Not even that glorified rag, the Star could do better.
Spaghetti Hoop
I thought ‘Damp, Squalid and Infested with Rats’ was more political and apt.
mildred st. meadowlark
Oh that gave me a laugh.
I love your style dammit.
Shayna
Trump still dominates the news across the papers. The majority of the electorate voted for him, and now there’s regret? The people of the U.S also voted in 2 elections for George W. Bush – that turned out well?
President Obama, I thought was going to be breath of fresh air – genuinely nice guy and a true Democrat. He is – but, it appears the voting American types would rather a figurehead of their country to be a racist, misogynistic, self-important egotist. God Bless America etc.
EightersGonnaEight
The majority didn’t vote for him. Even he knows that.
bisted
…the US comprehensively rejected crooked Hillary through their democratic electoral process…the same process that they vociferiously insisted Trump must abide by when he suggested before the election that the system was rigged and that he may not accept the result…they rejected the devil they knew…
Sheik Yahbouti
bisted is Clampers also? “mal de mare” as Derek Trotter would say.
Starina
they didn’t vote for him. he lost by three million votes. catch up.
bisted
…4 million voted for UKIP in UK and they got one seat out of over 600…but thats the democratic process in the UK…same in the US…crooked Hillary was spurned…the fact they got far right narcissist in her place is as much due to the process that selected crooked Hillary…
Increasing Displacement
Some people still think it matters that Hilary got more votes.
THEIR SYSTEM DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY!
Build a bridge.
Listrade
Yeah, you try building a bridge now i can’t get cheap immigrant labour. Nice try. What am I supposed to do? Poach the immigrant and “undocumented” labour from Trump’s hotels or the construction workers he uses?
I’ll build one, but send you the bill.
Increasing Displacement
That was a very enjoyable comment, fair play!
classter
Of course it matters. It makes him less legitimate
That’s why he keeps talking about it & suggesting that illegal immigrants made up the difference.
Increasing Displacement
No it doesn’t.
He is in.
He is making decisions.
He is doing exactly what he said he would do.
He is 100% legitimate.
If US voters wanted something different they should have got off their fat hoops and voted. All the moaning and marching around in the world isn’t going to change it. He’ll have to royally make a balls of it to get thrown out. If that moron Bush didn’t I can’t see Trump doing so.
On a side note, I’m not a supporter but I’m not blind either.
petey
“The majority of the electorate voted for him”
no we didn’t.
sorry, but where have you been?
seekingsusan
Ha Ha Ha – The Irish Times top right – ‘Paternity Leave, Why the low take up?’ … eh it’s probably low in the Irish Times seeing as they discriminate against women going on Maternity leave … as per the story in the The Sunday Times front page on Sunday
EightersGonnaEight
“Government to discuss pre-clearance with US authorities” – ooooh, scary. Not.
“Government to discuss taxation arrangements with US companies” – now, that would bring about some change.
martco
what the papers missed last night is that he’s just sacked the Attorney General
presumably because she’s not an appeaser or maybe cos she just ain’t pretty enough, who knows?
fupp
Nasty commenter
The acting atty general
Because she refused to do her job
martco
No
she did her job which was to uphold the law
What she didn’t do was what Trump wanted and he sacked her
Last time I checked the US operates on a democratic basis, not dictatorship
She’s supposed to say no if she thinks it’s illegal
Nasty commenter
Yea yea sure
So the Obama Iraqi refugee ban was unlawful too?
Topsy
Nasty: your not to mention that inconvenient fact.
There was nothing partisan in why she did it. She did her job.
Starina
oh, I am. #resist
Nasty commenter
Why would I read such obviously partisan rubbish?
Nasty commenter
Maybe you can summarise it for me
Bullet points please
Listrade
Sweet Enola Gay. How do you know it’s partisan rubbish if you refuse to read it? To summarise
1. Office of legal council (OLC) review on basis on narrow scope. Simply is the text in front of you legal? Similar to Ministerial legal council here.
2. They do not consider context or impact of the order, just that the words are ok.
3. AG has to look at entire context, purpose and all elements of constitution. A different view, one that has to include fairness and justice.
