Acting AG Yates just blocked Trump's EO on immigration

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Oh this is gonna be fun.

Does he fire her or allow the stay to hold?

And if he fires her, is there anyone left at DOJ to sign warrants, etc?

HUGE rookie mistake to not wait for Sessions to be confirmed - if he fires Yates, Sen Dems have a hill to die on and Sessions confirmation gets tied up for evvvvvvvver

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Further details - sounds like she told the lawyers to NOT enforce the EO - that's different than a "stay" - bad language on my part.

Developing

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-01-31, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh this is gonna be fun.
>
> Does he fire her or allow the stay to hold?

If he allows the stay to hold, he might as well resign.
Prediction -- "You're fired!"

> And if he fires her, is there anyone left at DOJ to sign warrants, etc?
>
> HUGE rookie mistake to not wait for Sessions to be confirmed - if he
> fires Yates, Sen Dems have a hill to die on and Sessions confirmation
> gets tied up for evvvvvvvver

I don't know why. She's openly making a grandstand play to defy him, which
is a firing offense. And the Dems can make noise about Sessions, but they
can't stop his confirmation.

--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-01-31, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh this is gonna be fun.
> >
> > Does he fire her or allow the stay to hold?
>
> If he allows the stay to hold, he might as well resign.
> Prediction -- "You're fired!"
>
> > And if he fires her, is there anyone left at DOJ to sign warrants, etc?
> >
> > HUGE rookie mistake to not wait for Sessions to be confirmed - if he
> > fires Yates, Sen Dems have a hill to die on and Sessions confirmation
> > gets tied up for evvvvvvvver
>
> I don't know why. She's openly making a grandstand play to defy him, which
> is a firing offense. And the Dems can make noise about Sessions, but they
> can't stop his confirmation.
>

May be wrong on this, but she's the only person in the DOJ right now who can sign surveillance warrants and the like - if he fires her, he can't gets warrants he might need until Sessions gets confirmed - and I gotta think the Dems will do whatever they can to hold up Sessions - especially if Trump announces the SC pick tomorrow night

IOW, he's given them a political hill to die on - one he needs to have

[xyzzy]

Now we're going to find out. He just fired her.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:56:12 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> Now we're going to find out. He just fired her.

They're just swearing in an acting AG - who I assume will be able to do all the things husker enumerated.

What I don't quite understand is why he didn't just appoint Sessions acting AG? Are there some rules in play that would prohibit that?

Cheers.

[Michael Press]

In article <a68086d9-b992-4766...@googlegroups.com>,

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yates's choices are follow orders or resign. The president swore
to uphold the law. It is his duty to fire her if she does not
follow orders. Yates wants to be a martyr. Good play. She was on
the way out anyway.

I think you may have violated your 3 hour rule; in spirit, anyway.

--
Michael Press

[Ken Olson]

Seamless replacement.

https://www.axios.com/trump-fires-acting-a-g-2226964333.html


--
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use
two feet."
- Keef

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-01-31, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2017-01-31, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Oh this is gonna be fun.
>> >
>> > Does he fire her or allow the stay to hold?
>>
>> If he allows the stay to hold, he might as well resign.
>> Prediction -- "You're fired!"
>>
>> > And if he fires her, is there anyone left at DOJ to sign warrants, etc?
>> >
>> > HUGE rookie mistake to not wait for Sessions to be confirmed - if he
>> > fires Yates, Sen Dems have a hill to die on and Sessions confirmation
>> > gets tied up for evvvvvvvver
>>
>> I don't know why. She's openly making a grandstand play to defy him, which
>> is a firing offense. And the Dems can make noise about Sessions, but they
>> can't stop his confirmation.
>>
>
> May be wrong on this, but she's the only person in the DOJ right now
> who can sign surveillance warrants and the like - if he fires her, he
> can't gets warrants he might need until Sessions gets confirmed - and
> I gotta think the Dems will do whatever they can to hold up Sessions -
> especially if Trump announces the SC pick tomorrow night

Do you have some basis for this? Why would not the next Senate-
confirmed deputy just be appointed to the job?

> IOW, he's given them a political hill to die on - one he needs to have

Eventually, I think they'll pay for this, as they are fiercely
opposing so many nominees. This level of obstruction is unprecedented,
and it makes the Dems look like partisan idots. When Obama's
appointees are largely approved by voice vote, and Dems are voting
wholesale against Trump's picks, it just makes them look unreasonable.

--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:56:12 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:

> Now we're going to find out. He just fired her.

Wow - Conn was spot on with this

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Hah - you're correct - I did!

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Here's what I want to know - what powers does Donte have? Can he sign off on warrants, etc.

I'm guessing he cannot - that he can perform many of the functions of AG - but not those requiring senate confirmation.

There has to be some "line in the sand" wrt to duties - otherwise there wouldn't need to be confirmation hearings - right?

Or not?

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:50:49 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-01-31, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> On 2017-01-31, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Oh this is gonna be fun.
> >> >
> >> > Does he fire her or allow the stay to hold?
> >>
> >> If he allows the stay to hold, he might as well resign.
> >> Prediction -- "You're fired!"
> >>
> >> > And if he fires her, is there anyone left at DOJ to sign warrants, etc?
> >> >
> >> > HUGE rookie mistake to not wait for Sessions to be confirmed - if he
> >> > fires Yates, Sen Dems have a hill to die on and Sessions confirmation
> >> > gets tied up for evvvvvvvver
> >>
> >> I don't know why. She's openly making a grandstand play to defy him, which
> >> is a firing offense. And the Dems can make noise about Sessions, but they
> >> can't stop his confirmation.
> >>
> >
> > May be wrong on this, but she's the only person in the DOJ right now
> > who can sign surveillance warrants and the like - if he fires her, he
> > can't gets warrants he might need until Sessions gets confirmed - and
> > I gotta think the Dems will do whatever they can to hold up Sessions -
> > especially if Trump announces the SC pick tomorrow night
>
> Do you have some basis for this? Why would not the next Senate-
> confirmed deputy just be appointed to the job?

B/c there aren't any - Yates was the only one still on staff. See above answer to Dot re permissible duties - I honestly don't know - but you'd think there'd be a limit on what an appointed AG can do v confirmed AG

> > IOW, he's given them a political hill to die on - one he needs to have
>
> Eventually, I think they'll pay for this, as they are fiercely
> opposing so many nominees. This level of obstruction is unprecedented,
> and it makes the Dems look like partisan idots. When Obama's
> appointees are largely approved by voice vote, and Dems are voting
> wholesale against Trump's picks, it just makes them look unreasonable.
>

Honestly tho, Trump's not helping much and giving the Dems Big Reasons to oppose loudly - and by vote

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

I don't think he needs to be confirmed in order to tell his people to do their rsfcking jobs :-)

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Right - but I bet he does to do certain actions - will play w/ google and see what I can find

[andre...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:34:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <a68086d9-b992-4766...@googlegroups.com>,
> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh this is gonna be fun.
> >
> > Does he fire her or allow the stay to hold?
> >
> > And if he fires her, is there anyone left at DOJ to sign warrants, etc?
> >
> > HUGE rookie mistake to not wait for Sessions to be confirmed - if he fires Yates, Sen Dems have a hill to die on and Sessions confirmation gets tied up for evvvvvvvver
>
> Yates's choices are follow orders or resign. The president swore
> to uphold the law. It is his duty to fire her if she does not
> follow orders. Yates wants to be a martyr. Good play. She was on
> the way out anyway.

Trump's pick for AG disagrees with you.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sally-yates-jeff-sessions-video-2015-confirmation-hearing-2017-1

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:50:40 -0800 (PST), "The Cheesehusker, Trade
Warrior" <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>IOW, he's given them a political hill to die on

That's as good a place as any for that event.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:42:49 -0800 (PST), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>What I don't quite understand is why he didn't just appoint Sessions acting AG? Are there some rules in play that would prohibit that?

I think he just wants to rub liberal noses in stinky stuff as
repayment for Obama.

Hugh

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

She was just appointed acting. I think you can do that with any deputy who
has been confirmed by the Senate.

>
>> > IOW, he's given them a political hill to die on - one he needs to have
>>
>> Eventually, I think they'll pay for this, as they are fiercely
>> opposing so many nominees. This level of obstruction is unprecedented,
>> and it makes the Dems look like partisan idots. When Obama's
>> appointees are largely approved by voice vote, and Dems are voting
>> wholesale against Trump's picks, it just makes them look unreasonable.
>>
>
> Honestly tho, Trump's not helping much and giving the Dems Big Reasons
> to oppose loudly - and by vote

????

Oppose his cabinet nominees? What does his executive order regime have
to do with that?

--
I have a cop friend who thinks he ought be able to give a new ticket;
"too dumb for conditions".

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-01-31, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:42:51 PM UTC-6, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:56:12 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
>> > Now we're going to find out. He just fired her.
>>
>> They're just swearing in an acting AG - who I assume will be able to do all the things husker enumerated.
>>
>> What I don't quite understand is why he didn't just appoint Sessions acting AG? Are there some rules in play that would prohibit that?
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> Here's what I want to know - what powers does Donte have? Can he sign off on warrants, etc.

