Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't... I just can't... I... I... I give up.

Well, maybe you can use this break to do some reading on the subject.

 

[4consideration]

Whatever.

I have a feeling I came across as rude. If so, I apologize for that. I just want to let you know where I'm coming from with my prior response.

It is my experience on RF that trying to have a conversation wherein someone posts an article, or video, as response to a question -- instead of directly answering the question -- often results in a lot of wasted time and confusion. If you answer the question in your own words, and post a link, then I can respond to what you are saying, with your link as supporting information. If I only respond to the article, it's likely I'll not be picking on what you think is most significant, and may be responding to points you are not making, and we'll just go back and forth discussing what was not meant, or said.

So, if you'd like to say what you think is illegal about the EO, we can take the conversation from there, as seems appropriate.

 

[metis]

IMO, since it appears that this is indeed going to court, whether the court will consider intent not is not a given. If they do, then there's a good chance the EO may be viewed as violating the Constitution. If not, then they probably will rule in Trump's favor.

In regards to those two, I think the latter is more likely.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

 

[Mister_T]

No, that has not been decided. Ann Donnelly is not the Supreme Court, nor is public opinion. Moreover, the Constitution or not, what she did was insubordination, countermanding her boss publicly.

Apparently you're not familiar with what her job entails. The oath of that position is to the Constitution, not the president. If the president does something that she felt was unconstitutional, then she is within her right to challenge it. And yes, that is exactly what she did. She's not some low-level crony that has to do whatever Trump demands. You're free not to like her challenging it, but those are the facts.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have a feeling I came across as rude. If so, I apologize for that. I just want to let you know where I'm coming from with my prior response.

It is my experience on RF that trying to have a conversation wherein someone posts an article, or video, as response to a question -- instead of directly answering the question -- often results in a lot of wasted time and confusion. If you answer the question in your own words, and post a link, then I can respond to what you are saying, with your link as supporting information. If I only respond to the article, it's likely I'll not be picking on what you think is most significant, and may be responding to points you are not making, and we'll just go back and forth discussing what was not meant, or said.

So, if you'd like to say what you think is illegal about the EO, we can take the conversation from there, as seems appropriate.

Sorry, but I am not interested in playing these silly little games.

 

[Mister_T]

It has not been decided by the US Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution, whether the EO is constitutional or not. Ann Donnelly's ruling is not final. Moreover, she only ordered a temporary stay. She did not invalidate the order. Unless and until the SCOTUS rules on it, if it ever gets there, it's legal and constitutional. Given that, she was insubordinate in telling her subordinates to disregard their superior's order.

No one said it was final, you're just not understanding what her position entails. Or more accurately, you're misunderstanding since you think she has no authority to challenge Trump's executive orders and has to be his trained monkey.

 

[Jainarayan]

No one said it was final, you're just not understanding what her position entails. Or more accurately, you're misunderstanding since you think she has no authority to challenge Trump's executive orders and has to be his trained monkey.

That's an emotional stance. I understand very well, more than you can or will ever know. That's the problem that is swirling around the whole issue. Rampant emotion and few facts, especially from the media.

 

[Mister_T]

That's an emotional stance. I understand very well, more than you can or will ever know. That's the problem that is swirling around the whole issue. Rampant emotion and few facts, especially from the media.

It has nothing to do with emotions and everything to do with what she is legally allowed to do. Perhaps you should read up on it?

 

[Willamena]

It has nothing to do with emotions and everything to do with what she is legally allowed to do. Perhaps you should read up on it?

Not just allowed, but endowed.

 

[tytlyf]

Isn't Roger Ailes advising Trump in some fashion? This makes sense then. Roger was Nixon's advisor. Then he created Fox, hehe

 

[esmith]

For one thing, it violates the United States' obligations under the Refugee Convention. AFAIK, this treaty is legally binding on the US.

Nope, The United States Constitution overrides treaties
Treaties vs. the Constitution

Article VI of the Constitution only provides that treaties can be considered equal to U.S. statutes and laws when considered by the Court. However, they cannot be used to alter the U.S. Constitution, or to deny Constitutional rights to American citizens, or to the American states. Therefore, even if the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is finalized, signed by the President, and ratified by the U.S. Senate, it would not take away the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms under the provisions of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[oldbadger]

Seeing how bad you have it now gives a fresh perspective on how good things were before.

I'm in England, and you know that. We're fine, here.

My point was that so many folks seemed to despise ex-President Obama, and so many government bodies obstructed him and his policies, that as time goes by I would like to savour the delicious flavours of their cries, screams and moans now.

But......... with regard to this thread, if the President feels that acts of terrorism cattied out upon his country's citizens are as if an internal war, then he has every right to pursue serious measures.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sheep think everything is great until they end up naked and in the lamb stew...

Sounds like America on Jan 21st of this year. We're in caca soup way the ef over our heads! Komrade Trumpsky has us right where he wants us and is looking to recruit you to keep the rest of us in line.

 

[Scuba Pete]

correct, but in this case he had the right and the reason to dismiss her.

E's right in this case. Why would Komrade Trumpsky want an ethical AG to hold back his unholy agenda??? Unless they're corruptible and controllable, he has no need for them in his administration.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, The United States Constitution overrides treaties
Treaties vs. the Constitution

Exactly how do you think the US's treaties on refugees violate the Constitution?

 

[Shad]

And that is why it is so appalling that he did it. The Judiciary is supposed to have autonomy from the Executive.

The AG is subordinate to the President not the Judiciary thus is part of the Executive branch.. He is not firing a judge but a lawyer. He can fire her for not doing her job. She never said it was EO unconstitutional, she babbled about the right thing to do. She was also going to lose the job anyways so made a politic stunt on her way out to her next job.

 

[Stevicus]

This is true. But enforcing illegal orders is against the law. The post is basically the highest law enforcement post in the country. So enforcing illegal laws is a sticky subject. You may fund an officer who will break the law for you, but he/she wouldn't garner much respect.

True, although it depends on whether it's truly illegal or not. Do foreign citizens have a Constitutional right to enter the United States? If a foreign citizen applies for a visa and is denied by a State Department employee, did that State Department employee break the law? Or is this something where Executive Branch employees have a certain amount of leeway and discretion that they can use?

 

[esmith]

Exactly how do you think the US's treaties on refugees violate the Constitution?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm in England, and you know that. We're fine, here.

My point was that so many folks seemed to despise ex-President Obama, and so many government bodies obstructed him and his policies, that as time goes by I would like to savour the delicious flavours of their cries, screams and moans now.

But......... with regard to this thread, if the President feels that acts of terrorism cattied out upon his country's citizens are as if an internal war, then he has every right to pursue serious measures.

"ex-President Obama"

Since you are in England we'll over look it this time. . . . But the proper title, in a formal setting, is Former President Obama, or Mr.Obama. In an informal setting you can still refer to him as President Obama (as long as it is clear you are not talking about the current President), Obama, Mr. Obama, or Former President Obama.

*Disclaimer - I don't really care what you call him.

"despise ex-President Obama"

The truth is many people approved of Obama, myself included, but generally the side of hate is the louder of the two.

Obama's approval rating soars as he exits the White House