Re: What would it take?
 

This administration is a train wreck in motion. What a cluster fuck these guys are. Absolutely shameful. Dictator Trump wants it his way or your out.


[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15E1DE]Fired: Trump dumps top lawyer who defied immigration order | Reuters[/url]


[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164276]This administration is a train wreck in motion. What a cluster fuck these guys are. Absolutely shameful. Dictator Trump wants it his way or your out.


[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15E1DE]Fired: Trump dumps top lawyer who defied immigration order | Reuters[/url]


[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0[/url][/quote]


LOL, well there goes the "hiring freeze" .:doh::laughing-

Re: What would it take?
 

Although at a higher level this is akin to the official who was fired for not validating gay marriages. Its all political theater. Yates was out in a week anyways when Sessions is approved so she took a stand.
Its not very shocking that an Obama hack wouldn't understand the concept of enforcing the law

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164276]This administration is a train wreck in motion. What a cluster fuck these guys are. Absolutely shameful. Dictator Trump wants it his way or your out.


[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15E1DE]Fired: Trump dumps top lawyer who defied immigration order | Reuters[/url]


[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0[/url][/quote]

It might have been a shitty thing to do but the actual firing comes down to the fact that constitutionally, she was not obeying the law which says they must obey executive orders that are issued. Even the federal judges who "repealed" Trump's order only had the power to temporarily halt it, and even then, they were only allowed to modify the order to allow people with existing visas the ability to travel.

The federal court cannot over-rule the executive branch. What happens next when they meet about this issue again, they will vote, and if Trump gets two thirds of the majority vote from the house and senate, then his order will stand.

The first federal judge to defy Trump's order was a first-year judge trying to make a name for herself. Sally Yates was leftover from the Obama Administration, and even then she was only supposed to be an interim appointment. In both cases, trying to cross the President of the United States was not smart for either person's career.

Re: What would it take?
 

If Trump's executive order, any of them, were blatantly unconstitutional, then Yates would have been in the right to not defend them in court, and she still likely would have been fired.

But

Trump's order is not unconstitutional - it is not a ban of all Muslims, it is not infringing on the rights of any US naturalized or native born citizen, it does not deny freedom of religious expression or free speech (heck it clearly gives opponents more opportunities to use that valued right), and it is based on existing law that has been used more selectively for the same principle.

We will quickly see how deep Trump's support goes. Clearly the activist base of the Democratic party is energized and out in full force. If Trump's support is broad enough to force the Republican party to stay the course, then these protests could be the last gasp of a dying democratic resistance. If the Republican's in the Senate don't stand with Trump's "movement" then it will flame out, and Trump will be a one term lame duck president.

We seem to be living through a defining epochal in our history.

Re: What would it take?
 

One problem with the firing is this:

[QUOTE]s, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department. [/QUOTE]

So until somebody else is confirmed, no FISA warrants can be issued. We aren't sure Sessions will be confirmed. I seriously doubt any Democrat will vote for him with his background in racism.


[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164246]Although at a higher level this is akin to the official who was fired for not validating gay marriages. Its all political theater. Yates was out in a week anyways when Sessions is approved so she took a stand.
Its not very shocking that an Obama hack wouldn't understand the concept of enforcing the law[/QUOTE]

She's sworn to uphold the law of the Constitution. If she thinks the executive order is unconstitutional, then it's her duty NOT to execute those actions. She's doing her job.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164283]Trump's order is not unconstitutional - it is not a ban of all Muslims, .[/quote]

You aren't a lawyer. JR is. That said, the cat is out of the bag thanks to dumbass Giuliani spilling the beans on the "Muslim ban".

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.a065a34624e3[/url]

You do realize he campaigned on banning Muslims?
[url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration[/url]



[quote]- December 07, 2015 -
​Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- [U][B]Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States [/B][/U]until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.[/quote]

So yes, it is unconstitutional.

You know it's bad when the Koch brothers are saying something.

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/koch-network-condemns-trump-ban-on-refugees-and-immigrants/?utm_term=.b0fd9c7e0089[/url]






[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164283]If Trump's support is broad enough to force the Republican party to stay the course, then these protests could be the last gasp of a dying democratic resistance. If the Republican's in the Senate don't stand with Trump's "movement" then it will flame out, and Trump will be a one term lame duck president.[/quote]

ROFL? I can safely assure you that the "democratic resistance" is far from dead. Seeing as even 3 million more voted for hillary this past election. This is a fact, if Democrats were to show up to vote each election, the GOP would never win another election. Period.

[url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx]Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows | Gallup[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

Blah blah blah.....another Obama appointee is gone.
Executive authority really sucks when its not wielded by bleeding hearts.
:laughing-

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Alvin Walton;1164287]Blah blah blah.....another Obama appointee is gone.

