Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[Wyrt]

wrong, here is the evidence.



but lets not let that get in the way of all of you not knowing what the fuck your talking about.

It was changed by the Immigration and Nationality act of 1965. It removed nationality from being discriminated against for immigration. Congress is required to change the law, not the president.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't really see how the analogy adds up, you can certainly be Court Marshalled for disobeying an order even if you thought it was illegal at the time. The catch is, the recourse in that analogy is to attempt to move up the chain of command, which in Yates' case is not an option that existed.

And as I've stated before, if her Oath conflicted with the job she said she was taking then she needs to quit that job or come to voice the concern to the person she's representing.

You can also be court martialed for following an illegal order if you knew or reasonably should have known that the order was illegal.

Her first duty is to the Constitution...not to the President.

[Sunseeker]

Sally Yates' job was to represent the President's interests as an extension of his authority. If she did not approve of what he was doing and intended not to pursue his interests she had an obligation to inform him, recuse herself, and resign from her position if she could not find a solution.

Except that's not her job. Her job is to defend US interests, not Presidential ones. Sometimes those things align, sometimes they don't.

[MrLachyG]

As far as I understand it, he has banned people from several countries because they could be terrorists. Which is made more interesting by which countries he left off the list; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc who produce lots of terrorists who go on to attack American interests

[Kiri]

False dichotomy, you attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with your employer when it comes to big time issues like this, and then you resign rather than state your intention to go rogue while still under the umbrella of your employer.

THOUGH I'm forced to agree with you that I think she was well aware she would be fired and knew what the implications would be. However, the attorney general exists to be the official representation of the President's legal authority.

For an analogy, if a defense attorney takes a case to represent a murderer, it is that defense attorney's job to represent that person's interests to the best of their ability and resign from that assignment if they cannot carry out that duty. On the same token Yates took a job to represent Trump, and decided as his representation to work against his stated interests while still assuming the role of representing him.

Well, the analogy is not entirely correct. Yates took the case to represent Obama, who was then replaced by Trump. And what Trump did arguably went against the stated interests of Obama, so going along with those would have been proper.
Not saying that it should not be different for presidents. Just the analogy doesn't really work like this.

[Skroe]

You folks know whose lawsuit this was?

Amazon and Expedia's.

Everybody who said tech wouldn't fight and would just roll over to Trump was proven entirely wrong today.

[Wyrt]

You folks know whose lawsuit this was?

Amazon and Expedia's.

Everybody who said tech wouldn't fight and would just roll over to Trump was proven entirely wrong today.

Even Blizzard has publicly come out against it and has said some employees have been affected by it. Still waiting for #BoycottBlizzard to start trending among the alt right.

[PosPosPos]

If alternative context becomes a thing I demand that I be mentioned on know your meme.

Well James Comey did the same thing that I said Yates should do but at George Bush's expense since it forced him to change his mind on a case involving wiretapping, and I hardly would think something at GWB's expense would be considered as right wing spin.

The fact you are adding context where it doesn't exist isn't what the far right loves to do by making up alternative reality?

Shameless.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that's not her job. Her job is to defend US interests, not Presidential ones. Sometimes those things align, sometimes they don't.

Sorry, according to alt-/far-right Alternative Reality, any executive officer under a Republican president is expected to blindly follow orders, even if they are illegal, immoral or outright treasonous to the nation.

[Deleted]

Basically, it's once again a chance for Trump to show and prove that Judges are part of the "liberal elite".

And I wonder if these laws can be changed. Do the Republicans have a majority in all the right places for this to be possible?

[Hiricine]

Well, the analogy is not entirely correct. Yates took the case to represent Obama, who was then replaced by Trump. And what Trump did arguably went against the stated interests of Obama, so going along with those would have been proper.
Not saying that it should not be different for presidents. Just the analogy doesn't really work like this.

There is certainly nuance to the case but you've neglected or at least mistated a fact. She was nominated by Obama and approved by the Senate, and took office as interim Attorney General when Trump was inaugurated President, not while Obama was. During that nomination process, it was already well established who the incoming president should be.

Though I agree with you the analogy does not hold completely, if there was a change in the Presidency and the acting AG remained, they would have an obligation to whoever was leading the branch at the point in time they are in it, which is a case unique to someone representing something like the Government. But of course, thats what makes it an analogy and not a perfect representation.

[Skroe]

Basically, it's once again a chance for Trump to show and prove that Judges are part of the "liberal elite".

And I wonder if these laws can be changed. Do the Republicans have a majority in all the right places for this to be possible?