4. Her role is to ensure the DOJ’s position is legally and morally defensible, on that basis she can’t advise they support the EO.
Listrade
Which is what she was asked to do by Jeff Sessions in her confirmation.
Nigel
Listrade – not all heroes wear capes. Of course, this is the internet, you could well be wearing a cape for all I know but you know what I mean…
Listrade
Gold Lamé cape and nothing else but a neck beard and Doritos Nacho Cheese stained fingers.
Probably too much information
Nasty commenter
Thanks Listrade sorry if I was snippy first time.
I’m not surprised to see AG’s role is this. However is government obliged to take her advice? They might have judged it incompetent, partisan or both… I’m not sure how she’s gets a presumption of being competent or non-partisan out of the blocks when she was appointed by the previous administration
Listrade
@nasty, Same here, no they don’t have to take her advice. But you would have problems in legal challenges (as going on) if you didn’t have AG support.
However, she never gave advice as she wasn’t asked. They only got the OLC review of the text. Her only means if dissent was with the memo.
Listrade
Should also add that as with Trump’s nominees, she had to be confirmed by the senate. Particularly in this role is the issue of upholding the constitution not the President’s orders.
She was approved by a Republican majority senate.
Nigel
Given the measured, thoughtful, reasonable response by Trump I think we can assume everyone’s acting in good faith here.
Listrade
“Betrayed the President”. Yup Bubba, that’s her job, put the constitution first.
Let’s be a little honest in she was in a no lose situation. She was gone from the job pending Session’s confirmation, which at least the Dems are dragging out. So she went out Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid style instead.
We’ll never know if she would have done the same in other circumstances.
Twunt
She was a Democrat, appointed by Obama, who refused to enact the wishes of the president.
What did she expect? A pay raise?
martco
again….
it’s NOT her job to do whatever the President wants or feels
Listrade
You should look at the transcript of her confirmation in 2012.
She was asked: “You’re going to have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no… Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper…?”
She responded: “I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president.”
Pretty much flagging up what she did.
By the way, it was Jeff Sessions who asked her if she would uphold the AG Office and defy the President if it was an improper request. You might know him, he’s Trump’s nominee for AG.
Maybe he only meant defy a Democratic President (or insert obvious joke about Session’s on the record racism).
Disturbing that he doesn’t understand the Attorney Generals role, as the chief lawyer for the government, is to advise the government on the constitutionality of its actions.
Nasty commenter
Maybe he did not agree with her recommendations. Should he blindly follow legal advice that’s obviously political?
Nigel
He can’t enact policy if it isn’t compliant with the law, it’s one of the important aspects of keeping a society free and democratic.
Nasty commenter
Says who?
Serious question
Nigel
The entire political apparatus of the US system of government? It’s why appointments to the Supreme Court are such a huge issue – laws get taken to court and tested at various levels with the SC as the final arbiter of whether they are constitutional or not. Don’t know if this executive order will go that far, but it’s being challenged in courts all over the place. it’s why it’s such a good idea for the president to get good legal advice from, eg, the Attorney General before enacting his laws. Trump has probably torpedoed his own policies with his approach, but chances are that won’t negate them right off, just cause more chaos, especially if he roots out every independent voice out of his administration and goes to war with the judiciary and the states who refuse to comply.
ReproBertie
The legal system. Hence the stay on his muslim ban.
It’s the same principle that requires the constitutionality of laws here be confirmed.
Of course he could change the law but that would mean screwing around with the 1st amendment. Give him time.
Listrade
Careful guys, the court orders are limited and haven’t disputed the whole EO. The President can dictate on immigration (see other presidential orders). This is usually done based on a defined threat or issue with vetting.l and in consultation with the various departments heads.
However, the President isn’t obliged to do that for their EOs. It’s a courtesy and wise to do it so you can make sure the wording doesn’t have problems and to give departments time to set up.
The illegality of this issue is the ban extended to those who had already been approved with visas and green cards. That is what the course put a stay on.
Nigel
Yeah, my understanding of all this is strictly general, but the immigration ban is supposedly within his powers, however the way he enacted it was what legal and political scholars are generally describing as ‘craptacular.’ Or words to that effect.