Executive authority really sucks when its not wielded by bleeding hearts.

:laughing-[/QUOTE]



Are you an old bitter person who lives alone? I bet you are.

Re: What would it take?
 

Why cant all of you rightists see the difference this time around? When Obama was Pres all of you bitched. When Bush was Pres all of us bitched.
That is how it was for a long time.
This is completely different. This has left the "bitching" world of politics and entered into the "insane" world of politics.
It is not our fault that the insane one ran on your ticket.

Re: What would it take?
 

Fish on!

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Alvin Walton;1164290]Fish on![/QUOTE]



I knew it. [emoji23]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1164287]Blah blah blah.....another Obama appointee is gone.
Executive authority really sucks when its not wielded by bleeding hearts.
:laughing-[/quote]


Sally Yates was confirmed as Deputy A.G. by a Republican senate 84-12. Republicans cited her willingness to be independent as her strength.


Executive authority sucks when it's racism. I can't believe you guys actually support this piece of shit. It says a lot about you as individuals.

Re: What would it take?
 

Islam is not a race.
:doh:

Re: What would it take?
 

So, I have been looking at the Constitutionality of the Executive Order and what the Constitutional law folks are saying. The short answer is that, on its face, the travel ban is Constitutional and within the President delegated authority. However, the manner in which it is applied may be a violation of Constitutional due process / equal protection. As I understand it, it was on this basis that the federal district court granted a temporary stay.

This is a Presidential Order that is administering executive authority delegated him by Congress pursuant to federal immigration law. Further, the Executive Order covers only those countries specifically identified by Congress and the Obama administration as “countries of concern” that have been determined to have a "significant presence" of a foreign terrorist organization or to be a safe havens for terrorists.

Under current federal immigration law, the President has broad authority to prohibit people from entering the US:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens …
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

In addition, the countries to which the ban is applicable were specifically chosen based on prior Congressional and Executive action. The seven identified countries are from the list covered by "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" initially identified by Congress and, subsequently, supplemented by the Obama administration. The Bill was a bipartisan act that was signed into law by Obama in December 2015. It was passed overwhelmingly by Congress (407 – 19). Initially the law barred individuals “from Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, or those who have visited those countries in the last five years, from traveling to the United States without a visa.” In February 2016, , the Obama administration identified Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as “Countries of Concern” under the act and barred individuals from these countries as well from travelling to the US without a visa.

[url]http://www.cnn.com/.../visa-waiver-program-house/index.html[/url]
[url]https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr158/text[/url]
[url]https://www.dhs.gov/.../dhs-announces-further-travel[/url]...

In challenging the Order, it is almost unquestionably Constitutional as written but the Constitutionality of its actual application is much debated. Given that (1) the vast number of Muslim dominated countries are NOT on the list (including the largest – Indonesia); and (2) on its face, it is limited to "countries of concern" as identified by Obama’s Dept. of Homeland Security, I would suggest that the Order is facially Constitutional because it is specifically related to national security and not, strictly speaking, a “Muslim ban.”

Rather, the attacks on it that were – temporarily – successful attacked the actual application of the Order – deprivation of a property right without due process and deprivation of equal protection under the law. However, this due process/equal protection aspect can be remedied going forward since notice of the intended deprivation has, in fact, been given and all that need be implemented is a process to contest any individual ban. This does not require a full blown hearing/trial but need only allow the individual to be heard before a neutral decision maker.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1164294]Islam is not a race.
:doh:[/quote]

everything is race to libs.

And the majority cut thru this bullshit and elected Trump...we are tired of the false narratives. We are tired of people who believe everything on the internet.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164285]You aren't a lawyer. JR is. That said, the cat is out of the bag thanks to dumbass Giuliani spilling the beans on the "Muslim ban".

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.a065a34624e3[/url]

You do realize he campaigned on banning Muslims?
[url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration[/url]





So yes, it is unconstitutional.

...[/quote]
The order itself is not unconstitutional, what he campaigned on doesn't impact the constitunality of an order. But I'm not a constitutional lawyer (neither are you) so until a court holds it as unconstitutional or constitutional we will disagree.

Re: What would it take?
 

[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/countries-under-u-s-entry-ban-arent-main-sources-of-terror-attacks-1485708300[/url]

Interesting read about the actual threat of terrorism faced by U.S. versus the "Countries of Concern" identified by Obama and banned by Trump.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1164294]Islam is not a race.
:doh:[/quote]

While this is technically true, we've always discriminated against brown people.


[quote=Chico23231;1164297]everything is race to libs.

