Trending Content
| +92 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 22 | 2d | |
| +57 | How to sound more eloquent? | 26 | 1d | |
| +40 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 10 | 2d | |
| +35 | Interviews Are So Fake | 21 | 1h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 7h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 5d | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
| +20 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 3d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 1d |
Career Resources
If someone outright disobeyed Obama I would expect the same outcome. The woman should have simply resigned if she felt her marching orders were in conflict with her personal beliefs.
she didn't make the judgement in regard to her personal beliefs, she made the statement because she reviewed the EO objectively and saw it as unlawful. she has an obligation to uphold the law and constitution, not an obligation to defend Trump's unconstitutional executive orders.
It's her interpretation. They removed the green card restriction which was the only thing that was found to be an issue.
Either way she's gone. She should have resigned since this was her interpretation.
Frankly, a Trump should clean house as I would imagine more Obama leftovers will work to impede the new Presidents orders.
She got slaughtered.. this is heading in the wrong direction. And the markets are saying the same thing. You can't really agree with these past 5 days? I think the presidency has always been very traditional (even up until 1947 a president could run more than two terms, but simply chose not to based on George Washington), and he's shitting all over it. Obama didn't go around firing Republicans who disagreed with him. Give me an example of where this has happened in the past. And based on 'betrayal' is almost opening up to more radical labels to justify similar actions
Lol you think a 27 year veteran of the justice department disobeyed the President over "personal beliefs"? Be serious. The order is, according to many articles written by lawyers that I have read, a legal boondoggle. Sessions will lose in court when he is forced to defend this, same thing with Boente. What is even worse than how haphazardly this thing was written is the execution of it. Multiple news outlets are reporting he did not seek input from the justice department (this seems obvious as Trump would've quietly fired Yates and replaced her if he consulted with her as to her stance on defending the damn order rather than cause yet another sensational news story), homeland security (who eventually overrode his idiotic green card ban), department of state, or the department of defense. Reports are that Steve fuckin Bannon (because he has such a legal/ immigration/ government expertise) is the architect of this order. The incompetence of this administration is worrying but even more worrying is the fact that the founder of, at best, a sensationalist rag and, at worst, a racist sensationalist rag seems to be shaping the future of this country more so than any official cabinet member.
Bob,
What are your opinions on the constitutionality of Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and how they reflected upon the Presidencies of Bush and Obama?
Edit: Full version
Important part starting 6:49 was left out
We have elected a king it seems.
What a joke... how many executive orders did Obama give on immigration
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/
Ahhh this thread is going well. If a president issues an order you do it or resign. You don't issue counter orders. Who elected this woman?
And I'm sorry, but it is absolutely clear that you can stop immigration totally or specifically. We've banned people from Iran, people with HIV, all immigrants, Jews. We ban Americans from going to Cuba. Don't act like the president can't do this.
It's comical that people are acting like this is unconstitutional when it has clear precedence.
Gonna be a long 4 years. I used to hope Trump would cut deals with the Dems and get shit done. Guess it had to be all about war.
Agreed, I find the overwhelming amount of coverage given to Trump and the emotion outcry resulting from it a bit overwhelming. What he is doing is nothing unprecedented. There were equally as controversial actions by both Bush and Obama that could have garnered the same amount of scrutiny (if not more) but yet, here we are. On yet another media driven frenzy and the sad thing is, most people are unaware of it.
Is there any precedence for the president sigining an executive order overriding the admittance of people who, by law, have legal residence in this country? Also, were these bans (HIV, Jews, Iranians, Cuba) legislated by Congress or by executive order?
Bob,
I think it depends on how specific you want to get on the nature of precedence. In terms of overriding admittance of people who are legal residents, I'm not familiar with any examples within the past 2 decades.
In terms of executive order precedence to mandate immigration (and it's been used quite a few times):
Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “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.”
Congress can override the president and they have absolute order, but reality is we have a Republican controlled Congress and trumps order was within his powers and built off past orders. Even the judge in Brooklyn only touched the green card issue which the administration yanked.
