Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#191

Post by matt4077 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #178
Malician wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guliani is not the President. Trump is, and Bannon is a top advisor. Trump went to Guliani asking for a Muslim ban and asking how to dress it up; Guliani complied (in a really, really incompetent fashion.) Bannon's views are quite available from the history of Breitbart reporting, and from his interviews (Asian CEOs.) Motives matter when the executive branch has as much power as it does now (and that power is so conc…

>Motives matter Judicial interpretation generally takes the opposite tack, reading law according to its "plain meaning" rather than an imagined/assumed intent, to prevent just such bias and editorialization as you're displaying here (which, obviously, can be extremely damaging when mingled with governance). Impute whatever intentions you wish on your favorite boogeymen, it doesn't change the text of the law under whi…

Judicial interpretation is generally is embroiled in a partisan fight over originalism vs. substantive/contextual/... canons. The most recent case of the Supreme Court rejecting "plain meaning" was Obamacare, where it was decided that "State" in "an Exchange established by the State" also includes those established by the federal government.

But I doubt you'll even need to show that the EO started with the wish to implement a Muslim Ban, because it is doubtful that their efforts to soften it until it is legal were successful. As an analogy: Would a company policy never to employ a woman born in odd-numbered years be discriminatory?

If you insist on "no, because it doesn't discriminate against all women", how about a policy against hiring any women who's current age is even? That must then also be non-discriminatory, right?

Now what if a company were to implement both policies? Can two non-discriminatory policies add up to something discriminatory?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#192

Post by dragonwriter »

cookiecaper wrote: post #188
altern8tif wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know when to take Trump literally or not? When he says "build the wall", does he mean a literal wall or a figurative one? When he said he has a plan to defeat ISIS, or a plan to replace Obamacare, is that a literal plan? Are we cherry-picking his words based on what our personal ideologies are? Are we rationalising? The fact that he lies blatantly without any regard for consequences (or remorse) makes his m…

I have no position on whether or not Trump is a great leader. Is that the argument we're having here? I thought it was about whether Trump is filling his controversial campaign promises seriously or literally. So far, it appears that he is filling them seriously, but not literally. The law is the law. We are governed by the law according to its plain meaning. Trump's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting the la…

> Trump's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting the law.

They are not irrelevant when determining whether his actions comply with statutory and Constitutional provisions which preclude actions directed toward certain ends.

Intent is quite often relevant in the application of law to particular sets of facts.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#193

Post by cookiecaper »

grey-area wrote: post #190
cookiecaper wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant , not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but…

According to Guilanni, and to the president himself, that's exactly what he meant. There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law and human decency, so they've had to temper it, for now. President Trump has turned out to want literally what candidate Trump proposed. Thiel was wrong in a fundamental way. As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not…

>As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down -

First, thinking that the media is anti-Trump does not automatically make one pro-Trump.

Second, being pro-Trump does not make one automatically pro-strong-vetting.

As for my personal positions, which are not relevant to anything but which I'm more than happy to disclose based on your expression of interest, I voted for Donald Trump and I've stated that on HN in multiple places before.

Immigration is not a major issue for me and particularly anti-Muslim rhetoric is a major turnoff for me; I have a lot of respect for Islam as a religion and I've studied it casually for many years. I think, in general, Muslims are great neighbors and community partners. I am not Muslim, but I am religious, and I've enjoyed working with Muslims on topics of mutual interest to religious people.

I don't like Donald Trump very much and I started out strongly opposed to him. I warmed up to him only over the final 6 weeks prior to the election or so. Prior to that, I was considering writing in a vote, and I probably would've if I didn't live in a swing state.

My personal preference for a presidential candidate would've been one of several candidates that was in the running earlier in the election cycle (preferably Rand Paul, though to be frank I would still like Ron).

I don't know enough about immigration from the blacklisted nations to know a) whether migrants from those countries do, in fact, pose more risk to the United States than migrants from other countries; b) whether that risk is substantial enough to warrant a travel stoppage/visa suspension of the type we've seen; c) whether a review or change in our vetting procedures will have any effect; or d) whether this ban will have larger negative ramifications in PR and internal turmoil than it would have benefit in implementation.

Because I don't know any of those things, I don't know if it's a smart thing to do or not. Why are you arguing with me about this and trying to tell me I don't know my own opinions? I don't get it.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#194

Post by matt4077 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #105
mwpmaybe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> President Obama signed a list of countries into law > using the exact list that President Obama signed into law Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0], counterpoint[1]). 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...…

It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter at hand is not prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge not be able to hear what the DoJ can…

> It's a matter for the judiciary to determine

I'm pretty sure any oath of office, including those in the executive, include the protection of the constitution and bill of rights. To leave the defence of the constitution solely in the hands of the judiciary is terribly dangerous, especially considering how politicised that branch has become.

> It seems perfectly sensible [..] to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.

There are enough articles out there why it's not reasonable (mostly the fact that there haven't been any attacks from citizens of those countries in the US, that it would have been reasonable to continue the SQ while any review is ongoing, that the review could have been done during the transition etc.)

The acting AG's issues where not about "reasonable", but "legal". Specifically – with regards to the actual cases she would have had to defend – the legality of removing people holding permanent residency permits.

The illegality of removing green card holders is pretty obvious. To quote the Department of Homeland Security:

As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to:

- Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

- Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

- Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

Your Responsibilities as a Permanent Resident

As a permanent resident, you are:

- Required to obey all laws of the United States the states, and localities

- Required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities - Expected to support the democratic form of government and not to change the government through illegal means - Required, if you are a male age 18 through 25, to register with the Selective Service

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/ri...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#195

Post by davesque »

refurb wrote: post #174
davesque wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

The American people chose Trump. Sorry, there is no way around that. The US doesn't elect its president based on the popular vote.

Right, which is why the American people did not choose Trump. The electoral college did. It's not fair to point the finger at the people when the system was the most likely cause of the outcome.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#197

Post by davesque »

flukus wrote: post #175
davesque wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

It's impossible to say what the vote count would have been had the rules been different. There are a lot of potential trump voters in very populous states that likely stayed at home.

There were probably just as many non-Trump voters that stayed home in solid red states.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#198

Post by grzm »

davesque wrote: post #166
rohshall wrote: post #135

Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

There are three things you can say about the popular vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election:

- the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same

- the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate.

- the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president

What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness.

And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters".

Oh, there's a fourth thing as well:

It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#200

Post by davesque »

grzm wrote: post #198
davesque wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

There are three things you can say about the popular vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election: - the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same - the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate. - the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president What is much harder to argue is that the results of t…

All of that may be true, but it's still valid to point out the popular vote discrepancy as a response to the claim that the American people chose Trump. As an American voter who opposed Trump during the election, I feel especially entitled to do so in response to someone who criticizes us as being "stupid" for having done something that many of us don't feel responsible for having done. Indeed, if further evidence surfaces of Putin's involvement in the election, I'll feel even more secure in my opinion.
Post reply on HN