Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

President Donald Trump relieved acting Attorney General Sally Yates of her duties Monday night after she directed Justice Department attorneys not to defend Trump's controversial executive refugee and immigration ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01 ... order.html


Good for Trump! Fire anyone who doesn't do their job.

Cluck U wrote:

President Donald Trump relieved acting Attorney General Sally Yates of her duties Monday night after she directed Justice Department attorneys not to defend Trump's controversial executive refugee and immigration ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01 ... order.html


Good for Trump! Fire anyone who doesn't do their job.

But will he suspend this judge..?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/t ... .html?_r=0

Can't blame Yates for refusing, can't blame Trump for firing her. It was inevitable.

Pwns wrote:Can't blame Yates for refusing, can't blame Trump for firing her. It was inevitable.

Yates should've resigned rather than being fired. The legality of the Executive order was largely legal, it's just a question whether you agree with it ethically or morally. The AG should be focused on the legality and she wasn't doing that.

GannonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:Can't blame Yates for refusing, can't blame Trump for firing her. It was inevitable.

Yates should've resigned rather than being fired. The legality of the Executive order was largely legal, it's just a question whether you agree with it ethically or morally. The AG should be focused on the legality and she wasn't doing that.

Exactly.

God I love this shit!

I was so WRONG about Trump! He IS the man


We should start a thread with who we think is going to file the first sexual harassment law suit on Trump

I got dibs on Sally Yates cause she got fucked HARD!

Just following Sessions' advice.

Sessions: You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say "no" about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say "No" to the President, if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, "He appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?" But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful should the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General say "no"?

Yates: Senator, I believe that 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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653400/ ... ial-orders

Skjellyfetti wrote:Just following Sessions' advice.

Sessions: You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say "no" about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say "No" to the President, if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, "He appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?" But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful should the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General say "no"?

Yates: Senator, I believe that 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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653400/ ... ial-orders

I imagine this is going to at least delay Sessions' hearing for a while.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:God I love this ****!

I was so WRONG about Trump! He IS the man


We should start a thread with who we think is going to file the first sexual harassment law suit on Trump

I got dibs on Sally Yates cause she got **** HARD!

I gotta admit that a grenade in the latrine is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the same old shit....looks like they can ratfvck Sessions if they can get three conk votes... now wouldn't that be the funniest thing you ever saw?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Just following Sessions' advice.

Sessions: You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say "no" about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say "No" to the President, if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, "He appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?" But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful should the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General say "no"?

Yates: Senator, I believe that 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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653400/ ... ial-orders

The AG can quietly talk with the President and his lawyers and push back if he/she thinks the law, or a portion of the law, is not being followed.

But, to publicly tell your staff to not defend the law is a bit different...especially when it is very clear that the President has the authority to do what he did. Funny...Obomba did the same thing a few years earlier when he limited Iraqi immigration. Perhaps she wasn't on the staff or didn't get the memo.

The dumb chick did a political publicity stunt and was fired for it. She confused the law with her personal feewings (as do most Libs).

Buh-bye.

I'm trying to understand her stance here.
First, what does "defend" mean, in this case?
Second, did she ever say what she is "not convinced" with?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Just following Sessions' advice.

Sessions: You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say "no" about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say "No" to the President, if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, "He appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?" But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful should the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General say "no"?

Yates: Senator, I believe that 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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653400/ ... ial-orders

The thing is, her own department said the executive order was lawful before it was issued. So she's disagreeing with her own people that the thing was lawful. Again, it's perfectly fine and well for her to object to the policy based on moral or ethical considerations - clearly it's contestable on those grounds - but for her to say that it's not lawful and refuse to defend it after her department let it pass is where she's on poorer footing. She should've resigned saying that she morally was against the executive order and just couldn't serve in that role then rather than take the dubious, and unfortunately more partisanly political move, and say it was unlawful.

Chizzang wrote:

Cluck U wrote:

President Donald Trump relieved acting Attorney General Sally Yates of her duties Monday night after she directed Justice Department attorneys not to defend Trump's controversial executive refugee and immigration ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01 ... order.html


Good for Trump! Fire anyone who doesn't do their job.

But will he suspend this judge..?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/t ... .html?_r=0

I dunno.... is the judge an insubordinate employee of the executive branch?

Here endeth the civics lesson

CID!!!!!

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
But will he suspend this judge..?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/t ... .html?_r=0

I dunno.... is the judge an insubordinate employee of the executive branch?

Here endeth the civics lesson

Just making a simple point...
When some judges don't do their appointed duty they are hero's
When others don't do their appointed duty they are assholes



Political perspective

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I dunno.... is the judge an insubordinate employee of the executive branch?

