Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38864253

A US judge in Seattle has issued a temporary nationwide block on President Donald Trump's ban on travellers from seven mainly Muslim nations.
Federal Judge James Robart ruled against government lawyers' claims that US states did not have the standing to challenge Mr Trump's executive order.

Last week's order has led to protests and confusion at US airports. Some 60,000 visas have since been revoked.

The Justice Department now plans to file an emergency stay of the ruling.

Once again the courts have ruled against Trump and his travel ban.

[Wyrt]

Pretty sure by law only congress is allowed to ban immigration based on nationality. So, courts struck it down as it violates the law.

Sally Yates was wrongfully fired. All she was doing was her job and she should sue.

[Vargur]

Pretty sure by law only congress is allowed to ban immigration based on nationality. So, courts struck it down as it violates the law.

Sally Yates was wrongfully fired. All she was doing was her job and she should sue.

She should replace the Trump dynasty actually.

[Hiricine]

Pretty sure by law only congress is allowed to ban immigration based on nationality. So, courts struck it down as it violates the law.

Sally Yates was wrongfully fired. All she was doing was her job and she should sue.

Part one to your post is REALLY the interesting question in this regard. Courts have generally upheld the Executive's authority to control entry to the country exclusively as a matter of dictating the country's foreign affairs, and it came up multiple times under the Obama administration with regards to states attempting to control the Mexican border. Heres an article that outlines the issue pretty well

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi.../#470a207564b7

However the argument is that Trump is doing something unconstitutional by not giving persons equal protection under the law on the basis of religion. He will argue that the countries were deemed security risks in the past and that religion is not the sole basis for the "ban" (and that many other Islamic countries were not affected by the order)

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.

[callipygoustp]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38864253



Once again the courts have ruled against Trump and his travel ban.

How many more traitors are going to be exposed due to this one EO?
/s

[belleflop]

Here is the crazy scary part. The CBP are currently STILL not complying with the original court order stay from last Friday as per the administrations directive. This is why the CBP head got fired (along with Yates) because he was trying to follow the court order. Trump quickly replaced him with one if his puppets. The IG is currently investigating and the administration is generating huge amounts of obstructions for the IG to do a proper assessment on who in the CBP is not complying with the court order stays and who is giving them the order to not comply.

[PACOX]

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.

Her duty, as any of their duty, is to the Constitution first. Why would she defend something that was questionable why she was in office. The EO was never solidified, its hard to defend something thats written one way, interpreted the other, and then was sitting in judicial limbo. The only recourse that the Donald administration has in terms of Yates is that her position was only temporary until a replacement was found, anyway.

[Manabomb]

Here is the crazy scary part. The CBP are currently STILL not complying with the original court order stay from last Friday as per the administrations directive. This is why the CBP head got fired (along with Yates) because he was trying to follow the court order. Trump quickly replaced him with one if his puppets. The IG is currently investigating and the administration is generating huge amounts of obstructions for the IG to do a proper assessment on who in the CBP is not complying with the court order stays and who is giving them the order to not comply.

It's almost as if you can't legally do all the things Trump is doing.

[Hiricine]

Her duty, as any of their duty, is to the Constitution first. Why would she defend something that was questionable why she was in office. The EO was never solidified, its hard to defend something thats written one way, interpreted the other, and then was sitting in judicial limbo. The only recourse that the Donald administration has in terms of Yates is that her position was only temporary until a replacement was found, anyway.

If she disagreed with the Constitutionality of the order her job is to resign from her position in protest and inform the President of her intentions if she intended to continue working in that position, not to do something to intentionally get herself fired.

[NYC17]

Her duty, as any of their duty, is to the Constitution first. Why would she defend something that was questionable why she was in office. The EO was never solidified, its hard to defend something thats written one way, interpreted the other, and then was sitting in judicial limbo. The only recourse that the Donald administration has in terms of Yates is that her position was only temporary until a replacement was found, anyway.

Not to mention Yates isn't Trump's lawyer. She doesn't represent him.

[Manabomb]

If she disagreed with the Constitutionality of the order her job is to resign from her position in protest and inform the President of her intentions if she intended to continue working in that position, not to do something to intentionally get herself fired.