And the majority cut thru this bullshit and elected Trump...we are tired of the false narratives. We are tired of people who believe everything on the internet.[/quote]


Puhlease. He got elected because the Democrat party decided to run Hillary instead of anybody else. He got elected because Democrats stayed home on election day. The people aren't tired of the establishment, which is exactly why the same fucking Senators were voted in by those very same red states. This election was always about....."Not Hillary". To think otherwise is simply foolish.

I will say this about the Democratic party.(not all of them mind you) They have forgotten the middle class working man in their economic plans, and focused more on social issues. Social issues doesn't put food on the table.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1164297]everything is race to libs.



And the majority cut thru this bullshit and elected Trump...we are tired of the false narratives. We are tired of people who believe everything on the internet.[/QUOTE]



Majority of what? Not people.

Re: What would it take?
 

Some good news from the Trump administration.

[url]https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-keep-intact-obama-era-order-protecting-lgbtq-123553893--abc-news-topstories.html[/url]


Guess they needed some after the shelling they've been getting the past week.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;1164316]Some good news from the Trump administration.



[url]https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-keep-intact-obama-era-order-protecting-lgbtq-123553893--abc-news-topstories.html[/url]





Guess they needed some after the shelling they've been getting the past week.[/QUOTE]



What a saint. Lol. If you read the fine print it still allows them to drink from the same water fountain or use the same pay phone.

Re: What would it take?
 

Trump has been a supporter of the LGBTQ community since before the election. That said the timing of.this is likely a direct shot at the republicans who are backing off supporting him.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

If Trump wants to use the presidential bully pulpit then tonight's SCOTUS announcement is just that. You have to think every prolife and prochoice person will be watching. If he wants to speak directly to the whole United States this is his moment.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

It's gonna be huge, terrific, and big league.

Re: What would it take?
 

Talking about sinking their ship. Are they trying to kill their party? Go from condemning this shit to now supporting it? Based off what event? What facts? They aren't securing shit and they know it.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/speaker-defends-trumps-order-warns-protests-162108871--politics.html[/url]

It's going to be a long 4 years.

Re: What would it take?
 

Cant wait for Captain Gay Lover to let us know where Bannon , err um , where he stands on everything.
#thingswillneverbestranger

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1164328]Talking about sinking their ship. Are they trying to kill their party? Go from condemning this shit to now supporting it? Based off what event? What facts? They aren't securing shit and they know it.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/speaker-defends-trumps-order-warns-protests-162108871--politics.html[/url]

It's going to be a long 4 years.[/quote]

8

And then Ivanka does 8.

Re: What would it take?
 

I enjoy the fact that green card holders are also barred from entering the US. Nothing says "we don't even trust the other branches of our gov't to properly vet potential immigrants" like banning them in addition to undocumented immigrants. You just know that will be repealed later and then the Dems are gonna eat it up like they made a difference. Meanwhile Trump sits there testing the limits of his powers while distracting us with bullshit.

Re: What would it take?
 

Shocking new!! Protesters are outside the supreme court protesting!
At this rate Trump will be able to say his presidency had the most protesters ever before the first 6 months are over.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164357]Shocking new!! Protesters are outside the supreme court protesting!
At this rate Trump will be able to say his presidency had the most protesters ever before the first 6 months are over.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

They have every right to protest. This SCOTUS nomination was outright stolen from Obama. Gerrick Marland should be on the SCOTUS but wasn't even allowed a chance for damn near a year. I hope the Democrats realize now they can't play fair with the GOP, and they'll have to fight fire with fire as shitty as it is.

[url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme-court-nomination-20170131-story.html]When the GOP stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat, they set the stage for a miserable battle - LA Times[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164357]Shocking new!! Protesters are outside the supreme court protesting!
At this rate Trump will be able to say his presidency had the most protesters ever before the first 6 months are over.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]



As well it should as there has never been such a clueless, vile, insane potus before. [emoji106]

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;1164369]They have every right to protest. This SCOTUS nomination was outright stolen from Obama. Gerrick Marland should be on the SCOTUS but wasn't even allowed a chance for damn near a year. I hope the Democrats realize now they can't play fair with the GOP, and they'll have to fight fire with fire as shitty as it is.



[url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme-court-nomination-20170131-story.html]When the GOP stole Merrick Garlandâ€[emoji769]s Supreme Court seat, they set the stage for a miserable battle - LA Times[/url][/QUOTE]



It is unreal. Either his supporters, (not you Cred as at least you are aware of the facts[the non- alternative ones]), are just unaware of recent history or completely full of shit. Or both.
They fought Obama for a freaking year, and want the red carpet rolled out immediately for Trumps pick????
I honestly believe that 70% of the people crying about the fight being put up about Trumps pick actually have no idea how this has all unfolded. Only thing worse than a hypocrite is an ignorant hypocrite.