Here endeth the civics lesson

Just making a simple point...
When some judges don't do their appointed duty they are hero's
When others don't do their appointed duty they are assholes



Political perspective

Well now that's old man on the mountaintop truth right there

But Trump can't fire judges.... only the people sworn to carry out his policies regardless of whether they agree on grounds of whether they are "moral and just". (which is not a legal test, BTW)

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Just making a simple point...
When some judges don't do their appointed duty they are hero's
When others don't do their appointed duty they are assholes



Political perspective

Well now that's old man on the mountaintop truth right there

But Trump can't fire judges.... only the people sworn to carry out his policies regardless of whether they agree on grounds of whether they are "moral and just". (which is not a legal test, BTW)

Ultimately none of it matters
Even the whole supreme court hoopla going on right now is meaningless for me...

No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Well now that's old man on the mountaintop truth right there

But Trump can't fire judges.... only the people sworn to carry out his policies regardless of whether they agree on grounds of whether they are "moral and just". (which is not a legal test, BTW)

Ultimately none of it matters
Even the whole supreme court hoopla going on right now is meaningless for me...

No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court

Except all those unborn American White Males...

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Well now that's old man on the mountaintop truth right there

But Trump can't fire judges.... only the people sworn to carry out his policies regardless of whether they agree on grounds of whether they are "moral and just". (which is not a legal test, BTW)

Ultimately none of it matters
Even the whole supreme court hoopla going on right now is meaningless for me...

No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court

On most supreme court rulings, as long as there has been supreme ct cases, some people suffer and some benefit. And those are people of all races & genders, many of whom who happen to be white males.

BDKJMU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Ultimately none of it matters
Even the whole supreme court hoopla going on right now is meaningless for me...

No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court

On most supreme court rulings, as long as there has been supreme ct cases, some people suffer and some benefit. And those are people of all races & genders, many of whom who happen to be white males.

Could you give me an example...
I'm not suggesting you're wrong but I would like to see an example
I'd like some information on how I'm suffering

Chizzang wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
On most supreme court rulings, as long as there has been supreme ct cases, some people suffer and some benefit. And those are people of all races & genders, many of whom who happen to be white males.

Could you give me an example...
I'm not suggesting you're wrong but I would like to see an example
I'd like some information on how I'm suffering

Just about every single ruling involving the Commerce Clause, for starters.

Eminent domain case law (wait until Trump gets started on his wall!)

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Could you give me an example...
I'm not suggesting you're wrong but I would like to see an example
I'd like some information on how I'm suffering

Just about every single ruling involving the Commerce Clause, for starters.

Eminent domain case law (wait until Trump gets started on his wall!)

So those things ^ are bad for white males in America..?
How so..?

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Well now that's old man on the mountaintop truth right there

But Trump can't fire judges.... only the people sworn to carry out his policies regardless of whether they agree on grounds of whether they are "moral and just". (which is not a legal test, BTW)

Ultimately none of it matters
Even the whole supreme court hoopla going on right now is meaningless for me...

No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court

Affirmative Action?

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Ultimately none of it matters
Even the whole supreme court hoopla going on right now is meaningless for me...

No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court

Affirmative Action?

Wrong. White Men are still getting jobs. Look at the current unemployment rate of White men compared to Black men. Not even close.

Chizzang wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
On most supreme court rulings, as long as there has been supreme ct cases, some people suffer and some benefit. And those are people of all races & genders, many of whom who happen to be white males.

Could you give me an example...
I'm not suggesting you're wrong but I would like to see an example
I'd like some information on how I'm suffering

Chizzang wrote: No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court.

Now you move the goal post from any white male to name a case that personally negatively effects YOU.

Back to your original statement of any white male who has suffered, from a SCOTUS rulings(s)
-Cid mentioned the numerous rulings that have upheld the vast expansion of the interstate commerce clause, which since the New Deal has been used as a primary source for the regulatory expansion of the national government, granting virtually unlimited regulatory power over the economy to the federal government. Obviously has negatively effected just about everyone, including white males, including you.

-Anyone who has suffered negatively from any aspect of Obamacare and is a white male. My gf's brother (white male, self employed) due to Obamacare (which was upheld twice by SCOTUS) was kicked off his high deductible catastrophic plan and forced to purchase a far more expensive, more comprehensive plan than forced him to pay for things he didn't want & didn't need, among other things pregnancy coverage

-SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action (numerous cases). Any white male who has not gotten a job/position/promotion/admittance that otherwise would have gotten had there not been affirmative action has suffered.

-After SCOTUS ruled in Berman v. Parker in 1954 that private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation, and in Kelo v. City of New London upholding eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development, anyone who subsequently had land/property forcibly taken away from them that they wouldn't have had SCOTUS ruled the other way, and happens to be a white male, has suffered.