Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept. Not to Defend Refugee Ban

[Flarelaine]

I'll do my part when he visits my city in July. You can start thinking up a slogan for my sign. :P

We'll have Putin over here this week... but though people are trying to throw a protest, no one will be allowed within two blocks. Meh.

[satimy]

How to lose a job in 10 days

[Edge-]

It didn't become a full muslim ban because of all his conflicts of interest, but for the nations he did cherrypick, preferential screening was given to non-muslims(specifically christians), so I fail to see how it isn't still a muslim ban, albeit a limited one.

That's for the courts to decide, if they end up hearing a case on it. And Giuliani's comments will make things far more complicated for the Trump team, bless that man and his demented (as in he is suffering from dementia) brain, he just runs at the mouth and blurts out things he probably shouldn't be saying publicly. But the Trump team keeps letting him in on insider information and letting him talk to press, so apparently they have no issues with him, for some reason.

[Slybak]

more of this anonymous source bull crap give me names and official statements
because the dishonest press has been proven they cant be trusted. they can make up any crap they want make the claim some anonymous source gave them that information and there is no way in hell to verify it

so until you can give me names and official statement it is bull crap

The official statement of the OLC on whether or not they reviewed the order is "No Comment." The only other reporting is from yet another unnamed DoJ official who said the order had been given a traditional “form and legality” review, but also wouldn't say - when directly asked - whether or not it passed that review.

now lookey here

Yates's letter does not confirm that such a review took place, only that such reviews are narrow, nor did she write that the Civil Division could offer a credible defense in Court. She brought up the Civil Division as another group within the DoJ, relative to the OLC, that offers legal guidance. Her job is to take all of this, and more, into account and make a final determination.

[Zython]

Did the United States of America abolish it's constitution, it's court system and congress all at the same time?

You don't need to formally abolish anything if you have enough people willing to ignore it.

[Slant]

We'll have Putin over here this week... but though people are trying to throw a protest, no one will be allowed within two blocks. Meh.

Doesn't matter if Putin sees the protest. It matters if the cameras see the protest. Putin will have to confront the protest on TV.

[Beazy]

Probably because that was a completely legal law, affirmed by the courts, that she was obligated to enforce. This executive order that has not stood up to court scrutiny (at least regarding those with legal status in the US like green cards) and that as AG she is not obligated to enforce if she believes it to be illegal.

And she was fired for it, which is the consequence of her actions, just like the other lady was sent to prison for refusing to abide by court orders to do her job.

It's almost like they're two totally different things, but like usual Trump supporters seem completely unable to differentiate when it comes to context and specifics.

Seriously, this is a really troubling phenomenon

So she made a statement and specifically pointed out that she was ok with everything in the EO except the legal status of green card holders? If not, stop grasping.

[Flarelaine]

Doesn't matter if Putin sees the protest. It matters if the cameras see the protest. Putin will have to confront the protest on TV.

TV will show peaceful, empty streets. Our own pocket Putin has taken lessons.

[Edge-]

So she made a statement and specifically pointed out that she was ok with everything in the EO except the legal status of green card holders? If not, stop grasping.

I'm not grasping at anything. She clearly disagreed with the order, both in its spirit and in how it was written. She voiced that disagreement and affirmed her refusal to defend it, and was fired.

What am I grasping at?

[Vyxn]

The official statement of the OLC on whether or not they reviewed the order is "No Comment." The only other reporting is from yet another unnamed DoJ official who said the order had been given a traditional “form and legality” review, but also wouldn't say - when directly asked - whether or not it passed that review.



Yates's letter does not confirm that such a review took place, only that such reviews are narrow, nor did she write that the Civil Division could offer a credible defense in Court. She brought up the Civil Division as another group within the DoJ, relative to the OLC, that offers legal guidance. Her job is to take all of this, and more, into account and make a final determination.

The office of legal council certainly did say Trumps EO was legal so any argument after its legality was established is purely political. Yates had no legal basis not to defend the E.O. so her decision not to was based on her politics and she attempted to force others to adopt her same politically based decision and demanded they do the same

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not grasping at anything. She clearly disagreed with the order, both in its spirit and in how it was written. She voiced that disagreement and affirmed her refusal to defend it, and was fired.

What am I grasping at?