Listrade
I usually save “craptacular” for something really serious like when my homies aren’t pulling their weight on a Battlefield 1 mission.
The OLC is right in that there is nothing wrong with the text of the EO. There is no mention on religion and it doesn’t mention “ban” (trump did though in his tweet). The President has full control of immigration to an extent. Hart–Celler Act of 1965 says they can’t discriminate based on country of origin for immigration. So he can’t “ban” immigrants from those countries the same way Obama couldn’t and didn’t ban people from Iraq.
You can put in place restrictions or additional measures on visa processing and review, they can’t prevent based on country of origin, but they can place extra scrutiny on those countries.
The Syrians don’t have a hope as that is taking in refugees and not immigration and at the total discretion of the President. He can take in none or them all, it’s up to him. Interestingly, the split is more or less 50/50 in christian to muslim Syrian refugees.
Current court cases are only for those with approved visas and green cards. These courts can’t rule or won’t hear constitutional issues (if any). Those will only be heard if the cases go higher.
Yates’s issue is on the constitutional issue, I’m guessing the “Establishment Clause” prohibiting the government from making laws that prefer any one religion over another.
As people have been pained to point out in defence of Trump, the text doesn’t mention religion. However, Yates’s view is that this is the intent and context of the EO. As confirmed by Giuliani in that Trump asked for “a muslim ban”. Trump’s comments that Christians would be fast-tracked is also unconstitutional. Yates’s seems to have a point that while the text is ok, on the intent and probable application of it, it could be unconstitutional.
Which is all valid in the context of proving unconstitutional discrimination. With wishy washy text like this, it can still be discriminatory if the purpose behind it was to discriminate. She is right that Trump’s statements in his campaign have to be taken into account as statements like that before the introduction of a law are grounds for proof that discrimination was a motivating factor even if the text is neutral.
Trump’s and Giuliani’s comments after this strengthen that case.The committee Giuliani was on and records of those meetings and drafts would all be discoverable (shredders are probably already busy). If in those records, as Rudy suggests, it is overtly stated that they try and bury a “ban on muslims” under neutral text., that could be sufficient.
With all that, to me if Yates was asked for advice, she would have given the same advice as she did in the memo.
Nigel
That’s an impressive summation, Lis.
Nasty commenter
Urging people to accept your legal advice is not the same as having authority to disobey an actual instruction from your client. Unless you were being asked to commit a murder etc. Fair play to the lady for having our interests at heart – I agree with her- but why anyone is whining about her getting sacked is beyond me.
Listrade
She was already sacked from the day Trump was inorgorated. The whining on because her dismissal was immediate and she was accused of betraying the President. She is there to uphold the constitution, not the President. She cannot ask her staff to carry out orders that she believes are unconstitutional, the civil service isn’t the military.
She was sacked for doing a job the Republican senate asked her to do. The precedent of this should be concerning.
ReproBertie
Clearly.
Nasty commenter
Perhaps you are correct but I don’t think there’s any precedent there at all. Fine to point it out but I think it’s a case of the new CEO bringing in bully boy tactics to an Obama led Justice Department that was widely considered to have become overly politicised.
Deluded
Well it seems that I was wrong*!
Obama did not set a precedent for using executive orders: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php (scroll down for list)
The key here is that an order wil go to Congress if it requires additional funding.
*I have always considered contrary sources to try to gain a balanced view, it seems that my usual centre-right sources have slipped into distortion and misrepresentation.
classter
Fair play, Deluded
Listrade
Not in the papers and from the Journal, but roll eyes FFS at this headline:
“Quebec suspect a 27-year-old far-right nationalist who recently ‘liked’ Facebook page of Trump”
No wonder Clampers goes off on one when the Journal does crap like that.
For the sake of disclosure, I also “liked” Trump’s page so that it was in my news feed on Facebook as well as Bernie and Hillary and even Jeb ( i kinda liked Jeb, I wear the same jumpers as him).
The Mirror wins.
Not even that glorified rag, the Star could do better.
I thought ‘Damp, Squalid and Infested with Rats’ was more political and apt.
Oh that gave me a laugh.
I love your style dammit.
Trump still dominates the news across the papers. The majority of the electorate voted for him, and now there’s regret? The people of the U.S also voted in 2 elections for George W. Bush – that turned out well?
President Obama, I thought was going to be breath of fresh air – genuinely nice guy and a true Democrat. He is – but, it appears the voting American types would rather a figurehead of their country to be a racist, misogynistic, self-important egotist. God Bless America etc.
The majority didn’t vote for him. Even he knows that.
…the US comprehensively rejected crooked Hillary through their democratic electoral process…the same process that they vociferiously insisted Trump must abide by when he suggested before the election that the system was rigged and that he may not accept the result…they rejected the devil they knew…
bisted is Clampers also? “mal de mare” as Derek Trotter would say.
they didn’t vote for him. he lost by three million votes. catch up.
…4 million voted for UKIP in UK and they got one seat out of over 600…but thats the democratic process in the UK…same in the US…crooked Hillary was spurned…the fact they got far right narcissist in her place is as much due to the process that selected crooked Hillary…
Some people still think it matters that Hilary got more votes.
THEIR SYSTEM DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY!
Build a bridge.
Yeah, you try building a bridge now i can’t get cheap immigrant labour. Nice try. What am I supposed to do? Poach the immigrant and “undocumented” labour from Trump’s hotels or the construction workers he uses?
I’ll build one, but send you the bill.
That was a very enjoyable comment, fair play!
Of course it matters. It makes him less legitimate
That’s why he keeps talking about it & suggesting that illegal immigrants made up the difference.
No it doesn’t.
He is in.
He is making decisions.
He is doing exactly what he said he would do.
He is 100% legitimate.
If US voters wanted something different they should have got off their fat hoops and voted. All the moaning and marching around in the world isn’t going to change it. He’ll have to royally make a balls of it to get thrown out. If that moron Bush didn’t I can’t see Trump doing so.
On a side note, I’m not a supporter but I’m not blind either.
“The majority of the electorate voted for him”
no we didn’t.
sorry, but where have you been?
Ha Ha Ha – The Irish Times top right – ‘Paternity Leave, Why the low take up?’ … eh it’s probably low in the Irish Times seeing as they discriminate against women going on Maternity leave … as per the story in the The Sunday Times front page on Sunday
“Government to discuss pre-clearance with US authorities” – ooooh, scary. Not.
“Government to discuss taxation arrangements with US companies” – now, that would bring about some change.
what the papers missed last night is that he’s just sacked the Attorney General
presumably because she’s not an appeaser or maybe cos she just ain’t pretty enough, who knows?
fupp
The acting atty general
Because she refused to do her job
No
she did her job which was to uphold the law
What she didn’t do was what Trump wanted and he sacked her
Last time I checked the US operates on a democratic basis, not dictatorship
She’s supposed to say no if she thinks it’s illegal
Yea yea sure
So the Obama Iraqi refugee ban was unlawful too?
Nasty: your not to mention that inconvenient fact.
Not a ban, a review on issuing new visas.
This article claims “dozens” of terrorists had gotten through yet goes on to identify just two:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/
No because Obama was competent and it wasn’t a ban.
They were different.
But you know that
the job of the attorney gen is to hold up the rest of the govt to the law. she did that.
Well the government disagreed with her interpretation in this case so she was judged not competent. Deal with it.
Her memo explains pretty succinctly her role vs government advisers.
http://documents.latimes.com/message-acting-attorney-general/
There was nothing partisan in why she did it. She did her job.
oh, I am. #resist
Why would I read such obviously partisan rubbish?
Maybe you can summarise it for me
Bullet points please
Sweet Enola Gay. How do you know it’s partisan rubbish if you refuse to read it? To summarise
1. Office of legal council (OLC) review on basis on narrow scope. Simply is the text in front of you legal? Similar to Ministerial legal council here.
2. They do not consider context or impact of the order, just that the words are ok.
3. AG has to look at entire context, purpose and all elements of constitution. A different view, one that has to include fairness and justice.
4. Her role is to ensure the DOJ’s position is legally and morally defensible, on that basis she can’t advise they support the EO.
Which is what she was asked to do by Jeff Sessions in her confirmation.
Listrade – not all heroes wear capes. Of course, this is the internet, you could well be wearing a cape for all I know but you know what I mean…
Gold Lamé cape and nothing else but a neck beard and Doritos Nacho Cheese stained fingers.
Probably too much information
Thanks Listrade sorry if I was snippy first time.
I’m not surprised to see AG’s role is this. However is government obliged to take her advice? They might have judged it incompetent, partisan or both… I’m not sure how she’s gets a presumption of being competent or non-partisan out of the blocks when she was appointed by the previous administration
@nasty, Same here, no they don’t have to take her advice. But you would have problems in legal challenges (as going on) if you didn’t have AG support.
However, she never gave advice as she wasn’t asked. They only got the OLC review of the text. Her only means if dissent was with the memo.
Should also add that as with Trump’s nominees, she had to be confirmed by the senate. Particularly in this role is the issue of upholding the constitution not the President’s orders.
She was approved by a Republican majority senate.
Given the measured, thoughtful, reasonable response by Trump I think we can assume everyone’s acting in good faith here.
“Betrayed the President”. Yup Bubba, that’s her job, put the constitution first.
Let’s be a little honest in she was in a no lose situation. She was gone from the job pending Session’s confirmation, which at least the Dems are dragging out. So she went out Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid style instead.
We’ll never know if she would have done the same in other circumstances.
She was a Democrat, appointed by Obama, who refused to enact the wishes of the president.
What did she expect? A pay raise?
again….
it’s NOT her job to do whatever the President wants or feels
You should look at the transcript of her confirmation in 2012.
She was asked: “You’re going to have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no… Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper…?”
She responded: “I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president.”
Pretty much flagging up what she did.
By the way, it was Jeff Sessions who asked her if she would uphold the AG Office and defy the President if it was an improper request. You might know him, he’s Trump’s nominee for AG.
Maybe he only meant defy a Democratic President (or insert obvious joke about Session’s on the record racism).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/31/sally-yates-responded-jeff-sessions-asked-would-defy-president/
Is he John Sessions brother? ;)
Trump wants Yes men only.
Disturbing that he doesn’t understand the Attorney Generals role, as the chief lawyer for the government, is to advise the government on the constitutionality of its actions.
Maybe he did not agree with her recommendations. Should he blindly follow legal advice that’s obviously political?
He can’t enact policy if it isn’t compliant with the law, it’s one of the important aspects of keeping a society free and democratic.
Says who?
Serious question
The entire political apparatus of the US system of government? It’s why appointments to the Supreme Court are such a huge issue – laws get taken to court and tested at various levels with the SC as the final arbiter of whether they are constitutional or not. Don’t know if this executive order will go that far, but it’s being challenged in courts all over the place. it’s why it’s such a good idea for the president to get good legal advice from, eg, the Attorney General before enacting his laws. Trump has probably torpedoed his own policies with his approach, but chances are that won’t negate them right off, just cause more chaos, especially if he roots out every independent voice out of his administration and goes to war with the judiciary and the states who refuse to comply.
The legal system. Hence the stay on his muslim ban.
It’s the same principle that requires the constitutionality of laws here be confirmed.
Of course he could change the law but that would mean screwing around with the 1st amendment. Give him time.
Careful guys, the court orders are limited and haven’t disputed the whole EO. The President can dictate on immigration (see other presidential orders). This is usually done based on a defined threat or issue with vetting.l and in consultation with the various departments heads.
However, the President isn’t obliged to do that for their EOs. It’s a courtesy and wise to do it so you can make sure the wording doesn’t have problems and to give departments time to set up.
The illegality of this issue is the ban extended to those who had already been approved with visas and green cards. That is what the course put a stay on.
Yeah, my understanding of all this is strictly general, but the immigration ban is supposedly within his powers, however the way he enacted it was what legal and political scholars are generally describing as ‘craptacular.’ Or words to that effect.
