Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: New Attorney General Fired over Immigration Ban

Zen Peach





Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2017 at 08:03 PM
US President Donald Trump has sacked the country's acting attorney general after she took the rare step of defying the White House by refusing to enforce his sweeping immigration ban. Sally Yates had early on Monday ordered Department of Justice lawyers to stop defending Trump's executive order, resulting in her dismissal just hours later.

"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," the White House press secretary's office said in an unusually caustic statement.

"Ms Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/trump-ousts-attorney-general-defying- muslim-ban-170131031449765.html

Remarks: As a Department of Justice employee, they have to support the laws of the land. President Trump enacted an order halting travel and immigration from the seven nations, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. In her position (job), she cannot legally determine if his order/legislation is Constitutional or not, and even if it is not, she cannot advise people to ignore it. In her job, she has to enforce the laws of the country. If as a private citizen she advocates ignoring it, that is different. A justice employee cannot advocate violating the laws.

We all know the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, but no one in Washington except one brave Senator stood up against it, pointing out that it was unconstitutional. Maybe that should be repealed and replaced with something lawful. Maybe Rand Paul can start working on that, since the abuses by the NSA and Homeland Security exist.

[Edited on 2/1/2017 by gina]

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 
Replies:

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2017 at 08:21 PM
quote:


Remarks: As a Department of Justice employee, they have to support the laws of the land. President Trump enacted an order halting travel and immigration from the seven nations, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. In her position (job), she cannot legally determine if his order/legislation is Constitutional or not, and even if it is not, she cannot advise people to ignore it. In her job, she has to enforce the laws of the country. If as a private citizen she advocates ignoring it, that is different. A justice employee cannot advocate violating the laws.

We all know the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, but no one in Washington except one brave Senator stood up against it, pointing out that it was unconstitutional. Maybe that should be repealed and replaced with something lawful. Maybe Rand Paul can start working on that, since the abuses by the NSA and Homeland Security exist.

[Edited on 2/1/2017 by gina]


Once again, you are wrong. If you actually read what other people post, you would know that. The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal. Had you paid attention in civics classes, you would know about the system of checks and balances.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2017 at 08:32 PM
I thought the Supreme Court had to determine that. However, in her job doesn't she have to abide by what the President decrees, because a President does not usually issue something that is illegal.

[Edited on 2/1/2017 by gina]

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2017 at 09:44 PM
Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2017 at 11:32 PM
quote:
The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.
quote:
The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.
Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHYkDup4dI

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2017 at 11:38 PM
quote:
quote:
The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.
quote:
The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.
Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHYkDup4dI



As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 04:15 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.
quote:
The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.
Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHYkDup4dI

As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!
Perhaps a re-reading will lead you to the fact that I wasn't attacking Obama, instead pointing out that your comments about DOJ's role vs the reality of recent times hasn't exactly worked out as suggested.

I posted the link as defense of Trump's actions and their Constitutional merits, which a scholar with far more insight than either of us seemed to uphold without much reservation. Turley may not have personally liked the action, but said Trump has the lawful basis to take it.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 04:54 PM
I find it odd that Trump and the Fox News sheep (not you Fujirich) have justified several policies already by reminding us that Obama did the same thing. Why would the right justify their support for something because Obama did it? I thought they hated him and his policies.
 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 05:53 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.
quote:
The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.
Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHYkDup4dI

As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!
Perhaps a re-reading will lead you to the fact that I wasn't attacking Obama, instead pointing out that your comments about DOJ's role vs the reality of recent times hasn't exactly worked out as suggested.

I posted the link as defense of Trump's actions and their Constitutional merits, which a scholar with far more insight than either of us seemed to uphold without much reservation. Turley may not have personally liked the action, but said Trump has the lawful basis to take it.


Whatever Obama did and whatever Trump does must be taken on their own merits. Turley is just one opinion. Equally qualified lawyers have seen things a different way. I do find it funny that people who attacked every move made by the WH in the past eight years are now using Obama's actions to justify Trump's actions.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 06:54 PM
quote:
Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.


You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 06:59 PM
quote:
quote:
Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.


You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.


Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. She did not tell anyone to obey or not obey the law. She said the DOJ would not defend it in court.

The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 07:04 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.


You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.


Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. She did not tell anyone to obey or not obey the law. She said the DOJ would not defend it in court.

The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works.


She didn't wait till it got to court before she refused to do her job and enforce it, and obey it, and she further urged others not to obey it either, that is why she was fired, not just because she disagreed with him on the concept.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 07:28 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.


You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.


Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. She did not tell anyone to obey or not obey the law. She said the DOJ would not defend it in court.

The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works.


She didn't wait till it got to court before she refused to do her job and enforce it, and obey it, and she further urged others not to obey it either, that is why she was fired, not just because she disagreed with him on the concept.


Pay attention. It was not her job to enforce it. That is not the issue. She said her department would not defend it in court. How hard is that for you to understand?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 07:51 PM
She told others not to obey and enforce it now, before it even went to court. That is my point.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2017 at 08:51 PM
quote:
She told others not to obey and enforce it now, before it even went to court. That is my point.


You are wrong. She said she would not defend it. She did not have the power to tell others whether to enfrce it or not.


You are going out of your way to be obtuse. Again. If you don't understand how the government works, you should probably stop acting like a know it all.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/2/2017 at 07:45 PM
I never have acted like a know it all. If you think I know more than you, you can go to international sources to learn more, which is what I have done since 2001 when the American media did not provide a sufficient explanation to go along with the official story related to 9.11.01.

If I am wrong related to this issue re: Yates, well than that is how it is. No one is right all the time.



[Edited on 2/3/2017 by gina]

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/2/2017 at 08:21 PM
quote:
She told others not to obey


If the independent judiciary comes to an end, then it all comes to an end. Think about it.

The rightists believe that Trump is above the law. This is clear.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 04:28 PM

I don't know if they think Trump is above the law. I think he got the idea of issuing Executive Orders from past President's who decided to use it when they couldn't get a consensus in Congress to get things done, and that did not start with Obama, it goes further back than him.

I think Trump is very aware of the seriousness of the refugees, immigrants crossing into our country, he cannot wait for Congress to come to agreement, he has to take charge and secure the safety of the country, if necessary (and it seems to be necessary right now) the Hill be damned!

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 227
(227 all sites)
Registered: 8/27/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 04:46 PM
Obama supporters complaining about the use of executive orders? Really?

And they will also be outraged when the GOP uses the "nuclear" option to get their Supreme Court justices confirmed. And, yes, I said justices...plural. There are rumors that someone may be retiring during the next 4 years. The Dems created the "nuclear" option. Now the GOP will have it at their disposal.

Be careful what tactics you use and what precedents you set...the balance of power shifts...and those very tactics will be used against you. Both sides are equally guilty of ignoring this lesson.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 06:36 PM
quote:
I think Trump is very aware of the seriousness of the refugees, immigrants crossing into our country, he cannot wait for Congress to come to agreement, he has to take charge and secure the safety of the country, if necessary (and it seems to be necessary right now) the Hill be damned!


Then why didn't he ban entry from countries where people that have actually killed Americans came from?

You wanna ban dangerous Muslims from entering the country, but leave Saudi Arabia off the list. Yeah. Sure.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3170
(3169 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 07:05 PM
Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 07:18 PM
quote:
Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.


There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 227
(227 all sites)
Registered: 8/27/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 11:32 PM
quote:
quote:
Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.


There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.


The Obama administration identified the 7 "countries of concern" prior to Trump becoming president. Restrictions that Obama already had in place were broadened to a temporary 90 day ban so that the vetting process could be reviewed. It was nice of Obama to protect Trump's financial interests in that region...

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 11:34 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.


There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.


Well aren't we Mr. Civics today! Seriously, I'm glad you know your civics which by the way should be a must in all schools but do you have to be condescending! Let's have a looky.

Gina makes a post...you respond, "Once again you are wrong"

Gina makes another post..."I thought..." and you respond, "Again, you should have paid attention in civics class."

Fujirich chimes in...and you respond, "As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!"

Gina follows up with "Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. ..." At this point she's obviously annoyed with your condescending remarks and you tell her, "The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works."

C'mon jkeller, WTF! You were the condescending ass from the beginning and then throw it on her? That's a liberal for you. Blame the other side for what you do. Trump's a Nazi but the liberals hire the thugs to act like Nazi's.

That's it, we need a kumbaya sing-a-long and the only one that comes to mind that most will join in, I believe, is the 12 Days of Christmas. Ready, jkeller, I'll let you start...the words are below.




HAHAHAHAHAHA


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/4/2017 at 11:35 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.


There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.


The Obama administration identified the 7 "countries of concern" prior to Trump becoming president. Restrictions that Obama already had in place were broadened to a temporary 90 day ban so that the vetting process could be reviewed. It was nice of Obama to protect Trump's financial interests in that region...


Alloak, you know full well that the Obama ban was in response to a specific threat. Trump was in response to... nothing.

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com