Yates smacks down the campaigning Cruz....

[Marion Morrison]

And the swamp gets drained a little more today as Comey gets fired. MOAR!

 

[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.

So, the oath to defend the Constitution is mis-written?

No, not at all.

The freshman Senator was write in pointing out that Yates, as an employee, does not have the right to refuse to obey policy on her own. The proper procedure / process is to go to one's supervisor, pint out the specific legal / appropriate reason for choosing not to do so (and anything that starts with 'I FEEL' or 'MY OPINION' is not legitimate).

Yates is not the only one of the Obama holdovers who have been reported publicly to oppose Trump's agenda and refuse to carry out their LEAGAL duties based on the fact that they simply do not agree. Such members have been identified in the EPA, ATF, and in several of those Intel agencies. In Yates' case, specifically regarding these travel bans - based on the Court decisions so far, she was right to refuse to comply...but, as pointed out, there is a process / 'chain-of-command' one must follow.

Wrong, if that were the case the DOJ would have defended DOMA, maobama told them not to defend it even though some courts found it constitutional.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Not even a close similarity.

.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

.

She did her job
She defended the Constitution

Same oath Trump took

 

[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?

.

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.

Please provide a link to a decision that even addressed the legality. I haven't seen one yet.

.

 

[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.

.

No, but issuing that EO in that form was.

It wasn't her job to make that determination, that's up to the courts, her job was to defend he clients interest to the best of her ability. If she couldn't do that, she should have resigned.

.

 

[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.

.

She did her job
She defended the Constitution

Same oath Trump took

See post #166.

.

 

[Dot Com]

She smacked down Cornyn too laugh out loud

Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk

 

[Dot Com]

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.

It wasn't her job to make that determination, that's up to the courts, her job was to defend he clients interest to the best of her ability. If she couldn't do that, she should have resigned.

.

What do you know about the Department of Justice? Never mind, I already know the answer

 

[rightwinger]

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.

.

She did her job
She defended the Constitution

Same oath Trump took

See post #166.

.

Yes...it is her job

She took an oath

 

[OKTexas]

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.

It wasn't her job to make that determination, that's up to the courts, her job was to defend he clients interest to the best of her ability. If she couldn't do that, she should have resigned.

.

What do you know about the Department of Justice? Never mind, I already know the answer

Excuse me, weren't you one of the guy defending maobamas actions, claiming all government actions are legal and constitutional until a decision is rendered by a court of final jurisdiction? Now you're saying the AG has that authority? Hypocrite much?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

She did her job
She defended the Constitution

Same oath Trump took

See post #166.

.

Yes...it is her job

She took an oath

See post above.

.

 

[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.

Please provide a link to a decision that even addressed the legality. I haven't seen one yet.

.

Courts only address the legality of anything that comes before them.
Why do you think those courts, and appeals courts blocked the Muslim ban?

 

[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.

It wasn't her job to make that determination, that's up to the courts, her job was to defend he clients interest to the best of her ability. If she couldn't do that, she should have resigned.

.

That's not what Jeff Sessions thinks

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Please provide a link to a decision that even addressed the legality. I haven't seen one yet.

.

Courts only address the legality of anything that comes before them.
Why do you think those courts, and appeals courts blocked the Muslim ban?

Well child if you actually read the rulings all they said was the plaintiffs might have a chance to prevail at trial. And remanded the cases back to the trial courts. From what I saw at the 4th circuit I doubt they will hold the same opinion. The 9th will be hearing the case again en banc meaning at least 7 judges will hear it. God only know what they'll do. I'd say considering they are the most overturned appellate court they'll probably sustain the stay. If the two differ it will go to SCOTUS. I think that will result in a 7-2 decision in Trumps favor. And Yates will have egg on her face. Let's see how good a prognosticator I am.

BTW the only appellate court to have heard it so far and rendered a decision was a 3 judge panel form the 9th. Like I said they are looking at the Hawaii case en banc, I think on Thursday.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Please provide a link to a decision that even addressed the legality. I haven't seen one yet.

.

Courts only address the legality of anything that comes before them.
Why do you think those courts, and appeals courts blocked the Muslim ban?

Well child if you actually read the rulings all they said was the plaintiffs might have a chance to prevail at trial. And remanded the cases back to the trial courts. From what I saw at the 4th circuit I doubt they will hold the same opinion. The 9th will be hearing the case again en banc meaning at least 7 judges will hear it. God only know what they'll do. I'd say considering they are the most overturned appellate court they'll probably sustain the stay. If the two differ it will go to SCOTUS. I think that will result in a 7-2 decision in Trumps favor. And Yates will have egg on her face. Let's see how good a prognosticator I am.

BTW the only appellate court to have heard it so far and rendered a decision was a 3 judge panel form the 9th. Like I said they are looking at the Hawaii case en banc, I think on Thursday.

.

If there were no legal issues, they couldn't have blocked the EO. That's OK. You're a crazy Trump supporter. Facts will never be part of your reality. Believe what you want.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Please provide a link to a decision that even addressed the legality. I haven't seen one yet.

.

Courts only address the legality of anything that comes before them.
Why do you think those courts, and appeals courts blocked the Muslim ban?