I usually save “craptacular” for something really serious like when my homies aren’t pulling their weight on a Battlefield 1 mission.
The OLC is right in that there is nothing wrong with the text of the EO. There is no mention on religion and it doesn’t mention “ban” (trump did though in his tweet). The President has full control of immigration to an extent. Hart–Celler Act of 1965 says they can’t discriminate based on country of origin for immigration. So he can’t “ban” immigrants from those countries the same way Obama couldn’t and didn’t ban people from Iraq.
You can put in place restrictions or additional measures on visa processing and review, they can’t prevent based on country of origin, but they can place extra scrutiny on those countries.
The Syrians don’t have a hope as that is taking in refugees and not immigration and at the total discretion of the President. He can take in none or them all, it’s up to him. Interestingly, the split is more or less 50/50 in christian to muslim Syrian refugees.
Current court cases are only for those with approved visas and green cards. These courts can’t rule or won’t hear constitutional issues (if any). Those will only be heard if the cases go higher.
Yates’s issue is on the constitutional issue, I’m guessing the “Establishment Clause” prohibiting the government from making laws that prefer any one religion over another.
As people have been pained to point out in defence of Trump, the text doesn’t mention religion. However, Yates’s view is that this is the intent and context of the EO. As confirmed by Giuliani in that Trump asked for “a muslim ban”. Trump’s comments that Christians would be fast-tracked is also unconstitutional. Yates’s seems to have a point that while the text is ok, on the intent and probable application of it, it could be unconstitutional.
Which is all valid in the context of proving unconstitutional discrimination. With wishy washy text like this, it can still be discriminatory if the purpose behind it was to discriminate. She is right that Trump’s statements in his campaign have to be taken into account as statements like that before the introduction of a law are grounds for proof that discrimination was a motivating factor even if the text is neutral.
Trump’s and Giuliani’s comments after this strengthen that case.The committee Giuliani was on and records of those meetings and drafts would all be discoverable (shredders are probably already busy). If in those records, as Rudy suggests, it is overtly stated that they try and bury a “ban on muslims” under neutral text., that could be sufficient.
With all that, to me if Yates was asked for advice, she would have given the same advice as she did in the memo.
That’s an impressive summation, Lis.
Urging people to accept your legal advice is not the same as having authority to disobey an actual instruction from your client. Unless you were being asked to commit a murder etc. Fair play to the lady for having our interests at heart – I agree with her- but why anyone is whining about her getting sacked is beyond me.
She was already sacked from the day Trump was inorgorated. The whining on because her dismissal was immediate and she was accused of betraying the President. She is there to uphold the constitution, not the President. She cannot ask her staff to carry out orders that she believes are unconstitutional, the civil service isn’t the military.
She was sacked for doing a job the Republican senate asked her to do. The precedent of this should be concerning.
Clearly.
Perhaps you are correct but I don’t think there’s any precedent there at all. Fine to point it out but I think it’s a case of the new CEO bringing in bully boy tactics to an Obama led Justice Department that was widely considered to have become overly politicised.
Well it seems that I was wrong*!
Obama did not set a precedent for using executive orders:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php (scroll down for list)
The key here is that an order wil go to Congress if it requires additional funding.
*I have always considered contrary sources to try to gain a balanced view, it seems that my usual centre-right sources have slipped into distortion and misrepresentation.
Fair play, Deluded
Not in the papers and from the Journal, but roll eyes FFS at this headline:
“Quebec suspect a 27-year-old far-right nationalist who recently ‘liked’ Facebook page of Trump”
No wonder Clampers goes off on one when the Journal does crap like that.
For the sake of disclosure, I also “liked” Trump’s page so that it was in my news feed on Facebook as well as Bernie and Hillary and even Jeb ( i kinda liked Jeb, I wear the same jumpers as him).
Oh yea poor Clampers he’s just misunderstood
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFet3_kpr2s&w=854&h=480%5D
Thanks
Yes, heard that this morning. We are defined by our social media feed it seems. Air mon Gurry Adams knows that all too well.
… https://theconversation.com/a-guide-to-the-geneva-convention-for-beginners-dummies-and-newly-elected-world-leaders-72155