Yates smacks down the campaigning Cruz....

[Care4all]

However, it was shown she did step out of the boundaries of her job description and was rightfully fired for doing so.

It is much better to be fired for upholding the Constitution, than to be complicit in an unlawful act as the Trumpster's EO has turned out to be in the courts....

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

She said she could because...feels!

Not what was in the document.

What did the judges say about it and why did they shoot it down?

 

[rightwinger]

Trump should have listened to Yates when she told him his Muslim ban was unconstitutional
Trump should have listened to Yates when she told him Flynn was bad news

Would have saved him a lot of trouble

 

[Marion Morrison]

However, it was shown she did step out of the boundaries of her job description and was rightfully fired for doing so.

It is much better to be fired for upholding the Constitution, than to be complicit in an unlawful act as the Trumpster's EO has turned out to be in the courts....

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

She said she could because...feels!

Not what was in the document.

What did the judges say about it and why did they shoot it down?

It was 2-3 judges countrywide and they're just partisan shitheads.

Expect their heads to roll after all this is cleared up.

It's not their place to jeopardize the safety of American citizens.

It is the president's job to set immigration policy.

 

[Richard-H]

So it seems that the consensus of the wingnuts on this issue is that a person should follow orders even if they believe those orders are both unconstitutional and immoral. Is that correct?

I guess the Nuremberg trials made no philosophical impact on the wingnuts of America at all. What a shame.

 

[Dschrute3]

Ob boy, Trump-Hater nutters are sounding more shrill & desperate everyday. They're clearly struggling to find something to be outraged about. Everyday they seem to concoct a new ridiculous 'Daily Trump Outrage' meme. What a sad way to live life. So much hate.

 

[Richard-H]

It is much better to be fired for upholding the Constitution, than to be complicit in an unlawful act as the Trumpster's EO has turned out to be in the courts....

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

She said she could because...feels!

Not what was in the document.

What did the judges say about it and why did they shoot it down?

It was 2-3 judges countrywide and they're just partisan shitheads.

Expect their heads to roll after all this is cleared up.

It's not their place to jeopardize the safety of American citizens.

It is the president's job to set immigration policy.

While the President does have the responsibility to issue orders to protect the security of the U.S., he does not have the power to arbitrarily issue orders even if he tries to label them as needed for security. He MUST of reasonable cause showing that his orders are needed to protect against some REAL threat, not a threat based on delusions or political rhetoric.

There have been no substantial security threats from the countries named in the travel ban. There is no real threat. His order was arbitrary - apparently based on his political rhetoric and other delusions.

If it were not required that presidential orders were limited only to REAL threats, any President could issue any order without question. That would constitute the worst form of a DICTATORSHIP.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

She said she could because...feels!

Not what was in the document.

What did the judges say about it and why did they shoot it down?

It was 2-3 judges countrywide and they're just partisan shitheads.

Expect their heads to roll after all this is cleared up.

It's not their place to jeopardize the safety of American citizens.

It is the president's job to set immigration policy.

While the President does have the responsibility to issue orders to protect the security of the U.S., he does not have the power to arbitrarily issue orders even if he tries to label them as needed for security. He MUST of reasonable cause showing that his orders are needed to protect against some REAL threat, not a threat based on delusions or political rhetoric.

There have been no substantial security threats from the countries named in the travel ban. There is no real threat. His order was arbitrary - apparently based on his political rhetoric and other delusions.

If it were not required that presidential orders were limited only to REAL threats, any President could issue any order without question. That would constitute the worst form of a DICTATORSHIP.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Let's just send all incoming Islamist refugees to your house, mmk?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Note that the crowd condemning Yates is the same crowd that cheered wildly for that sheriff who declared he would not enforce federal gun laws.

 

[rightwinger]

Ob boy, Trump-Hater nutters are sounding more shrill & desperate everyday. They're clearly struggling to find something to be outraged about. Everyday they seem to concoct a new ridiculous 'Daily Trump Outrage' meme. What a sad way to live life. So much hate.

Maybe it's just me....but I thought this thread was about Ted Cruz

You know....Lying Ted
The guy whose father killed JFK

 

[Richard-H]

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

She said she could because...feels!

Not what was in the document.

What did the judges say about it and why did they shoot it down?

It was 2-3 judges countrywide and they're just partisan shitheads.

Expect their heads to roll after all this is cleared up.

It's not their place to jeopardize the safety of American citizens.

It is the president's job to set immigration policy.

While the President does have the responsibility to issue orders to protect the security of the U.S., he does not have the power to arbitrarily issue orders even if he tries to label them as needed for security. He MUST of reasonable cause showing that his orders are needed to protect against some REAL threat, not a threat based on delusions or political rhetoric.

There have been no substantial security threats from the countries named in the travel ban. There is no real threat. His order was arbitrary - apparently based on his political rhetoric and other delusions.

If it were not required that presidential orders were limited only to REAL threats, any President could issue any order without question. That would constitute the worst form of a DICTATORSHIP.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Let's just send all incoming Islamist refugees to your house, mmk?

O.K. My son works for IRIS (IRIS – Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services). We deal with refugees on a regular basis. No problem at all.

I know that the thought of dealing with refugees would make you pee in your pants...

Any other brilliant questions?

 

[Dschrute3]

Ob boy, Trump-Hater nutters are sounding more shrill & desperate everyday. They're clearly struggling to find something to be outraged about. Everyday they seem to concoct a new ridiculous 'Daily Trump Outrage' meme. What a sad way to live life. So much hate.

Maybe it's just me....but I thought this thread was about Ted Cruz

You know....Lying Ted
The guy whose father killed JFK

Pretty funny faux outrage. Y'all Trump-Haters craaazy.

 

[sartre play]

Yates was disgusting. A shame upon her office and the nation.

Please expand and explain, what she said was disgusting, and what about it brought shame to her office. thanks

 

[Marion Morrison]

She said she could because...feels!

Not what was in the document.

What did the judges say about it and why did they shoot it down?

It was 2-3 judges countrywide and they're just partisan shitheads.

Expect their heads to roll after all this is cleared up.

It's not their place to jeopardize the safety of American citizens.

It is the president's job to set immigration policy.

While the President does have the responsibility to issue orders to protect the security of the U.S., he does not have the power to arbitrarily issue orders even if he tries to label them as needed for security. He MUST of reasonable cause showing that his orders are needed to protect against some REAL threat, not a threat based on delusions or political rhetoric.

There have been no substantial security threats from the countries named in the travel ban. There is no real threat. His order was arbitrary - apparently based on his political rhetoric and other delusions.

If it were not required that presidential orders were limited only to REAL threats, any President could issue any order without question. That would constitute the worst form of a DICTATORSHIP.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Let's just send all incoming Islamist refugees to your house, mmk?

O.K. My son works for IRIS (IRIS – Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services). We deal with refugees on a regular basis. No problem at all.

I know that the thought of dealing with refugees would make you pee in your pants...

Any other brilliant questions?

You gonna take them home, or what?

PS: 14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY:


You're not your son. Where does the "we" come in?

 

[Crixus]

I got thru the first three minutes, that's all I can stand to hear of the loathsome Ted Cruz. Looking at his puffy face it seems he has eaten a few too many cheeseburgers since Trump put the beatdown on him and he scurried back to the Senate.

Meh, only a matter of time till you orange jesus sperm consumers are pining for Obama again. I mean, that's who you elected. Only difference is he likes guns.

 

[Richard-H]

What did the judges say about it and why did they shoot it down?

It was 2-3 judges countrywide and they're just partisan shitheads.

Expect their heads to roll after all this is cleared up.

It's not their place to jeopardize the safety of American citizens.

It is the president's job to set immigration policy.

While the President does have the responsibility to issue orders to protect the security of the U.S., he does not have the power to arbitrarily issue orders even if he tries to label them as needed for security. He MUST of reasonable cause showing that his orders are needed to protect against some REAL threat, not a threat based on delusions or political rhetoric.

There have been no substantial security threats from the countries named in the travel ban. There is no real threat. His order was arbitrary - apparently based on his political rhetoric and other delusions.

If it were not required that presidential orders were limited only to REAL threats, any President could issue any order without question. That would constitute the worst form of a DICTATORSHIP.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Let's just send all incoming Islamist refugees to your house, mmk?

O.K. My son works for IRIS (IRIS – Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services). We deal with refugees on a regular basis. No problem at all.

I know that the thought of dealing with refugees would make you pee in your pants...

Any other brilliant questions?

You gonna take them home, or what?

PS: 14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY:


You're not your son. Where does the "we" come in?

I've had some refugees at my house. My son is particularly good friends with one. He's stayed with us on several occassions.

