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

361–370 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#361

Post by cookiecaper »

defen wrote: post #350
ubernostrum wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The National Review's article basically boils down to "well, we found this section that allows suspending entry of some people, and even though there's another section explicitly forbidding doing this stuff based on national origin we're going to say he has essentially unlimited power to do whatever he wants". Meanwhile the federal judge who ordered the stay thinks theress a strong likelihood that the order is either…

So if hypothetically we went to war with country X tomorrow, the president would not be able to suspend entry of X nationals without an act of Congress?

Hypothetically, wouldn't the Act of Congress constitutionally required to declare war probably include a suspension of immigration itself? ;)

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#362

Post by rgbrenner »

refurb wrote: post #171
michaelchisari wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't just read it, I watched it. I heard it from his own mouth. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlibiQIy298 Let's put this in context Donald Trump's quote: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." Or the wording on his website: https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-cont…

Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States They did a pretty bad job then. The vast majority of Muslims don't live in those 7 countries.

well priebus said on mtp on sunday that they used those countries because obama selected the list and so they thought it would be more likely to pass muster. He then said, other countries may be added in the future (when he was asked why saudi arabia, etc werent on the list).

So this is just the starting point.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#363

Post by MrZongle2 »

douche wrote: post #232

Remember when there was a ban on political topics for like three days? Remember how nice that was?

At this point, I think we should just upvote all new incoming political threads. Either allow the angry people to get it out of their system, or clearly illustrate that this stuff doesn't belong on HN.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#364

Post by cjeane »

r_smart wrote: post #301
throwaway5752 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a lot of us on both sides of the former partisan political spectrum are wonder what - if any - boundaries Trump supporters have past which they would not defend the actions of this administration.

Speaking for myself, I'm mixed on this particular EO. I don't like the restrictions placed on people who were already determined to be legal residents via green cards / visas whatever. Fortunately, I think that's going to get struck down. So my support of this current EO is mixed. When would I not support him? Had he tried to do something permanent, had he tried to go forward with a ban all Muslims approach. Those bo…

> We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively

Proponents say they are temporary measures, so that there is time to 'figure out what is going on'. No matter how you feel about this EO it was implemented in sloppy and unprofessional manner. It was poorly written, Agencies were not notified or instructed on the exact intent, there was no time for review from Legal Council. How am I supposed to extrapolate that this farce will produce better immigration enforcement than the already stringent vetting that was in place? When they have no better alternative I have to predict that these blanket bans get extended for 'safety reasons'.

> due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis.

This is great conjecture, but it is unclear, at this time, if as implemented a Sunni qualifies for this status. You have frontline DHS agents deciding these case by case reviews without clear orders. I don't believe they will err on the side of possibly getting it wrong. Denying will always be the default.

> It's also not a Muslim ban.

It's obviously not a muslim ban, but that is who will be disproportionally affected.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#366

Post by zigzigzag »

patrickk wrote: post #290
cryoshon wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>just go look at how often you can read the Russia "invaded" Ukraine or Russia "invaded" Crimea. putting your soldiers onto someone else's turf without permission equals invasion...

Exactly, there were "rebels" driving around in Russian armoured vehicles, using modern Russian military equipment, just without insignias on their uniforms. This story[1] is one of many from a few years back about poorly-disguised Russian troops who were deployed in Ukraine. Vice News did an amusing piece of reporting where they tracked down a Russian soldier who was deployed in Ukraine based on his social media pres…

Please re-read my post.

I say explicitly that both sides in the civil war were being supported by US/UK and Russia respectively, with soldiers and equipment. However, this does not mean the USA invaded Ukraine, nor did Russia invade Ukraine.

Perhaps you guys are all using the word "invasion" to mean something different to what I'm using it to mean, but in my book a country can't quietly invade another. Especially not countries with wildly superior militaries. Invasions are kind of hard to miss. Nobody in Iraq or Afghanistan was in any doubt that their countries had been invaded by the USA.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#368

Post by mkaziz »

LordKano wrote: post #333
wavefunction wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decision to prosecute a defendant or not (or defend a statute, or not) is at the discretion of the prosecutor, barring some sort of statutory requirement. The President isn't a king, whose orders are to be followed regardless of the Constitution or prevailing law. Both the President and the AG serve at the pleasure of the People of the United States, and Trump is about to find that out the hard way.

Both the President and the AG serve at the pleasure of the People of the United States, and Trump is about to find that out the hard way. Trump has the support of roughly half of the country. Regardless of how loud the opposition is, don't confuse their passion for widespread support.

Slightly less than half the country _that voted_* this past election. That's not close to half the country

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#369

Post by edblarney »

savagej wrote: post #346
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?

Why are you so stupid as to think America will not defend its borders? Why are you so stupid as to not realize America is modeled on individual freedom, which is incompatible with Sharia Jihadis? Defense of individual freedom and liberty (i.e. preventing the creation a police state and ensuring gun rights) is more important than leftist feelings. There are some bad dudes to remove in the meantime.

I don't like Trump, but I also think there is too much hysteria ...

But don't be calling people stupid here (i.e. don't be a victim of all this hysteria).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#370

Post by cookiecaper »

FireBeyond wrote: post #263
cookiecaper wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted" That's more than a little hand-wavy and dismissive. In multiple places in this thread you quote various laws that seem to support the legality of the EO. Along comes a law that seems to question it - and your response is to say "oh, well, we'll have to consider whether some obscure law may be contradicted".

You may be confusing my posts with someone else's (yes, it appears there are several of us here taking the crater to our karma!). I haven't quoted any laws that portend to give the President authority to make such an EO. I have asserted that based on my understanding of the Constitution, it's reasonable for such orders to fall under the purview of the executive branch and that historically, executive orders are given respect and force of law.

But the consistent thread through all of my posts is that Ms. Yates' refusal to uphold her constitutional obligation to support the duly-elected chief executive based on her vague, non-specific claim that the order may be illegal and that the DoJ must "always seek justice" is improper. That's what this topic is about. I'm not a lawyer and I can't argue the intricacies or details of the legality of Mr. Trump's order and I make no attempt to do so.

Post reply on HN