Well child if you actually read the rulings all they said was the plaintiffs might have a chance to prevail at trial. And remanded the cases back to the trial courts. From what I saw at the 4th circuit I doubt they will hold the same opinion. The 9th will be hearing the case again en banc meaning at least 7 judges will hear it. God only know what they'll do. I'd say considering they are the most overturned appellate court they'll probably sustain the stay. If the two differ it will go to SCOTUS. I think that will result in a 7-2 decision in Trumps favor. And Yates will have egg on her face. Let's see how good a prognosticator I am.

BTW the only appellate court to have heard it so far and rendered a decision was a 3 judge panel form the 9th. Like I said they are looking at the Hawaii case en banc, I think on Thursday.

.

If there were no legal issues, they couldn't have blocked the EO. That's OK. You're a crazy Trump supporter. Facts will never be part of your reality. Believe what you want.

Yet you have yet to produce an order that addressed the presidents authority to issue that EO, you know the constitutional elements and statutes giving him the authority to do so. Go figure.

Now run along and we'll see how it turns out.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Please provide a link to a decision that even addressed the legality. I haven't seen one yet.

.

Courts only address the legality of anything that comes before them.
Why do you think those courts, and appeals courts blocked the Muslim ban?

Well child if you actually read the rulings all they said was the plaintiffs might have a chance to prevail at trial. And remanded the cases back to the trial courts. From what I saw at the 4th circuit I doubt they will hold the same opinion. The 9th will be hearing the case again en banc meaning at least 7 judges will hear it. God only know what they'll do. I'd say considering they are the most overturned appellate court they'll probably sustain the stay. If the two differ it will go to SCOTUS. I think that will result in a 7-2 decision in Trumps favor. And Yates will have egg on her face. Let's see how good a prognosticator I am.

BTW the only appellate court to have heard it so far and rendered a decision was a 3 judge panel form the 9th. Like I said they are looking at the Hawaii case en banc, I think on Thursday.

.

If there were no legal issues, they couldn't have blocked the EO. That's OK. You're a crazy Trump supporter. Facts will never be part of your reality. Believe what you want.

Yet you have yet to produce an order that addressed the presidents authority to issue that EO, you know the constitutional elements and statutes giving him the authority to do so. Go figure.

Now run along and we'll see how it turns out.

.

That's the same dumb argument that Ted Cruz tried, but here is where she made him look like a fool for trying that.

 

[OKTexas]

Please provide a link to a decision that even addressed the legality. I haven't seen one yet.

.

Courts only address the legality of anything that comes before them.
Why do you think those courts, and appeals courts blocked the Muslim ban?

Well child if you actually read the rulings all they said was the plaintiffs might have a chance to prevail at trial. And remanded the cases back to the trial courts. From what I saw at the 4th circuit I doubt they will hold the same opinion. The 9th will be hearing the case again en banc meaning at least 7 judges will hear it. God only know what they'll do. I'd say considering they are the most overturned appellate court they'll probably sustain the stay. If the two differ it will go to SCOTUS. I think that will result in a 7-2 decision in Trumps favor. And Yates will have egg on her face. Let's see how good a prognosticator I am.

BTW the only appellate court to have heard it so far and rendered a decision was a 3 judge panel form the 9th. Like I said they are looking at the Hawaii case en banc, I think on Thursday.

.

If there were no legal issues, they couldn't have blocked the EO. That's OK. You're a crazy Trump supporter. Facts will never be part of your reality. Believe what you want.

Yet you have yet to produce an order that addressed the presidents authority to issue that EO, you know the constitutional elements and statutes giving him the authority to do so. Go figure.

Now run along and we'll see how it turns out.

.

That's the same dumb argument that Ted Cruz tried, but here is where she made him look like a fool for trying that.

Wow 4 minutes of a 7 minute questioning session, what did you leave out?

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Courts only address the legality of anything that comes before them.
Why do you think those courts, and appeals courts blocked the Muslim ban?

Well child if you actually read the rulings all they said was the plaintiffs might have a chance to prevail at trial. And remanded the cases back to the trial courts. From what I saw at the 4th circuit I doubt they will hold the same opinion. The 9th will be hearing the case again en banc meaning at least 7 judges will hear it. God only know what they'll do. I'd say considering they are the most overturned appellate court they'll probably sustain the stay. If the two differ it will go to SCOTUS. I think that will result in a 7-2 decision in Trumps favor. And Yates will have egg on her face. Let's see how good a prognosticator I am.

BTW the only appellate court to have heard it so far and rendered a decision was a 3 judge panel form the 9th. Like I said they are looking at the Hawaii case en banc, I think on Thursday.

.

If there were no legal issues, they couldn't have blocked the EO. That's OK. You're a crazy Trump supporter. Facts will never be part of your reality. Believe what you want.

Yet you have yet to produce an order that addressed the presidents authority to issue that EO, you know the constitutional elements and statutes giving him the authority to do so. Go figure.

Now run along and we'll see how it turns out.

.

That's the same dumb argument that Ted Cruz tried, but here is where she made him look like a fool for trying that.

Wow 4 minutes of a 7 minute questioning session, what did you leave out?

.

I didn't leave out the part that shot down your argument. You're free to watch the whole thing on Youtube, if you like.