 

[OKTexas]

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump
By Sarah Jones on Mon, May 8th, 2017 at 5:07 pm

During the Sally Yates hearing on Monday, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz tried to best Sally Yates with the law, only to be humiliated by her legal knowledge.

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump

More lies, the dumb broad admitted she ignored the 4 corners doctrine and inserted her personal hackery. She has no legal or constitutional authority to confer constitutional rights on foreign nationals who have never set foot on US soil. Also the plaintiffs attorney, in oral arguments before the 4th circuit, admitted that the order would be legal and constitutional if it were issued by any other president. The 4th circuit won't ignore the 4 corners doctrine and will uphold the order. Then miss Yates will be eating a well deserved large portion of crow.

.

No. she refused to support it because it as unconstitutional, and the court agreed with her.

And what will you say when higher courts disagree?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump
By Sarah Jones on Mon, May 8th, 2017 at 5:07 pm

During the Sally Yates hearing on Monday, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz tried to best Sally Yates with the law, only to be humiliated by her legal knowledge.

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump

More lies, the dumb broad admitted she ignored the 4 corners doctrine and inserted her personal hackery. She has no legal or constitutional authority to confer constitutional rights on foreign nationals who have never set foot on US soil. Also the plaintiffs attorney, in oral arguments before the 4th circuit, admitted that the order would be legal and constitutional if it were issued by any other president. The 4th circuit won't ignore the 4 corners doctrine and will uphold the order. Then miss Yates will be eating a well deserved large portion of crow.

.

Dumb broad? She handled herself quite well. She has every right to make a judgement as to whether it will hold up in court. Usually the Justice Department helps write the executive order However in this case non-lawyers like Steve Bannon wrote the order. Also worth noting that Yates only passed judgement on the original order which was struck down by Republican and Democrat judges in a 3-0 vote.

OLC, at justice, approved the order on legality, Yates decided to overrule them, for the first time in US history as Cruz pointed out. Evidently you are clueless as to what the 4 corners doctrine is. Lawyers and judges are only suppose to consider what's within the 4 corners of the page, nothing else. Not one judge has, at this point, rendered a judgment on the legal merit of the EO. They have simply stayed it's implementation until it is heard at trial. The ACLU attorney was sputtering and stammering before the 4th circuit and admitted that the EO would be legal if issued by anyone but Trump. So what you're rooting for is an unequal application of the law and that was the standard used by the dumb broad Yates. What will you be saying when the higher courts uphold the order?

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump
By Sarah Jones on Mon, May 8th, 2017 at 5:07 pm

During the Sally Yates hearing on Monday, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz tried to best Sally Yates with the law, only to be humiliated by her legal knowledge.

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump

More lies, the dumb broad admitted she ignored the 4 corners doctrine and inserted her personal hackery. She has no legal or constitutional authority to confer constitutional rights on foreign nationals who have never set foot on US soil. Also the plaintiffs attorney, in oral arguments before the 4th circuit, admitted that the order would be legal and constitutional if it were issued by any other president. The 4th circuit won't ignore the 4 corners doctrine and will uphold the order. Then miss Yates will be eating a well deserved large portion of crow.

.

No. she refused to support it because it as unconstitutional, and the court agreed with her.

And what will you say when higher courts disagree?

.

That won't happen. The courts have already determined it was illegal in the form it as presented. That's what she refused to endorse. I think they are working on modifications that might make it legal, and that may very well be OK, but it will be a different EO. Perhaps it will have the same name, but the EO as as presented to her was illegal, and she did her job well by making that known.

 

[OKTexas]

Lol dumb freshman thought Yates was an SC justice

No, the 'dumb' freshman was pointing out to Yates that as an employee of the US government and of the Trump administration and has no right to refuse to comply with orders she has been given. You either do the job or you quit.

At her confirmation, Republican lawmakers asked her whether she was willing to defy Obama if he was violating the law......now they are outraged that she would do it to Trump

Trump expecting her to do her job was not a violation of law.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Lol dumb freshman thought Yates was an SC justice

No, the 'dumb' freshman was pointing out to Yates that as an employee of the US government and of the Trump administration and has no right to refuse to comply with orders she has been given. You either do the job or you quit.

At her confirmation, Republican lawmakers asked her whether she was willing to defy Obama if he was violating the law......now they are outraged that she would do it to Trump

Trump expecting her to do her job was not a violation of law.

.

No, but issuing that EO in that form was.