What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

I'm leaning towards Dakota on this one.  It's not her call what's wise and just.  If she needs more time to determine if the act is legal, she should have just said that.

Explain. I don't really understand Dakota's position beyond that the AG is bound to support the President at all times, which I see no basis for.

[LaCroix]

She knew she was going to get fired over this (see "Saturday Night Massacre") but thought she could go out sounding as noble as possible.  Asking for more time with 4 hours left in your term in office is weak sauce.

it's not "weak sauce" to do your job as authorized under constitutional authority. her "independent power" is saying "ehh, that's illegal, I'd do [XYZ]" or "ehh, that's not illegal, you're good to go." she didn't have constitutional authority to order the entire DOJ to simply not defend it.

[sbr]

Jesus, to imagine there is someone dumber than Marti boggles the brain.

six billion people, there had to be one...right?

was sbr's post deleted after he saw yi post?

No.  I realized that talking about someone that isn't around here wasn't wasn't cool so I deleted my post.  Unfortunately people had already quoted it.

[CountDeMoney]

He just fired the head of ICE. 

The long night of tweets?

#Twitternacht

[Admiral Yi]

Explain. I don't really understand Dakota's position beyond that the AG is bound to support the President at all times, which I see no basis for.

I don't know how to explain more without repeating myself.  My understanding is the AG is bound to comply with all legal orders.  If she's given an order that she objects to on grounds other than legality, she always has the option to resign.  Not resigning, and locking down the DOJ, is a political stunt.

[mongers]

He just fired the head of ICE. 

The long night of tweets?

#Twitternacht

That's better, but you could see where I was going, though something along the lines of the 'night of the long tweets' wouldn't have worked.

[sbr]

Explain. I don't really understand Dakota's position beyond that the AG is bound to support the President at all times, which I see no basis for.

I don't know how to explain more without repeating myself.  My understanding is the AG is bound to comply with all legal orders.  If she's given an order that she objects to on grounds other than legality, she always has the option to resign.  Not resigning, and locking down the DOJ, is a political stunt.

My understanding is that the AG takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". 

So she has every right to decide whether an EO should be defended in court.

[CountDeMoney]

That's better, but you could see where I was going, though something along the lines of the 'night of the long tweets' wouldn't have worked.

Well no, not at 140 characters.  So sad!

[LaCroix]

Explain. I don't really understand Dakota's position beyond that the AG is bound to support the President at all times, which I see no basis for.

does my latest post clarify things? AG doesn't rubber stamp anything. if there's an executive order that, upon extensive review, simply can't be legally defensible, then I imagine the AG makes the very best argument anyway. I'm thinking it's similar to public defenders, who must defend their clients for their clients to be afforded their constitutional rights. now, I could be wrong at the "I imagine the AG ..." part, but I don't think so. and the thing is, it takes longer than five days to review something like this and come up with the answer that hey, it can't be defended.

you implied with an emoticon that I was being stubborn when I said unlawful isn't the same as "I'm not convinced this is lawful." I wasn't being stubborn. there's an important distinction here.

[Admiral Yi]

My understanding is that the AG takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". 

So she has every right to decide whether an EO should be defended in court.

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say all EOs have to be wise and just, according to the AG's conception of wisdom and justice.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say all EOs have to be wise and just, according to the AG's conception of wisdom and justice.

Considering she's the career government lawyer, and the EO was obviously written without any government lawyers around, I think it's a little more than just wisdom and justice.

[Admiral Yi]

Considering she's the career government lawyer, and the EO was obviously written without any government lawyers around, I think it's a little more than just wisdom and justice.

And i think wisdom and justice are just political posturing on her part.

[katmai]

Considering she's the career government lawyer, and the EO was obviously written without any government lawyers around, I think it's a little more than just wisdom and justice.

And i think wisdom and justice are just political posturing on her part.

Well, like....that's your opinion man.

[sbr]

Considering she's the career government lawyer, and the EO was obviously written without any government lawyers around, I think it's a little more than just wisdom and justice.

And i think wisdom and justice are just political posturing on her part.

I'm not surprised.  Have you looked into her career at all?

[CountDeMoney]

Considering she's the career government lawyer, and the EO was obviously written without any government lawyers around, I think it's a little more than just wisdom and justice.

And i think wisdom and justice are just political posturing on her part.

And you're a whore.  The EO is a loser as written; it lost in courts this weekend, and it's going to keep losing.