• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump just fired the acting Attorney General

Have the wording of the White House statement been discussed yet?

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether of the firing was a good decision, can any Trump supporter defend this childish idiocy?
 
Warpoet said:
Yeah, you've been saying this ad nauseum and it misses the fucking point. Whether or not people from any given country have Constitutional rights is not the same question as whether or not a broad-brush ban is, in and of itself, Constitutional. The Mandel case dealt with a non-citizen who also had no Constitutional rights, and SCOTUS still required valid reasoning for his exclusion. Religious exclusions are even more questionable, due to the First Amendment. This is not some clear-cut issue of unquestionable executive power, Trausti, whether you like it not.
Click to expand...

Heh, the thing is that Mandel is kind of an old case. Decided in 1972. As happens from time to time, the Supreme Court may issue an opinion and Congress adjusts accordingly. So, it appears, that happened here. In Mandel, the issue was what authority Congress had delegated to the executive, and specifically, to the attorney general, regarding admission of aliens. The question was whether the AG, in that instance, had exceeded the authority so delegated. But it's worth noting that since 1972, 8 USC 1182 has been revised many times. The statutory language at issue in Mandel is no longer there. In its place, at some point, Congress added the section cited by dismal. That, apparently, delegates even greater discretionary authority to the president on who may and who may not enter. Any discussion on this topic that ignores this statutory revision is a waste of hot air.
 
dismal said:
For almost the entire history of this country we have had laws restricting immigration of groups of people. We currently have a statute which clearly seems to provide for exactly that:

(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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Click to expand...

Thank you for that link. Reading though the statute, first we see pages and pages of sensible legislation, where the criteria to allow someone entry to the U.S. are indeed based on individual's past actions and the ensuing risk assessment. All that is eminently sensible and follows the broad principles of justice I mentioned.

But then, all of a sudden there is that clause that says - so far so good, but if one day the President wakes up an decides he doesn't like someone for whatever reason, he can swipe aside all this beautiful legislation and simply do whatever the heck he wants, for as long as he wants it!

What is the point of a detailed and careful law that also includes a clause allowing the President to completely ignore it without being accountable to anyone? Is this really the kind of unchecked power you want to give to a single individual?
 
Trausti said:
Heh, the thing is that Mandel is kind of an old case. Decided in 1972. As happens from time to time, the Supreme Court may issue an opinion and Congress adjusts accordingly. So, it appears, that happened here. In Mandel, the issue was what authority Congress had delegated to the executive, and specifically, to the attorney general, regarding admission of aliens. The question was whether the AG, in that instance, had exceeded the authority so delegated. But it's worth noting that since 1972, 8 USC 1182 has been revised many times. The statutory language at issue in Mandel is no longer there. In its place, at some point, Congress added the section cited by dismal. That, apparently, delegates even greater discretionary authority to the president on who may and who may not enter. Any discussion on this topic that ignores this statutory revision is a waste of hot air.
Click to expand...

And since Congress does not interpret the law, or determine what scope the courts have in doing so, that does not change the fundamental question of whether or not the executive powers dismal cited are subject to judicial review, including this ludicrous immigration ban. The SCOTUS decision that dismal himself cited suggests that the Court feels it does, and Congress has no authority to say otherwise.

The discussion is not hot air. You and dismal merely wish to shut down any possibility of a legal challenge to this executive order, because you must realize, on some level, just how fucking stupid it actually is. You apparently would much rather just have a tyrannical orange clown issue diktats without oversight, as long as it suits your ideological objectives.
 
faded_Glory said:
What is the point of a detailed and careful law that also includes a clause allowing the President to completely ignore it without being accountable to anyone? Is this really the kind of unchecked power you want to give to a single individual?
Click to expand...

You'll find that there are more people than you'd likely expect, even in left-leaning, "rational" circles, who will happily hand such power over to tyrants so long as the right kind of people are on the receiving end of it. And by the time they realize their mistake, it's cost not just them, but everyone else.
 
blastula said:
Regardless of whether of the firing was a good decision, can any Trump supporter defend this childish idiocy?
Click to expand...
Ummm... yeah. Some had signs saying "Trump can grab my pussy". They'll justify anything, I'm pretty certain.
 
LordKiran said:
Trausti said:
Don't think any judge thinks otherwise.

