Remarks: As a Department of Justice employee, they have to support the laws of the land. President Trump enacted an order halting travel and immigration from the seven nations, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. In her position (job), she cannot legally determine if his order/legislation is Constitutional or not, and even if it is not, she cannot advise people to ignore it. In her job, she has to enforce the laws of the country. If as a private citizen she advocates ignoring it, that is different. A justice employee cannot advocate violating the laws.

We all know the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, but no one in Washington except one brave Senator stood up against it, pointing out that it was unconstitutional. Maybe that should be repealed and replaced with something lawful. Maybe Rand Paul can start working on that, since the abuses by the NSA and Homeland Security exist.

[Edited on 2/1/2017 by gina]

Once again, you are wrong. If you actually read what other people post, you would know that. The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal. Had you paid attention in civics classes, you would know about the system of checks and balances.

I thought the Supreme Court had to determine that. However, in her job doesn't she have to abide by what the President decrees, because a President does not usually issue something that is illegal.

[Edited on 2/1/2017 by gina]

Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.

The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.

The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!

The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.

The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!

Perhaps a re-reading will lead you to the fact that I wasn't attacking Obama, instead pointing out that your comments about DOJ's role vs the reality of recent times hasn't exactly worked out as suggested.

I posted the link as defense of Trump's actions and their Constitutional merits, which a scholar with far more insight than either of us seemed to uphold without much reservation. Turley may not have personally liked the action, but said Trump has the lawful basis to take it.

I find it odd that Trump and the Fox News sheep (not you Fujirich) have justified several policies already by reminding us that Obama did the same thing. Why would the right justify their support for something because Obama did it? I thought they hated him and his policies.

The DOJ has to determine if a law is legal or ot. She felt it was illegal. She is right. Just because the president issues an executive order, that doesn't mean it is legal.

The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

Then by that standard, the Obama DOJ was often a failure, since he was over-turned in the courts numerous times. Truth is, where DOJ might have once advised with some independence in judging actions as Constitutional or not, they are now just as politicized as any other department of the Administration. Eric Holder - Constitutional defender? No one has ever uttered those words.

Her actions were political, which is fine due to her political alignment. But lets not dress it up as some Constitutionally-aligned act.

As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!

Perhaps a re-reading will lead you to the fact that I wasn't attacking Obama, instead pointing out that your comments about DOJ's role vs the reality of recent times hasn't exactly worked out as suggested.

I posted the link as defense of Trump's actions and their Constitutional merits, which a scholar with far more insight than either of us seemed to uphold without much reservation. Turley may not have personally liked the action, but said Trump has the lawful basis to take it.

Whatever Obama did and whatever Trump does must be taken on their own merits. Turley is just one opinion. Equally qualified lawyers have seen things a different way. I do find it funny that people who attacked every move made by the WH in the past eight years are now using Obama's actions to justify Trump's actions.

Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.

Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.

Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. She did not tell anyone to obey or not obey the law. She said the DOJ would not defend it in court.

The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works.

Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.

Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. She did not tell anyone to obey or not obey the law. She said the DOJ would not defend it in court.

The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works.

She didn't wait till it got to court before she refused to do her job and enforce it, and obey it, and she further urged others not to obey it either, that is why she was fired, not just because she disagreed with him on the concept.

Again, you should have paid attention in civics class. The Supreme Court contains the judges. The DOJ is made up of lawyers. They may appear before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. The OJ decides what should go forward and what should not.

You just said the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision, so how was it within Yates' power to tell others not to obey the law that Trump enacted, since it had not even went to the Supreme Court for review much less been voted against by them. If it had went before the Supreme Court and they ruled against it, then Yates would only be following what they decreed, but she did not do that. She took it upon herself to interpret Constitutionality, and my point is I do not think she had that authority.

Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. She did not tell anyone to obey or not obey the law. She said the DOJ would not defend it in court.

The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works.

She didn't wait till it got to court before she refused to do her job and enforce it, and obey it, and she further urged others not to obey it either, that is why she was fired, not just because she disagreed with him on the concept.

Pay attention. It was not her job to enforce it. That is not the issue. She said her department would not defend it in court. How hard is that for you to understand?

She told others not to obey and enforce it now, before it even went to court. That is my point.

She told others not to obey and enforce it now, before it even went to court. That is my point.

You are wrong. She said she would not defend it. She did not have the power to tell others whether to enfrce it or not.

You are going out of your way to be obtuse. Again. If you don't understand how the government works, you should probably stop acting like a know it all.

I never have acted like a know it all. If you think I know more than you, you can go to international sources to learn more, which is what I have done since 2001 when the American media did not provide a sufficient explanation to go along with the official story related to 9.11.01.