I'm going to put this in as direct a way as possible, foreigner. You can have any kind of political views about our elected officials policies you like. That is your right. But attempt to play political games in our legal system, foreigner? Fuck off with that shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Even Blizzard has publicly come out against it and has said some employees have been affected by it. Still waiting for #BoycottBlizzard to start trending among the alt right.

The company I work for basically refused to bid on any new federal contracts after Trump was elected. It is executing its current ones to their conclusion but isn't renewing them.

It has no interest in working with the Federal Government so long as Donald Trump is President. It's a tremendously popular move within the company. The Muslim ban and the H1B visa stuff are just confirming the wisdom of it.

Donald Trump's Administration and his fascist flunkies, and the broader United States of America are not playing for the same team. So like he'll we'll have anything to do with them. Especially when so many of us in tech land are moonlighting against Trump.

[Hiricine]

The fact you are adding context where it doesn't exist isn't what the far right loves to do by making up alternative reality?

Shameless.

I don't know how I can make up imaginary context when its literally the exact events that are happening. You can certainly question my interpretation of those events but it doesn't make them not exist.

[Chubark]

-Snip-

I apologize for bothering you, Skroe, but I'd just like to say something:

Despite our differing political ideologies, I can't help but thank you for being so well informed on such a variety of political topics. It's rare to see someone as well-informed as you are.

[Sandraudiga]

No one complained when Obama did it. They aren't doing it for moral reasons, they are doing it because its Trump.

[Wyrt]

No one complained when Obama did it. They aren't doing it for moral reasons, they are doing it because its Trump.

Except Obama never did it. I like how fast alternative facts spread.

[Barnabas]

I'm going to put this in as direct a way as possible, foreigner. You can have any kind of political views about our elected officials policies you like. That is your right. But attempt to play political games in our legal system, foreigner? Fuck off with that shit.

- - - Updated - - -



The company I work for basically refused to bid on any new federal contracts after Trump was elected. It is executing its current ones to their conclusion but isn't renewing them.

It has no interest in working with the Federal Government so long as Donald Trump is President. It's a tremendously popular move within the company. The Muslim ban and the H1B visa stuff are just confirming the wisdom of it.

Donald Trump's Administration and his fascist flunkies, and the broader United States of America are not playing for the same team. So like he'll we'll have anything to do with them. Especially when so many of us in tech land are moonlighting against Trump.

Once the work and spousal visas are allowed tech will back down. This is happening separate from the courts. at least elon musk has some balls and remained on the advisory board to object to things and push for changes. Uber ceo could've made a difference but he's a pussy.

[Deleted]

Except that's not her job. Her job is to defend US interests, not Presidential ones. Sometimes those things align, sometimes they don't.

No, her job is to represent the United States government - That's currently run by trump.
In this case her job was to defend that EO in court, even if she thought it was unconstitutional (and she didn't mind you) - Hell it would be her job to defend it in court even if a judge said it was unconstitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Except Obama never did it. I like how fast alternative facts spread.

Obama Didn't block the entry of Iraqis in 2011?
Cuz in reality, he did.

[Wyrt]

Obama Didn't block the entry of Iraqis in 2011?
Cuz in reality, he did.

No, he didn't. He implemented more intensive screening for Iraq due to a specific threat. There were still people coming to the US from Iraq in 2011, it was just a decreased amount.

[schwarzkopf]

Pretty sure by law only congress is allowed to ban immigration based on nationality.

That law already exists, from the Obama administration for those seven countries. The issue that Trump ran afoul of is extending it to existing visas, green cards and dual nationality citizens of all countries.

[Skroe]

Once the work and spousal visas are allowed tech will back down. This is happening separate from the courts. at least elon musk has some balls and remained on the advisory board to object to things and push for changes. Uber ceo could've made a difference but he's a pussy.

Elon Musk has about two weeks before he goes from hero to zero, especially with respect to his main competitor, Jeff Bezos, promising (and delivering) on marshaling Amazon's power against Trump. I'm a betting man, and I bet he'll walk before long. He's mostly doing it anyway to get SpaceX in a favorable position for defense launch contracts vs ULA. But he's running out of runway in that regard. Let's just say, he probably has fewer days ahead of him as a Trump ally than behind.

If you think throwing us a bone with the visa thing will get us to back down, you have another thing coming my friend. That's the least of our broader concerns, and more emblematic than anything else.

I'll put this very simply. In a manner of speaking, the minimum we want Bannon's head on a pike, with a MAGA hat shoved in his mouth and some "big league" adult supervision from the offices of Senator Mitch McConnell for President Watersports. That'll do until Americans throw him out on his ass.

Deliver or, as you just saw with Amazon+Expedia, it's war. We're playing for all the marbles.