Mainecat Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 “But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?” In her 2015 confirmation hearing, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) demanded to know if Sally Yates would be confident enough to stand up to the president of the United States. At the time the president happened to be Barack Obama, but when given the opportunity, Yates kept her promise and was promptly fired by Donald Trump. “You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no. You think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that’s improper?” Sessions asked. “A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying ‘well, he appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views, what’s wrong with that?'” Sessions asked, referring to Obama’s Attorney General nominee. “But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?” Yates explained to Sessions: “Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.” Yates was serving as the Acting Attorney General until President Donald Trump fired her after she told the Justice Department not to defend the anti-immigration executive order. Yates also noted in her statement that she believed the order barring Muslims from entering the U.S. was illegal. In a statement from the White House, Yates was called “weak” twice in one sentence and chastised for being an Obama appointee. Her replacement was also an Obama hire. http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/watch-jeff-sessions-grills-sally-yates-on-saying-no-to-the-president-when-she-was-obamas-nominee/#.WJBsnW-pCFQ.twitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 Like i said many times you cant make this shit up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEMAN! Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 That's pretty ironic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 31, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2017 I've even heard of liberal lawyers (Allen Dershowitz) say the majority of the order is Constitutional. The only part in question might be the permanent ban from Syria and even that is questionable. Just because some lower level judges rule one way does not mean its unconstitutional. If Trump's temporary ban is unconstitutional how wasn't Jimmy Carters and Obama's when they banned all immigration from Iran and Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, Highmark said: I've even heard of liberal lawyers (Allen Dershowitz) say the majority of the order is Constitutional. The only part in question might be the permanent ban from Syria and even that is questionable. Just because some lower level judges rule one way does not mean its unconstitutional. If Trump's temporary ban is unconstitutional how wasn't Jimmy Carters and Obama's when they banned all immigration from Iran and Iraq? There is the apples to potatoes comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: That's pretty ironic Its incredible really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Its incredible really Like when you whine about people that lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 31, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mainecat said: There is the apples to potatoes comparison. Just exactly how are those comparisons not relevant. Obama himself singled out these exact countries. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Just exactly how are those comparisons not relevant. Obama himself singled out these exact countries. BANNED versus restricted, not allowed at all versus not allowed in certain cases, not able to buy any bullets versus only being able to buy 100 rounds. A BAN isn't the same as a restriction, period, not that hard to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 31, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, 1jkw said: BANNED versus restricted, not allowed at all versus not allowed in certain cases, not able to buy any bullets versus only being able to buy 100 rounds. A BAN isn't the same as a restriction, period, not that hard to understand. Denied, ineligible, banned. All pretty much the same thing. According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015. Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa. Though outside groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and NIAC Action — the sister organization of the National Iranian American Council — opposed the act, the bipartisan bill passed through Congress with little pushback. At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries. In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however. So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 59 minutes ago, Highmark said: Denied, ineligible, banned. All pretty much the same thing. According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015. Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa. Though outside groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and NIAC Action — the sister organization of the National Iranian American Council — opposed the act, the bipartisan bill passed through Congress with little pushback. At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries. In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however. So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries. Read the last paragraph, Obama RESTICTED Trump is looking to BAR. You can't possibly not know the difference between RESTRICTION and BARRING and say they were the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT MXZ XRS Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 time out, time out. our local constitutional lawyer zambroski said everything trump did was legal and yates deserved to get fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 47 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Read the last paragraph, Obama RESTICTED Trump is looking to BAR. You can't possibly not know the difference between RESTRICTION and BARRING and say they were the same thing. give it up. you can post fact to this clown 24/7 and he'll continue to relay the same old shit for months, years. sometimes you just gotta let it go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 31, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2017 47 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Read the last paragraph, Obama RESTICTED Trump is looking to BAR. You can't possibly not know the difference between RESTRICTION and BARRING and say they were the same thing. Restricted is used because it was not necessarily a complete ban however people who traveled too and from these countries were denied or were ineligible. What exactly do you think denied and ineligible mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 16 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: time out, time out. our local constitutional lawyer zambroski said everything trump did was legal and yates deserved to get fired. Link? Gotcha! Not that I disagree with your statement though. Legal and constitutional. You wieners will be receiving your next "shiny object" to chase soon....BE VIGILANT! BE READY...and oh, yeah...GO PROTEST! Any of you "intellectually elite' paying any attention to what else is going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Link? Gotcha! Not that I disagree with your statement though. Legal and constitutional. You wieners will be receiving your next "shiny object" to chase soon....BE VIGILANT! BE READY...and oh, yeah...GO PROTEST! Any of you "intellectually elite' paying any attention to what else is going on? sessions confirmation? this could work out pretty well for trump. they need an AG who can sign off on warrants and other shit, asap. I don't believe the one now can do all that. so the pressure to accept sessions is higher. Edited January 31, 2017 by Snoslinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: sessions confirmation? this could work out pretty well for trump. they need an AG who can sign off on warrants and other shit, asap. I don't believe the one now can do all that. so the pressure to accept sessions is higher. I'm undecided on Sessions right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I'm undecided on Sessions right now. I was trying to answer your question about what else is going on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: I was trying to answer your question about what else is going on Well, I'm not gonna tell you. Where's the fun in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 hours ago, Highmark said: Restricted is used because it was not necessarily a complete ban however people who traveled too and from these countries were denied or were ineligible. What exactly do you think denied and ineligible mean. Simple question. If they are the same why not just continue with the former policy. Denied an ineligible would mean that they did something to warrant not being admitted. Banned would mean they can't come at all no matter what. See the difference? Probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 31, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2017 51 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Simple question. If they are the same why not just continue with the former policy. Denied an ineligible would mean that they did something to warrant not being admitted. Banned would mean they can't come at all no matter what. See the difference? Probably not. Maybe the previous policy had expired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 58 minutes ago, Highmark said: Maybe the previous policy had expired. Well it being the same why not just reenact it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 10 hours ago, Mainecat said: Like i said many times you cant make this shit up. 9 hours ago, ICEMAN! said: That's pretty ironic Are yoi two suggesting Sessions would uphold unconditional executive orders Trump created? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.