Attorney General Nominee Sessions: AG Must Be Able to Say "No" to the President - Page 3

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 99
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Right over there
    Posts
    11,175
    Rep Power
    16

    Default Attorney General Nominee Sessions: AG Must Be Able to Say "No" to the President

    President Trump's nominee for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, during a confirmation hearing for a deputy attorney general post in 2015, made the following statements -


    "Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say ‘No’ to the president if he asks for something that’s improper?... if the views a president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?

    Sessions: Like any CEO with a law firm, sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, ‘Mr. CEO you can’t do that. Don’t do that. You’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law, you’ll regret it. Please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be. Do you feel like that’s the duty of the attorney general’s office?

    Sessions: I remember John Ashcroft as an attorney general for Bush. He’s been celebrated. When he was in the hospital they tried to get him to sign a document that dealt with terrorism that he thought went too far. He refused to do so. So I hope that you feel free to say ‘No’ in the character of John Ashcroft and others who said ‘No’ to President Nixon on certain issues."



    So Senator Sessions believes that the AG should not just be a rubber-stamp for the president's orders, but should take a prncipled stand when necessary.

    Oh, and by the way, the nominee for deputy attorney general who was the recipient of Sessions' advice - Sally Yates, who was fired by President Trump for saying she would refuse to enforce the immigrant ban.


    Last edited by JimmyC123; January 31st, 2017 at 1:07 pm.

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by party-free View Post
    Just posted her letter to top justice department lawyers with her rationale.
    her rationale was "I am not convinced" ?
    Woo hoo hoo, my my, woo hoo hoo

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignorance Breeds Contempt View Post
    Yeah, color me unconvinced. That case wouldn't hold up in court, IMO. Of course, we'll see since it will be heading to court. If that's the extent of her legal case, it's pretty weak.
    me 3

    Woo hoo hoo, my my, woo hoo hoo

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by itsjoanne View Post
    Great catch Kate.

    This is just more stupid outrage.

    Apparently she wonders if it's "wise" or "just" which is a personal opinion, not about the legality.
    short timer sees the screen door heading for her rear
    screams LIBS LOOK AT ME I CAN HOLD A TORCH
    libs swoon
    exits a few days earlier
    with more career options in hand
    Woo hoo hoo, my my, woo hoo hoo

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #34
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    18,777
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by itsjoanne View Post
    Thanks. You proved our point.

    The left is outraged about nothing.
    I don't get the outrage over her at all-she was on the way out anyway, but I do think Trump's reaction, coupled with the Sessions questioning about blind obedience, don't look good for Trump.

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #35
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The road less travelled
    Posts
    109,106
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayJay View Post
    Yes...it was a vague and general argument.

    I didn't see any legal grounds.

    I'm not for the ban as I don't see it accomplishing it's "stated goal", but legally I don't see an issue.

    Unfortunately.
    Didn't five federal judges who gave their opinions before the AG firing - rule against portions of the EO?
    .........................
    “The best defense against bull **** is vigilance - So if you smell something, say something." Jon Stewart

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast
    Posts
    50,231
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    short timer sees the screen door heading for her rear
    screams LIBS LOOK AT ME I CAN HOLD A TORCH
    libs swoon
    exits a few days earlier
    with more career options in hand
    She'll likely be hired as a contributor for CNN or MSNBC.

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Who View Post
    Didn't five federal judges who gave their opinions before the AG firing - rule against portions of the EO?
    Did she make her statement before or after adjustments were made?

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mississippi, the real dee
    Posts
    9,021
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conan View Post
    Damn....I agree. AG must be able to tell the pres....hey buddy that's unconstitutional and here why.

    That's not what Yates did, she said she wasn't going to enforce it because she thought it was immoral.
    Yeah. She ****ed herself on that one.

    She should have resigned in protest. I would have had a bunch of mad respect for her had she done so.

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #39
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The road less travelled
    Posts
    109,106
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignorance Breeds Contempt View Post
    Did she make her statement before or after adjustments were made?
    What adjustments were made?

    They've stopped detaining them?

    "Federal judges on Sunday piled on opposition to President Trump’s travel bans, following an order from a Brooklyn judge that began the legal backlash to his executive orders.


    Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington State signed orders halting parts of Trump’s executive orders, which brought chaos and protests to airports nationwide as authorities suddenly cracked down on passengers banned by the President’s broad rules.


    In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Dein issued a seven-day ban on federal officials deporting and even detaining passengers targeted by the orders.


    Travelers flying into Boston’s Logan Airport “will not be detained or returned based soley on the basis of the Executive Order,” the judges wrote."