Why would Yates have been any different?

>
> I'm guessing he cannot - that he can perform many of the functions of
> AG - but not those requiring senate confirmation.
>
> There has to be some "line in the sand" wrt to duties - otherwise
> there wouldn't need to be confirmation hearings - right?

Yates wasn't confirmed as AG. She was Acting.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

That's the thing tho - had heard she was the only one left who had been.

Moot point tho according to the link I posted elsewhere

> >
> >> > IOW, he's given them a political hill to die on - one he needs to have
> >>
> >> Eventually, I think they'll pay for this, as they are fiercely
> >> opposing so many nominees. This level of obstruction is unprecedented,
> >> and it makes the Dems look like partisan idots. When Obama's
> >> appointees are largely approved by voice vote, and Dems are voting
> >> wholesale against Trump's picks, it just makes them look unreasonable.
> >>
> >
> > Honestly tho, Trump's not helping much and giving the Dems Big Reasons
> > to oppose loudly - and by vote
>
> ????
>
> Oppose his cabinet nominees? What does his executive order regime have
> to do with that?

You just watch - they'll use this as an excuse to delay confirmations as best they can.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

An unconstitutional law is no law, unless we no longer operate under the Constitution -- and the more you see Trump willing to do, the more you realize he'd be out of his mind not to declare the Constitution itself (or at least present interpretation) an enemy of the Constitution on a domestic scale.

It is many who viewed the current interpretation of the Constitution as a need to elect Trump on a scorched Earth basis -- probably Obgerefell as the last straw.

Mike

[Michael Press]

In article <ff3def57-36cf-4437...@googlegroups.com>,

I do not see disagreement.
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."

It is an obligation undertaken under oath.

--
Michael Press

[andre...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <ff3def57-36cf-4437...@googlegroups.com>,
> andre...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:34:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article <a68086d9-b992-4766...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh this is gonna be fun.
> > > >
> > > > Does he fire her or allow the stay to hold?
> > > >
> > > > And if he fires her, is there anyone left at DOJ to sign warrants, etc?
> > > >
> > > > HUGE rookie mistake to not wait for Sessions to be confirmed - if he fires Yates, Sen Dems have a hill to die on and Sessions confirmation gets tied up for evvvvvvvver
> > >
> > > Yates's choices are follow orders or resign. The president swore
> > > to uphold the law. It is his duty to fire her if she does not
> > > follow orders. Yates wants to be a martyr. Good play. She was on
> > > the way out anyway.
> >
> > Trump's pick for AG disagrees with you.
> >
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/sally-yates-jeff-sessions-video-2015-confirmation-hearing-2017-1
>
> I do not see disagreement.

It's pretty hard to see disagreement with your head buried in the sand.


"Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper?" A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, “Well, he appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views, what’s wrong with that?” […]

"Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law in the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the Prresident."

“Well, that’s true, and like any CEO with a law firm, sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, 'Mr. CEO, you can’t do that. Don’t do that we’ll get us sued, it’s gonna be in violation of the law, you’ll regret it, please.' No matter how headstrong they might be."

[Michael Press]

In article <1fb3b48a-b899-4222...@googlegroups.com>,

Yate's did not offer counsel.
She did not offer a legal arguement.
Her job is to offer counsel.
She did not do her job.
Most people would resign.
She chose otherwise.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:52:34 -0800 (PST), andre...@gmail.com wrote:

>"Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney genera=
>l has an obligation to follow the law in the constitution and to give their=

> independent legal advice to the Prresident."

That should work once we get unanimity on the meaning of the
constitution.

Hugh

[andre...@gmail.com]

Yes, she did.

> She did not offer a legal arguement.

Yes, she did.

> Her job is to offer counsel.

And that is what she did.

> She did not do her job.

That is exactly what she did.

> Most people would resign.

Why would she resign if she "wasn't doing her job"?

> She chose otherwise.

She chose to say "no" to the President. Despite what you may think, that is her job.

[andre...@gmail.com]

Call me when conservatives stop contradicting themselves on the Constitution. Or stop trying to repeal the 14th Amendment.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

I don't see a problem with the 14th. Babies born here are citizens,
the parents may not be. So, would they want to leave the baby American
citizen here when they have to go back home if not naturalized?

Section 1 covers what a state can and can't do. It does not mention
individuals.

Your idea of privileges and Immunities is certain to be different from
mine and the 14th doesn't cover that. In fact the 14th does not
address what happens to non-cotizens.