The E.O. was deemed legal so she had the obligation to defend it doesn't make a dam if she liked the E.O. or not
she based her decision not to enforce a E.O. that her departments office of legal council said was legal was based on her politics not if the E.O. was lawful or not that was already established it was

So because her politics and morals kept her from doing her required job the right recourse would be to resign not to refuse to do her job and get others to do the same

[Slant]

The E.O. was deemed legal so she had the obligation to defend it doesn't make a dam if she liked the E.O. or not
she based her decision not to enforce a E.O. that her departments office of legal council said was legal was based on her politics not if the E.O. was lawful or not that was already established it was

So because her politics and morals kept her from doing her required job the right recourse would be to resign not to refuse and get others to do the same

Since when has the US become an army of robots listening to orders without daring to think for themselves? Is that what the constitution asks of you? To obey no matter what?

[Vyxn]

The official statement of the OLC on whether or not they reviewed the order is "No Comment." The only other reporting is from yet another unnamed DoJ official who said the order had been given a traditional “form and legality” review, but also wouldn't say - when directly asked - whether or not it passed that review.



Yates's letter does not confirm that such a review took place, only that such reviews are narrow, nor did she write that the Civil Division could offer a credible defense in Court. She brought up the Civil Division as another group within the DoJ, relative to the OLC, that offers legal guidance. Her job is to take all of this, and more, into account and make a final determination.

Justice Department Said Trump’s Refugee Ban Is Legal. They Didn’t Say It Was A Good Idea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0522c7d3c1006

- - - Updated - - -

Since when has the US become an army of robots listening to orders without daring to think for themselves? Is that what the constitution asks of you? To obey no matter what?

when the law says so. we are a nation of laws doesn't make a dam if you like the law or not you obey them till they are changed. which as citizens we have the constitutional right to petition the government to change the laws but till then you obey them

[Slant]

when the law says so. we are a nation of laws doesn't make a dam if you like the law or not you obey them till they are changed. which as citizens we have the constitutional right to petition the government to change the laws but till then you obey them

So, you consider an order by the President to be the law now? It's good you want to be so obedient. This will make the transition into Trump's new system much easier for you.

[Seradi]

Sally Yates, American hero.

[Skroe]

https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/826546412125089793



Spoiler alert Trumpkins: You don't have 1000 foreign service people.

Also Rex Tillerson is apparently in panic mode over relations between the White House and the State Department. He's trying to make all sorts of ice-breaking moves, like meeting with State Department subject-matter experts.

But then again, State has been rather emptied at the top.

[Vyxn]

So, you consider an order by the President to be the law now? It's good you want to be so obedient. This will make the transition into Trump's new system much easier for you.

It is a lawful order deemed as so by the DOJ's office of legal council until a court says other wise

[Draco-Onis]

It is a lawful order deemed as so by the DOJ's office of legal council until a court says other wise

A) The DOJ and several government agencies never vetted the order, some got the news from TV. They literally had to edit it on the fly afterwards.

B) Several courts have said otherwise and halted the order hence why Trump needs the DOJ to step in.

[Slant]

It is a lawful order deemed as so by the DOJ's office of legal council until a court says other wise

A court is about to say otherwise. And newsflash, Attorneys are usually the first to suspect illegality. Judges never just open up trials on their own. The initiation process starts somewhere else. Now what will you do when the court deems it unconstitutional? Will you bite the bullet and ask for her to be reinstated, since obviously, she was right?

Somehow, I doubt that. People obediently serving a king do not question the king. They obey. That's all they're good for.

[Deleted]

https://twitter.com/Trump_Regrets

[Skroe]

It is a lawful order deemed as so by the DOJ's office of legal council until a court says other wise

Actually within the tradition of the US Government and US Military, the only requirement is belief. They are obligated to refuse to follow what they believe may be an unlawful order, as the Acting AG did. Of course, step two is to go through legal or administrative procedings to figure out if the order was indeed lawful or not.

But this metric you Trumpkins are a attempt to concoct to normalize something that hasn't happened since Nixon is asinine. On the battlefield, or in the government, they're not going to consult constitutional scholars. They don't have the time or the opportunity. They'll decline to obey, and let the courts sort it out, as it should be.

In any event, evidently the DoJ and State Department is near open rebellion, between the firing and Spicer's "get with the program or leave", message, so, if you want to paper over a deteriorating situation, all I can say is "good luck".