Why Yates Had to Go...

[kaz]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

 

[Jackson]

the hypocrisy of the left. They never questioned obozo's EOs. Just bowed and worshiped him like the brainless sheep that they are.

Eat it, Guppy: "The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president."""

Section 1182(f) of Title 8, U.S. Code: "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”

Sorry, Sparky. Constitution bans denial of anyone based on religion. The law you quote doesn't say the POTUS can do this based on religion.

And Justice Yates KNEW what this asshole was doing. Grow the fuck up. You probably saw him say this on air, but you "forgot".

Sorry Sparky, but people trying to enter the US who are not citizens don't have Constitutional rights. How could you possibly not know that? You're government educated, huh?

I didn't say they had Constitutional rights, I said they cannot be banned because of religion. Do you not understand?

And I showed you the law. They are being banned (most of them) temporarily until vetting measures can be arranged. The president has the right to do this and the AG has the obligation to follow his EO.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Are you a lawyer? Because Yates is, and she said the order was unconstitutional. I'll give her legal expertise more weight than your opinion.

I completely agree it is the President's perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch who tells him he is wrong.

DERP

You're such a fucking retard, Guno.

Yates is NOT a SCOTUS justice, you drooling baboon. The AG serves at the pleasure of the POSTUS, if they oppose what the man in charge is doing, they have ONE option, resign.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

 

[Jackson]

So, she said she wasn't sure. And she acted on that????

 

[Jackson]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Democrat appointed judges???? Hahahahahahaha! Let's follow the law, kiddo.

 

[kaz]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Non-Americans have no Constitutional right to enter this country

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Democrat appointed judges???? Hahahahahahaha! Let's follow the law, kiddo.

Does not even qualify for the dignity of a serious response. Maybe you should find out if the Judge has Mexican ancestry?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Non-Americans have no Constitutional right to enter this country

As a cop told me many yeas ago when I tried to talk my way out of a traffic ticket, "Tell that to the judge".

 

[WaitingFor2020]

They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.

Are you a lawyer? Because Yates is, and she said the order was unconstitutional. I'll give her legal expertise more weight than your opinion.

I completely agree it is the President's perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch who tells him he is wrong.

Not my opinion. It is the law!

Section 1182(f) of Title 8, U.S. Code: "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”

This....Article Six- No Religious Test
supersedes that.

Apply all of those statements to Obama.LMAO!

the hypocrisy of the left. They never questioned obozo's EOs. Just bowed and worshiped him like the brainless sheep that they are.

Another deflector. Man, you guys are SO EASY. I guess we're going to hear a lot of But..but...but...Obama! Chickens.

But it's OK. Trump will be like Nixon on steroids and we'll be done with him a lot sooner, too.

That always cracks me up from the moon bats who just spent eight years saying, BOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH

Another coward who can't defend Trump. Lots of chickens clucking really loud here.

Just pointing out your flagrant double standard. After eight years of BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH you decry criticizing Obama who hasn't been gone two weeks

Double standard? Nope, but you are trolling. This title of this thread is about Yates and the subject is Yates. Sorry, loser.

 

[kaz]

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Democrat appointed judges???? Hahahahahahaha! Let's follow the law, kiddo.

Does not even qualify for the dignity of a serious response. Maybe you should find out if the Judge has Mexican ancestry?

Seriously, saying to follow the law over partisan politics doesn't warrant a response? If we were talking about Republicans, that standard would suddenly change, wouldn't it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I doubt if anyone minds that Yates was fired. Hell, democrats feel that Kim Davis should have lost her job. The fact is that Yates refused to to enforce what she saw as an unlawful order. Instead of doing that, she took a stand, doing what she saw as the right thing. I am sure that she was not surprised that she was fired. She expected it. But, she stood up for what she believed was right. She is an inspiration to those that resist, and I am sure that there will be many others, until Trump has an entire administration of toadies and yes men. I actually feel sorry for a lot of these people who Trump appoints. I seriously doubt if even Trump respects them.