That's the beauty of martyrdom. You don't get to tell the people their martyr is wrong. She stood in open defiance knowing she would get fired to send a message, not only to Trump's administration, but to the rest of America. We don't need to allow this bigotry to pass, as it has no place in our democracy.

[PosPosPos]

If she disagreed with the Constitutionality of the order her job is to resign from her position in protest and inform the President of her intentions if she intended to continue working in that position, not to do something to intentionally get herself fired.

Nope, it would be smarter to force herself to get fired, it would look much better on her. She's upholding the constitution, so forcing Trump to fire her without any good justification only adds more ammunition in the fight against Trump.

[Kasierith]

If she disagreed with the Constitutionality of the order her job is to resign from her position in protest and inform the President of her intentions if she intended to continue working in that position, not to do something to intentionally get herself fired.

I'm not sure where you're getting this fantasy from, but it's pretty definitely wrong. Part of her job was to determine resource allocation; if she wants to tell her subordinates not to pursue something in particular, it is within her job description to do so. I'm sure marching mindlessly in lockstep is your go to solution, but it really isn't the case with these higher government offices.

[Hiricine]

Nope, it would be smarter to force herself to get fired, it would look much better on her. She's upholding the constitution, so forcing Trump to fire her without any good justification only adds more ammunition in the fight against Trump.

Well she probably did the right thing for her political career and you'll have a difficult time finding someone who can make an argument against that.

However, when taking a job in the White House, especially as a department head, you may hold feelings towards the Constitution independent of your employment, but the fact remains that the Attorney General derives their power as an extension of the Presidency, not independent of it, and when the President says something is Constitutional it is your duty to represent him or resign.

For specifics on the concept at hand here-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

[triplesdsu]

Part one to your post is REALLY the interesting question in this regard. Courts have generally upheld the Executive's authority to control entry to the country exclusively as a matter of dictating the country's foreign affairs, and it came up multiple times under the Obama administration with regards to states attempting to control the Mexican border. Heres an article that outlines the issue pretty well

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi.../#470a207564b7

However the argument is that Trump is doing something unconstitutional by not giving persons equal protection under the law on the basis of religion. He will argue that the countries were deemed security risks in the past and that religion is not the sole basis for the "ban" (and that many other Islamic countries were not affected by the order)

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.

Interesting. I see the issue that congress needs to pass the law to be a stronger position that the equal protection/"religious ban" argument. Its not a religous ban and restricting countries is constitution as there have been bans/restrictions in place before for cuba and iran. The constitution doesnt apply to foreigners on foreign soil trying to get it. If i was a betting man, id bet trump wins on appeal.

[Kapadons]

Over/ under on this judge continuing to have a job? I'm going with less than a week. Probably be Monday before he is back in the bread line.

[Manabomb]

Well she probably did the right thing for her political career and you'll have a difficult time finding someone who can make an argument against that.

However, when taking a job in the White House, especially as a department head, you may hold feelings towards the Constitution independent of your employment, but the fact remains that the Attorney General derives their power as an extension of the Presidency, not independent of it, and when the President says something is Constitutional it is your duty to represent him or resign.

For specifics on the concept at hand here-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Just because it derives the power as an extension of the Presidency does not mean the AG will blindly follow every order, especially when it comes to resignation. Or did we forget that Trump is "breaking all the rules in politics." and so everyone else is going to fall in line, even his political enemies.

[Wyrt]

Here is the crazy scary part. The CBP are currently STILL not complying with the original court order stay from last Friday as per the administrations directive. This is why the CBP head got fired (along with Yates) because he was trying to follow the court order. Trump quickly replaced him with one if his puppets. The IG is currently investigating and the administration is generating huge amounts of obstructions for the IG to do a proper assessment on who in the CBP is not complying with the court order stays and who is giving them the order to not comply.

That's probably what will continue to happen. Trump does a thing, if people don't comply he'll fire them and replace them with someone who will. Because fascist.

[Manabomb]

Over/ under on this judge continuing to have a job? I'm going with less than a week. Probably be Monday before he is back in the bread line.

I mean. You can't just fire a federal judge like you can the AG. That's not within the Presidents power, nor should it be. Though votes on Trump using ridiculous twitter fighting to try and rile up red counties in Washington.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Over/ under on this judge continuing to have a job? I'm going with less than a week. Probably be Monday before he is back in the bread line.

It's really quite difficult to fire a federal judge.