I mean props to this woman for standing up for what she believed in. I just think she should have resigned instead of trying to back door someone elected. She's just an appointment and serves at the desire of the president.
Furthermore, in don't want anyone disobeying unless it is absolutely clear something is fucked up. Like a 90 ban on people from failed states doesn't hit that threshold.
Green cards are not some magical thing that can not be over ridden, so many people have so many factually inaccurate understandings of what green cards are. The government can revoke the abilities granted under the green card agreement any time they want. This idea that people with green cards have citizen like rights is a complete joke and idiotic argument.
Are you suggesting this is comparable to all of those decisions? And are you in favor of them?
The question isn't a moral one, it's a legal one.
It was obvious since she made the statement she was going to be fired. The amusing part is that Sessions, who will eventually be her replacement, once lectured her on the importance of saying no to the President if the AG thought something the President did was unlawful or unConstitutional.
Funny how quickly opinions change on standing up to the President, the use of Executive Orders, and the Executive's approach to Congress when the parties switch.
There is a difference between having actual basis that something is unconstitutional and just not liking legislation and using the constitution as your cover.
If trump issued a blanket Muslim ban, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. Temporarily restricting immigration from 7 countries previously selected lawfully by the previous administration is no where near the realm of unconstitutional. Especially after the green card issue was taken off the table.
She doesn't like the policy and issued counter orders that she had no right to do. Let's all be real.
Is there though? Almost all questions of constitutionality are open to debate and interpretation - hence why Supreme Court nominations are politicized and contentious and why major Supreme Court decisions are often split 5-4.
I think the reality is that none of us are experts in constitutional law, nor are we attorneys. As simple as it may seem, the situation does not boil down to quoting "Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952". She believed it to be unconstitutional, or at least in part, and decided to use her best judgement. The move was expected to get her fired, but she did what she thought was right. I think that's admirable, and what we should seek from all AG's - not just people who will blindly follow whatever the president orders.
Check out this for how this rolled out according to MSNBC. The list of top representatives left out is so long, it goes on for a couple of minutes. Apparently, the only people who knew about this were inexperienced analysts.
Not to mention Bannon. Supposedly, the EO was originally interpreted as not including people with Green Cards, but Bannon, who has no experience in government whatsoever and was never elected or confirmed, corrected them and insisted that it did.
She was on her way out the door. . If Yates truly felt that it was unconstitutional, she should have told the president her conclusions in confidence. If he disagreed, she resigns. Instead, she made herself a political martyr and defied the president. Trump replaced her. Trump was under constitutional authority to replace her due to insubordination, she was appointed to enforce the law not be the judge.
Also, a side note on the media headlines.. People conflating this to the "Saturday Night Massacre" of the Nixon era lack any contextual awareness. Nixon wanted to fire a solicitor general investigating Watergate without any wrong doing.
This is a classic case of virtue signaling.
Odit reiciendis accusantium quam laboriosam sed laudantium fugiat doloremque. Exercitationem labore ab iusto omnis. Consequatur quaerat ut tempora culpa reprehenderit iste beatae. Odio officia quia at sed aperiam aut aut quos. Officiis molestiae quis sunt unde praesentium nihil. Officia velit culpa quia porro aperiam cupiditate.
Id rerum ut pariatur asperiores. Ad autem facere blanditiis. Veniam non sapiente ut ducimus. Quidem sint iste repellat quia. Esse consequuntur porro illum iure. Molestiae maxime et omnis neque.
Possimus ut cum dignissimos sint et assumenda libero. Aliquid iure vero eius et dolor. Non voluptas fugit voluptatem facere ullam mollitia dolorem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aperiam nam odit ab autem nesciunt aut est. Dicta quibusdam iure quia voluptas rerum nihil est. Ratione omnis ut cupiditate vel provident ut.
Voluptatem nihil sit odit occaecati. Voluptas beatae consequatur tempora tenetur voluptatem repudiandae. Dolor repellendus voluptate aut porro. Sit dolores soluta ea est alias.
Aperiam fugit eaque est qui facere laboriosam. Quis cumque non dolor inventore. Maxime et incidunt neque et. Natus consequatur repudiandae corporis eum eos.