Yates grandstanded because she has literally nothing to lose. The SECOND Sessions is confirmed, she and all the rest of the Obama toadies are gone.

Yates was smart enough to take advantage of the seething hate the left has for Trump (and America.) By engaging in her dereliction of duty, she has made her name known among the Soros klan, who as you know, own the democratic party. Yates will not work as a federal prosecutor of any type while Trump and Pence remain in office. HOWEVER, in 8, 12, or 16 years, when Soros' democrats again gain power, Yates will be on a short list for possible AG appointments.

Her move was illegal, but it was strategic and could work to her advantage. She is playing a long game.

She wasn't playing any game. As the Democrats go...she got orders from above and was stupid enough to do it.

Maybe, but she paved her way to further posts by the Soros gang with this. I think it was her intent.

 

[kaz]

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Non-Americans have no Constitutional right to enter this country

As a cop told me many yeas ago when I tried to talk my way out of a traffic ticket, "Tell that to the judge".

The burden isn't on Trump

 

[boedicca]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

No she didn't. She was insubordinate and expected that the MSM outrage would protect her.

If she had real courage (and integrity) she would have resigned instead of waiting to be fired.

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Only if an actual court case is held with an official finding. A judge voicing an opinion doesn't automatically mean that Trump violated the Constitution.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

She was following the law. My god, what you idiots won't do to defend your Fuehrer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Democrat appointed judges???? Hahahahahahaha! Let's follow the law, kiddo.

Does not even qualify for the dignity of a serious response. Maybe you should find out if the Judge has Mexican ancestry?

Seriously, saying to follow the law over partisan politics doesn't warrant a response? If we were talking about Republicans, that standard would suddenly change, wouldn't it?

Anyone who argues that judges appointed by democrats should be ignored, does not warrant a serious response.

 

[Uncensored2008]

She is not a SCOTUS justice, retard.

It is not her role to determine the constitutionality of anything.

She is a Soros Toadie, just like you.

 

[kaz]

They erroneously claim that Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, statutory law, American tradition, and human decency.

Are you a lawyer? Because Yates is, and she said the order was unconstitutional. I'll give her legal expertise more weight than your opinion.

I completely agree it is the President's perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch who tells him he is wrong.

Not my opinion. It is the law!

Section 1182(f) of Title 8, U.S. Code: "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”

This....Article Six- No Religious Test
supersedes that.

the hypocrisy of the left. They never questioned obozo's EOs. Just bowed and worshiped him like the brainless sheep that they are.

Another deflector. Man, you guys are SO EASY. I guess we're going to hear a lot of But..but...but...Obama! Chickens.

But it's OK. Trump will be like Nixon on steroids and we'll be done with him a lot sooner, too.

That always cracks me up from the moon bats who just spent eight years saying, BOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH

Another coward who can't defend Trump. Lots of chickens clucking really loud here.

Just pointing out your flagrant double standard. After eight years of BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH you decry criticizing Obama who hasn't been gone two weeks

Double standard? Nope, but you are trolling. This title of this thread is about Yates and the subject is Yates. Sorry, loser.

Interesting when someone responds to your post that is "trolling" ... And yes, your position on Yates is totally a double standard. You'd be outraged if it was a Republican who did that to Obama, you'd be calling for their head

 

[g5000]

She is not a SCOTUS justice, retard.

It is not her role to determine the constitutionality of anything.

Actually, that is precisely her job, dumbass. When a President wants to write a law, he consults the AG for its legalities.

Jesus, get a fucking grip, retard.

 

[kaz]

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Democrat appointed judges???? Hahahahahahaha! Let's follow the law, kiddo.

Does not even qualify for the dignity of a serious response. Maybe you should find out if the Judge has Mexican ancestry?

Seriously, saying to follow the law over partisan politics doesn't warrant a response? If we were talking about Republicans, that standard would suddenly change, wouldn't it?

Anyone who argues that judges appointed by democrats should be ignored, does not warrant a serious response.

I believe he was more specifically referring to judges appointed by Democrats who are acting in public partisan political hacking