If I am wrong related to this issue re: Yates, well than that is how it is. No one is right all the time.

[Edited on 2/3/2017 by gina]

She told others not to obey

If the independent judiciary comes to an end, then it all comes to an end. Think about it.

The rightists believe that Trump is above the law. This is clear.

I don't know if they think Trump is above the law. I think he got the idea of issuing Executive Orders from past President's who decided to use it when they couldn't get a consensus in Congress to get things done, and that did not start with Obama, it goes further back than him.

I think Trump is very aware of the seriousness of the refugees, immigrants crossing into our country, he cannot wait for Congress to come to agreement, he has to take charge and secure the safety of the country, if necessary (and it seems to be necessary right now) the Hill be damned!

Obama supporters complaining about the use of executive orders? Really?

And they will also be outraged when the GOP uses the "nuclear" option to get their Supreme Court justices confirmed. And, yes, I said justices...plural. There are rumors that someone may be retiring during the next 4 years. The Dems created the "nuclear" option. Now the GOP will have it at their disposal.

Be careful what tactics you use and what precedents you set...the balance of power shifts...and those very tactics will be used against you. Both sides are equally guilty of ignoring this lesson.

I think Trump is very aware of the seriousness of the refugees, immigrants crossing into our country, he cannot wait for Congress to come to agreement, he has to take charge and secure the safety of the country, if necessary (and it seems to be necessary right now) the Hill be damned!

Then why didn't he ban entry from countries where people that have actually killed Americans came from?

You wanna ban dangerous Muslims from entering the country, but leave Saudi Arabia off the list. Yeah. Sure.

Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.

Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.

There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.

Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.

There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.

The Obama administration identified the 7 "countries of concern" prior to Trump becoming president. Restrictions that Obama already had in place were broadened to a temporary 90 day ban so that the vetting process could be reviewed. It was nice of Obama to protect Trump's financial interests in that region...

Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.

There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.

Well aren't we Mr. Civics today! Seriously, I'm glad you know your civics which by the way should be a must in all schools but do you have to be condescending! Let's have a looky.

Gina makes a post...you respond, "Once again you are wrong"

Gina makes another post..."I thought..." and you respond, "Again, you should have paid attention in civics class."

Fujirich chimes in...and you respond, "As usual, having nothing to add, you attack Obama. He isn't president any more. Can you defend Trump? No? Next!"

Gina follows up with "Maybe you should watch the news and read what really happened. ..." At this point she's obviously annoyed with your condescending remarks and you tell her, "The next time you act condescending to anyone here, remember this thread and how little you understand about how the government works."

C'mon jkeller, WTF! You were the condescending ass from the beginning and then throw it on her? That's a liberal for you. Blame the other side for what you do. Trump's a Nazi but the liberals hire the thugs to act like Nazi's.

That's it, we need a kumbaya sing-a-long and the only one that comes to mind that most will join in, I believe, is the 12 Days of Christmas. Ready, jkeller, I'll let you start...the words are below. 😮

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Its entirely possible the Saudis have much better documentation controls to allow thorough vetting. These other countries - not so much. Glad he isn't banning every muslim country. That would be un-American.

There is no evidence of that. However, Trump has financial interests in every Muslim country in that region that he did not ban.

Ultimately, Trump's failure to divest his businesses will cost him the presidency and possibly a jail term.

The Obama administration identified the 7 "countries of concern" prior to Trump becoming president. Restrictions that Obama already had in place were broadened to a temporary 90 day ban so that the vetting process could be reviewed. It was nice of Obama to protect Trump's financial interests in that region...

Alloak, you know full well that the Obama ban was in response to a specific threat. Trump was in response to... nothing.

I'm not sure what "Alloak" means. Obama identified the 7 countries. They are countries that don't have stable governments (or no governments), are known to harbor/train terrorists, etc. Trump didn't trust that the current vetting process put in place by Obama was adequate. So what's the big deal about hitting the pause button for 90 days to review the process to determine if better vetting is needed.

The Obama administration identified the 7 "countries of concern" prior to Trump becoming president. Restrictions that Obama already had in place were broadened to a temporary 90 day ban so that the vetting process could be reviewed. It was nice of Obama to protect Trump's financial interests in that region..

So you support Obama's decision on this then?

The Obama administration identified the 7 "countries of concern" prior to Trump becoming president. Restrictions that Obama already had in place were broadened to a temporary 90 day ban so that the vetting process could be reviewed. It was nice of Obama to protect Trump's financial interests in that region..

So you support Obama's decision on this then?

I agree that those 7 countries that the Obama administration identified as risks are "countries of concern".