    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2958793

    There's this too:

    "On Sunday, 16 Democratic state attorney generals also issued a joint statement vowing to fight Trump's order. The statement said the prosecutors were "confident that the Executive Order will ultimately be struck down by the courts."
    .........................
    “The best defense against bull **** is vigilance - So if you smell something, say something." Jon Stewart

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Middle Georgia, USA
    Age
    62
    Posts
    36,980
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Who View Post
    Didn't five federal judges who gave their opinions before the AG firing - rule against portions of the EO?
    Was not aware that any case had gone before the courts for a ruling to be made on the case. Motions were filed and judges put in play stays.
    Democrats : THEY LIE TO US!! THEY PLAY ON OUR FEARS!!
    http://members.cox.net/hellsbane1/helsbanesig.jpg

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The State of Independence
    Posts
    18,556
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Who View Post
    Didn't five federal judges who gave their opinions before the AG firing - rule against portions of the EO?
    Then she should have stated those opinions in her letter.

    Otherwise she took a bullet for nothing.

    If you're going to fall on your sword, you have to fall on it for something more than "I am not convinced".

    How things have been playing out in recent weeks has me thinking more and more of this line from Spaceballs:

    • The unexamined life is not worth living.
    • Wisdom is knowing how little we know.
    • The arguments stay the same...only the sides making those arguments change.


  24. Sponsored Links


  25. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Who View Post
    What adjustments were made?

    They've stopped detaining them?

    "Federal judges on Sunday piled on opposition to President Trump’s travel bans, following an order from a Brooklyn judge that began the legal backlash to his executive orders.


    Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington State signed orders halting parts of Trump’s executive orders, which brought chaos and protests to airports nationwide as authorities suddenly cracked down on passengers banned by the President’s broad rules.


    In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Dein issued a seven-day ban on federal officials deporting and even detaining passengers targeted by the orders.


    Travelers flying into Boston’s Logan Airport “will not be detained or returned based soley on the basis of the Executive Order,” the judges wrote."


    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2958793

    There's this too:

    "On Sunday, 16 Democratic state attorney generals also issued a joint statement vowing to fight Trump's order. The statement said the prosecutors were "confident that the Executive Order will ultimately be struck down by the courts."
    The issue of legality, as I recall, pertained to the retention of those with visas and green cards. From what I understand, that's been clarified. Noone with a legal right to be here is barred from entry. In other words, the travel ban isn't the problem. It's executing it in relation to those with prior permission to be here. From what I can see, Yates didn't make that distinction. And again, she simply did not lay out any legal argument. You may want to read what some judges are doing into Yates rationale, but she didn't do that. She gave a vague response to the determination that the EO was legal. Her directive was superfluous given the stays and overreaching absent distinction.

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    US of A - God's Country
    Posts
    16,440
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyC123 View Post
    President Trump's nominee for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, during a confirmation hearing for a deputy attorney general post in 2015, made the following statements -


    "Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say ‘No’ to the president if he asks for something that’s improper?... if the views a president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?

    Sessions: Like any CEO with a law firm, sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, ‘Mr. CEO you can’t do that. Don’t do that. You’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law, you’ll regret it. Please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be. Do you feel like that’s the duty of the attorney general’s office?

    Sessions: I remember John Ashcroft as an attorney general for Bush. He’s been celebrated. When he was in the hospital they tried to get him to sign a document that dealt with terrorism that he thought went too far. He refused to do so. So I hope that you feel free to say ‘No’ in the character of John Ashcroft and others who said ‘No’ to President Nixon on certain issues."



    So Senator Sessions believes that the AG should not just be a rubber-stamp for the president's orders, but should take a prncipled stand when necessary.

    Oh, and by the way, the nominee for deputy attorney general who was the recipient of Sessions' advice - Sally Yates, who was fired by President Trump for saying she would refuse to enforce the immigrant ban.


    Yep!

    If an AG believes the President is breaking the law, then they can refuse to participate and resign or be fired.

    In the case of Trump's EO, the AG lawyers stated the EO was legal, but the acting AG decided for political reasons not to support Trump's EO. Thus she could either resign or be fired. She chose not to resign and was fired.


    I fail to see the disconnect here?

  28. Sponsored Links


  29. #44
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The road less travelled
    Posts
    109,106
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellsbane View Post
    Was not aware that any case had gone before the courts for a ruling to be made on the case. Motions were filed and judges put in play stays.
    The federal judges issued Court Orders.

    Why do you think they did that?
    .........................
    “The best defense against bull **** is vigilance - So if you smell something, say something." Jon Stewart

  30. Sponsored Links


  31. #45

    Default

    That's funny.

    Now, if the new attorney general tries to stand up Trump he will either be fired or crushed. Trump has proven throughout his entire life that he will crush anyone that slightly crosses him. The Republican crushing is just around the corner folks.

  32. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •