, they would be fired on the spot.
Tiberius Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Supreme Court nomination could end the Senate’s history as the world’s greatest deliberative body With Trump expected to announce his first Supreme Court pick Tuesday, Republicans are contemplating putting an end to the filibuster, allowing them to confirm a justice with a simple majority. But its all Harry's fault....
B-Man Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Also from the Washington Post. Democrats shouldn’t go scorched-earth on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee By Editorial Board https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-shouldnt-go-scorched-earth-on-trumps-supreme-court-nominee/2017/01/30/5c284e2c-e71d-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0a69e580e6e0 Trump bringing Supreme Court favorites to Washington https://kobi5.com/news/trump-bringing-supreme-court-favorites-to-washington-45668/
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Supreme Court nomination could end the Senate’s history as the world’s greatest deliberative body With Trump expected to announce his first Supreme Court pick Tuesday, Republicans are contemplating putting an end to the filibuster, allowing them to confirm a justice with a simple majority. But its all Harry's fault.... Harry's the one that put an end to the filibuster! Even Schumer admitted it. Congressional Democrats spent years telling the country that minority dissent blocking the president's wishes and the Congressional majority were "insurgent extremism," and took steps to make sure "obstructionism" couldn't take place...and are now whining that they lack the ability to be obstructionist? Elections have consequences. So does short-sighted partisan rulemaking that labels the minority party "insurgents" and seeks to limit their input. You sowed the wind...
Keukasmallies Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Supreme Court nomination could end the Senate’s history as the world’s greatest deliberative body With Trump expected to announce his first Supreme Court pick Tuesday, Republicans are contemplating putting an end to the filibuster, allowing them to confirm a justice with a simple majority. But its all Harry's fault.... So Harry rehabbed the tool known as the nuclear option, then used it as needed; if Senate Republicans take the same tool out of the box it spells the end of the Senate as we know it? Jasus, are ye daft man?
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Also from the Washington Post. Democrats shouldn’t go scorched-earth on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee By Editorial Board https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-shouldnt-go-scorched-earth-on-trumps-supreme-court-nominee/2017/01/30/5c284e2c-e71d-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0a69e580e6e0 But they will, because when fighting Nazism, no action is too extreme.
Recommended Posts