Now what were you saying?

Hugh

[andre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:23:33 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:44:36 -0800 (PST), andre...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 6:34:11 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:52:34 -0800 (PST), andre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney genera=
> >> >l has an obligation to follow the law in the constitution and to give their=
> >> > independent legal advice to the Prresident."
> >>
> >> That should work once we get unanimity on the meaning of the
> >> constitution.
> >
> >Call me when conservatives stop contradicting themselves on the Constitution. Or stop trying to repeal the 14th Amendment.
>
> I don't see a problem with the 14th.

You don't speak for the entirety or even the vast majority of conservatives.

> Now what were you saying?

See above.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

...nor do they speak for me.

Hugh

[andre...@gmail.com]

Irrelevant to the discussion.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:44:38 AM UTC-8, andre...@gmail.com wrote:

> Call me when conservatives stop contradicting themselves on the Constitution. Or stop trying to repeal the 14th Amendment.

What do you mean? The Equal Protection Clause is one of the biggest horrors to a conservative.

Mike

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 7:23:33 AM UTC-8, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> I don't see a problem with the 14th. Babies born here are citizens,
> the parents may not be. So, would they want to leave the baby American
> citizen here when they have to go back home if not naturalized?

There are other additional provisions the 14th gives citizens many conservatives find abhorrent. Which see, for one example, Obgerefell.

Mike

[Michael Press]

In article <9baa8d2d-5148-4789...@googlegroups.com>,

Give us a link to a legal scholar that makes her legal case.

The DOJ is a law firm. The president retains the DOJ. The
president is a client. A law firm does what the client asks;
otherwise the firm resigns or is fired.

--
Michael Press

[Ken Olson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
--
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use
two feet."
- Keef

[andre...@gmail.com]

Are you saying that you refuse to accept Jeff Sessions as a legal scholar?

> The DOJ is a law firm. The president retains the DOJ. The
> president is a client. A law firm does what the client asks;
> otherwise the firm resigns or is fired.

The DOJ has a responsibility to the President *and* the American public. The President is likewise not a dictator but a servant of the American public. If there is tension between those things, the DOJ is supposed to side with the interests of the American public.

[Michael Press]

In article <ef92c162-cbdb-45b1...@googlegroups.com>,

That link does not go to a legal argument for Yates
refusing to defend the EO.

>
> > The DOJ is a law firm. The president retains the DOJ. The
> > president is a client. A law firm does what the client asks;
> > otherwise the firm resigns or is fired.
>
> The DOJ has a responsibility to the President *and* the American public. The President is likewise not a dictator but a servant of the American public. If there is tension between those things, the DOJ is supposed to side with the interests of the American public.

The AG is at liberty to resign in deference to the citizens
and the AG's considered legal opinion.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:41:31 -0800 (PST), andre...@gmail.com wrote:


>The DOJ has a responsibility to the President *and* the American public. T=
>he President is likewise not a dictator but a servant of the American publi=
>c. If there is tension between those things, the DOJ is supposed to side w=

>ith the interests of the American public.

Her gone.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

That's okay, I don't discuss.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Queers are like purple cows to me. I guess they are around but don't
go to the better places. Must be because of that white stuff on their
lips.

Hugh

[andre...@gmail.com]

So you're saying you refuse to accept Jeff Sessions as a legal scholar. Got it.

> > > The DOJ is a law firm. The president retains the DOJ. The
> > > president is a client. A law firm does what the client asks;
> > > otherwise the firm resigns or is fired.
> >
> > The DOJ has a responsibility to the President *and* the American public. The President is likewise not a dictator but a servant of the American public. If there is tension between those things, the DOJ is supposed to side with the interests of the American public.
>
> The AG is at liberty to resign in deference to the citizens
> and the AG's considered legal opinion.

That isn't the only option available to the AG. As was demonstrated.

[Michael Press]

In article <269b4171-5567-40fb...@googlegroups.com>,

You have not provided a legal argument for Yates.

> > > > The DOJ is a law firm. The president retains the DOJ. The
> > > > president is a client. A law firm does what the client asks;
> > > > otherwise the firm resigns or is fired.
> > >
> > > The DOJ has a responsibility to the President *and* the American public. The President is likewise not a dictator but a servant of the American public. If there is tension between those things, the DOJ is supposed to side with the interests of the American public.
> >
> > The AG is at liberty to resign in deference to the citizens
> > and the AG's considered legal opinion.
>
> That isn't the only option available to the AG. As was demonstrated.

I did not say those were the only options.

--
Michael Press