Re: What would it take?
 

Good pick last night, outstanding choice

Re: What would it take?
 

They have every right to protest, but when you protest everything it becomes meaningless.

I agree that the Republicans should have held hearings on Marland. A part of me wanted Trump to nominate him again to make the Democrats and Republicans freak out. (It was a small part of me, and i gave it a cupcake and it wandered off.)

Even had Marland gone to the full Senate, he wouldn't have been confirmed, so it isn't "stolen", but that doesn't minimize the wrong done by the Republicans in not holding hearings.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164355][B]I enjoy the fact that green card holders are also barred from entering the US.[/B] Nothing says "we don't even trust the other branches of our gov't to properly vet potential immigrants" like banning them in addition to undocumented immigrants. You just know that will be repealed later and then the Dems are gonna eat it up like they made a difference. Meanwhile Trump sits there testing the limits of his powers while distracting us with bullshit.[/quote]

Ive watched someone on NBC news say this wasn't true?

There is so much misinformation about the move...is it even a ban? nobody really knows.

Honestly, there is so much bullshit out there and folks are generally just making up stuff, write a bs article on the internet and pass it off as fact. The reason is the media doesn't fact check, basically whatever trump says just makeup whatever you need to go against it.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164379]They have every right to protest, but when you protest everything it becomes meaningless.



I agree that the Republicans should have held hearings on Marland. A part of me wanted Trump to nominate him again to make the Democrats and Republicans freak out. (It was a small part of me, and i gave it a cupcake and it wandered off.)



Even had Marland gone to the full Senate, he wouldn't have been confirmed, so it isn't "stolen", but that doesn't minimize the wrong done by the Republicans in not holding hearings.[/QUOTE]



Well, I don't think protest is ever meaningless.
This is my favorite so far,....

[url]https://youtu.be/sqiwLYhwxAY[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164376]It is unreal. Either his supporters, (not you Cred as at least you are aware of the facts[the non- alternative ones]), are just unaware of recent history or completely full of shit. Or both.
They fought Obama for a freaking year, and want the red carpet rolled out immediately for Trumps pick????
I honestly believe that 70% of the people crying about the fight being put up about Trumps pick actually have no idea how this has all unfolded. Only thing worse than a hypocrite is an ignorant hypocrite.[/quote]

The only difference between the Republicans last year, and the Democrats this time, is that during the election this was a major point for both parties, and the Republicans won. BUT, and this is the only time I will give credence to the popular vote, the fact that HC won the popular vote should have held some bearing on Trump's nominee. It clearly didn't as this was a pick to satisfy the strict conservative, and (hypocritical) Christian base. I understand why he had to make this pick, but if it was up to me, I would have gone with a choice that Democrats and Republicans (not the 1/3 of each party that's just rabid, but the sane ones) could come together on.

The problem with that, is a judge is basically either a "the constitution is what is", or a "the constitution is a living document" judge. That doesn't leave much in the way of compromise, but I would like to think that if you really looked you would find one.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164380]Ive watched someone on NBC news say this wasn't true?

There is so much misinformation about the move...is it even a ban? nobody really knows.

Honestly, there is so much bullshit out there and folks are generally just making up stuff, write a bs article on the internet and pass it off as fact. The reason is the media doesn't fact check, basically whatever trump says just makeup whatever you need to go against it.[/quote]

I think the problem is that in the White House they are confused. Michael Flynn couldn't respond to his Canadian counterparts questions about the executive action and this the man who is supposed to be enforcing it. It looks pretty piss poor when the admins own team can't field these questions from inquiring governments. This is why there is so much confusion not journalist making stuff up.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164382]The only difference between the Republicans last year, and the Democrats this time, is that during the election this was a major point for both parties, and the Republicans won. BUT, and this is the only time I will give credence to the popular vote, the fact that HC won the popular vote should have held some bearing on Trump's nominee. It clearly didn't as this was a pick to satisfy the strict conservative, and (hypocritical) Christian base. I understand why he had to make this pick, but if it was up to me, I would have gone with a choice that Democrats and Republicans (not the 1/3 of each party that's just rabid, but the sane ones) could come together on.



The problem with that, is a judge is basically either a "the constitution is what is", or a "the constitution is a living document" judge. That doesn't leave much in the way of compromise, but I would like to think that if you really looked you would find one.[/QUOTE]



Exactly this was a stick it to the right pick. And there was never an ounce of thought put into one that might help unify things. Trump is so hung up on his popularity that he is now in full battle mode with every action he takes. Has no intentions of unifying anybody. Good luck with that.