We are sympathetic to the plight of Petitioners and other aliens who have come to this country seeking protection and repose from dangers that they sincerely believe their own governments are unable or unwilling to address. Nevertheless, Congress has unambiguously limited the scope of judicial review, and in so doing has foreclosed review of Petitioners' claims. And in light of the undisputed facts surrounding Petitioners' surreptitious entry into this country, and considering Congress' and the Executive's plenary power over decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of aliens, we cannot say that this limited scope of review is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, at least as to Petitioners and other aliens similarly situated. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petitioners' habeas petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161339p.pdf
Click to expand...

You keep dodging the issue. Why so hesitant to stay on topic? Are you either unable or unwilling to admit that Trump is currently breaking the law?
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah, he's dodging the issue by posting relevant legal precedent instead of calling people names and venting emotional spleen.
 
faded_Glory said:
Is this really the kind of unchecked power you want to give to a single individual?
Click to expand...

Apparently, they did want to give it as evidenced by the statute.

And the power is not "unchecked" it is checked by the political process and the power to rewrite the law.
 
Warpoet said:
Trausti said:
Heh, the thing is that Mandel is kind of an old case. Decided in 1972. As happens from time to time, the Supreme Court may issue an opinion and Congress adjusts accordingly. So, it appears, that happened here. In Mandel, the issue was what authority Congress had delegated to the executive, and specifically, to the attorney general, regarding admission of aliens. The question was whether the AG, in that instance, had exceeded the authority so delegated. But it's worth noting that since 1972, 8 USC 1182 has been revised many times. The statutory language at issue in Mandel is no longer there. In its place, at some point, Congress added the section cited by dismal. That, apparently, delegates even greater discretionary authority to the president on who may and who may not enter. Any discussion on this topic that ignores this statutory revision is a waste of hot air.
Click to expand...

And since Congress does not interpret the law, or determine what scope the courts have in doing so, that does not change the fundamental question of whether or not the executive powers dismal cited are subject to judicial review, including this ludicrous immigration ban. The SCOTUS decision that dismal himself cited suggests that the Court feels it does, and Congress has no authority to say otherwise.

The discussion is not hot air. You and dismal merely wish to shut down any possibility of a legal challenge to this executive order, because you must realize, on some level, just how fucking stupid it actually is. You apparently would much rather just have a tyrannical orange clown issue diktats without oversight, as long as it suits your ideological objectives.
Click to expand...

Well, it is hot air. And there's an important distinction that hasn't been brought up about Mandel in relation the temporary ban of people from a handful of countries. The distinction is that, in Mandel, the Belgian guy wasn't the one challenging the AG's decision to deny entry. As has been repeated numerous times in this and the other thread, non-citizens in foreign lands have no Constitutional rights. So the appellees in Mandel were not arguing that the AG's denial violated the Belgian guy's rights; rather,

The appellees have framed the issue here as follows:

"Does appellants' action in refusing to allow an alien scholar to enter the country to attend academic meetings violate the First Amendment rights of American scholars and students who had invited him?
Click to expand...

The answer was no. Anyway, there is nothing about Mandel to suggest - at all - that SCOTUS or another federal court may be persuaded to extend Constitutional rights to non-citizens in foreign lands. That question did not come up in Mandel, as everyone there clearly accepted that non-citizens in foreign lands do not have Constitutional rights. Hence, Trump's executive order in this regard is Constitutionally sound.
 
As I implied in the other thread, these are what people should be taking away from all this:

1. Nobody should be surprised that the executive order is legal, as it was specifically designed to achieve its goal while circumventing legal barriers

2. The fact that it is legal does not mean it is not intended to keep Muslims out of the US, which it transparently is

3. Focusing on the legality of it is how Trump hopes it will be legitimized, so that he can go even further with his next order

4. The fact that only one judge has refused to uphold the ban is valuable information for Trump, and shows he can get away with much more
 
The difference a presidency makes:

schumer.jpg
 
Relevance? You want to imply an inconsistency but what is it exactly?
 
My bold:

blastula said:
Have the wording of the White House statement been discussed yet?

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether of the firing was a good decision, can any Trump supporter defend this childish idiocy?
Click to expand...

The implication of the first sentence is that if something is legal it is just. If that's true, then we don't actually need a Department of Justice.
 
Trausti said:
The difference a presidency makes:

schumer.jpg
Click to expand...

Sounds like a reasonable approach, making sure the Visa Waiver program is not abused, and improving passports so they are harder to be forged. Those are the things a sane person who actually cares about stopping terrorists while helping others who are fleeing from terrorism would do. A crazy deluded asshole would just ban entire fucking countries full of people from entering the US, because that approach fuels the engine that creates terrorists, and leaves those who are most vulnerable to those terrorists out in the cold.
 
Yes, can anyone who supports the order show how it will decrease terrorism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom