Forums / Discussion / General

Unless Ginsberg dies soon (not entirely out of the question given she’s 83 and has had both colon and pancreatic cancer), I doubt they’ll neuter it. If it gets to SCOTUS, Kennedy will go with the liberal justices again and uphold it.

Ah thanks, forgot to add that detail. The current composition of the court is 4 lib 3 cons 1 swing, and once Trump gets his pick in it'd be balanced, so it'd require Ginsburg (or some other liberal justice) to die/resign, probably.

Related: FOX saying Trump has narrowed it down to Gorsuch and Hardiman.

>TFW You realize 2017 is going to be just as bad if not worse than 2016 when it comes to politics. But you're just so broken and dead inside that you don't know if you can take anymore of this bullshit with out it seriously harming your metal heath.

So, what do you guys think of the DNC chair race? I brought it up earlier, but nobody seemed to comment on it. I've said that the top candidates in the race are Tom Perez (Sec of State under Obama) and Keith Ellison (representative from Minnesota), and I still believe that one of them is most likely to win; I highly doubt Sally Boynton Brown will become chair, and I seriously hope she doesn't get chosen; don't fucking scare me with the idea of someone who embodies SJWness being DNC chair. Perez and Ellison actually have endorsements that make them likely to win (ex. Ellison has endorsements from Sanders, Warren, and Chuck Schumer; don't know about Perez, but I'm pretty sure he got some good endorsements). They both actually have experience, with Ellison citing successful efforts to generate turnout in his district in particular. I'd be OK if either of them became DNC chair; Ellison seems like he'd be more appealing to the progressive wing since Sanders endorsed him, but he's gotten flak for being a former member of the Nation of Islam, though he's disavowed them (I doubt that's gonna influence how he manages the DNC, but I'm certain Republicans will pounce on that), as well as for having anti-Israel views. Ellison seemed certain to be DNC chair until Perez joined though.

Either way, I hope either Ellison or Perez actually run the DNC well if either of them becomes DNC chair and really do well at motivating the Democratic Party and generating turnout and participation in state and local level races. since they really fucking need it under Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress. Also, fuck Sally Boynton Brown; thinking about HER being the top choice for DNC scares me. At least the top choices are actually different ethnicities and have experience.

I'm sure someone will earmark a bill to that effect to the budget bill and get it passed that way.

You all noticed how quickly Trump is making good on his promises on the campaign trail, good, bad, or other wise? Yes, I know not all of them can or will be done with one pen stroke, but my head is spinning from the shear SPEED of it all. I just can't think of any president who was so 'My word is good' and 'I can get this shit done.' Like Trump is.

The thing is, he's doing it in a way that may not be for the best. He's making good on his promises by essentially telling the rest of the government to "Do this thing" without any sort of clear plan in mind.

Still, it's dangerously refreshing to see a person in office, actually making changes, even if said changes aren't well thought out. After what felt like years of stationary policies, probably because they were done behind closed doors and with lots of planning and negotiating behind them in order to make them smoothly enacted.

Still, Trump needs to have his changes start showing positive results if he wants to ensure the country is behind him. He also needs to start sending some of this stuff through Congress, because otherwise I think they'll start turning against Trump's orders, republican or otherwise.

Nobody likes a ball hog, as it were. And if trump continues to do all of his governing via executive orders, then he's going to find a lot less support in congress, especially since they started out on his side in the first place and he essentially ignored them.

The other issue of him using EOs like this, is that with how suddenly they come out, there's no discussion amongst the people about what his propsals entail. If he actually shoots some of these through Congress and they get shot down, we can still say he tried as much as he could. But we just had people protest something that was a reappropriation of something done in the Obama administration without their protesting then. I agree-- the fact that he's actually overtly meaning to make good on his promises right away is amazing, and I think everybody should appreciate that, even if they don't necessarily agree with his policies.

However, he doesn't have the lack of eyes on him that Obama had, nor does he have the media to cover for him, nor does he have a lack of contrarianism around him. I'm not sure if he doesn't realize that, or he actually likes that.

And because of the increased scrutiny on his seat as he's there, people are likely going to begin to fervently discuss what for and when an EO is supposed to be used, in the first place.

Before long, people might start calling him "King Trump I".

TSG and Rivers:

I mean, the matter of vacancies was never limited to the vacancy we have now. I heard someone on at least one occasion discuss the matter of seat vacancies over the course of the term(s), as well.

>be me
>you always live in Mexico
>your country always seems to be in a dire situation and never get it's shit together
>elections happening on in the USA
>Trump wins
>the guy who called us rapists and dirt scumbag is planning to build a wall and to screw us in more ways than others
>tfw you no longer care about the future and you can't do anything to change it

Now something completely different:
"To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada"
@JustinTrudeau

It seems the Canadians are taking a jab with the whole Muslim ban stuff.

And since I'm here I'd to ask a question: from 1 to 10 how dead is NAFTA according to you guys?

Well, it has only been a week now, so I say it's a bit early to tell. However, from what I can gather is that Trump is a lot more open and talkative to the House and Senate members than Obama was.

"Diversity is our strength"

Diversity isn't strength-- certainly not by itself. A house divided against itself cannot stand, after all. Cultural heritage and religion are important, certainly, but essential assimilation is a must in any successful country.

(Also, you mind expanding on how Trump plans to screw you over?)

Jaune Arc:

That's definitely a thing that's been said:

His staff is learning how to work together as they jockey for power. And amid it all, Trump still manages to surprise: Lawmakers and business leaders say the larger than life president and former reality show star listens more than he talks.

elmashojaldra: To be blunt, you could start by improving your own country. There will be plenty of angry people with nowhere to go in the years to come.

is easier say it than do it, but they say the change comes in oneself isn't?

If it was easy, was it worth it? I hope YOU will be the change Mexico needs to make the changes and clean up the messes we can't help with.

>Trump does a thing
>Reddit literally implodes because Trump = automatically bad
>Makes national news
>Frontpaged on KYM
>People quoting Huffpo and Salon articles to "prove" how bad it is
>Nationwide protests
>Peaceful™ protests results in several people killed, injured, shops looted, etc.
>People saying the world will end and WWIII will start today
>Nothing happens
>Every
>Single
>Day

If trudeau wants to ignore the problems canada has been facing with immigrants from politically unstable or conflicted areas and just invite them all over, that's canadas parliments business.

When president jimmy carter invited all the cuban refugees in the 70's and 80's because he believed them to be political prisoners, it ended up turning the us southern coast into a goddamn warzone. Literally, with various political factions, murder cultists, drug cartels, and violent nationalists trying to make cities like Miami their own paradise, and drive everyone else out.

Diversities great, different cultures coming together to change each other into a new, better whole is wonderful. But that's not gonna happen, because none of these refugees want to assimilate. They want to crash in the country and treat it like they own the place until their own countries calm down. It just happens thst their creature comforts are violent surpression of woman and regional and religious based murder and battery.

So yeah, enjoy thst canada, america felt what happens when you have 0 checks on the people who come to your country. Its why florida man is a thing.

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this thread or worthy of its own thread, but Denmark is becoming the first country to have a 'digital ambassador'. Thoughts?

Federal judges in three states followed one in New York in barring authorities from deporting travelers affected by U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order imposing restrictions on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington state issued their rulings late on Saturday or early on Sunday.

Earlier on Saturday, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York City's Brooklyn borough ordered authorities to refrain from deporting previously approved refugees from those countries. She ruled on a lawsuit by two men from Iraq being held at Kennedy Airport.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on Sunday that it would comply with court rulings while at the same time implementing Trump's order "to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people."

…

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs on Sunday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the removal of two Iranians who taught at the University of Massachusetts who had been detained at Logan International Airport.

The order, set to last seven days, appeared to go further than Donnelly's by barring officials from detaining, in addition to removing, approved refugees, visa holders and permanent U.S. residents from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen. Donnelly's order only forbade removing those affected by Trump's order.

…

In Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema on Saturday night barred the Department of Homeland Security from removing 50 to 60 people detained at Dulles International Airport who are legal permanent residents. Dulles is one of the main airports serving Washington, D.C.

Brinkema's temporary restraining order also requires the agency to allow those individuals to speak with lawyers, according to the Legal Aid and Justice Center in Virginia, which provides representation to low-income individuals.

On the West Coast, U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly in Seattle on Saturday barred the federal government from removing two unnamed individuals. He scheduled a further hearing on the issue for Feb. 3.

Source

@MorningSTAR

It's relevant.

It's an interesting move. I worry if it's sort of legitimizing corporate power too much.

Wait for the Japanese to completely delegitimize this by appointing some waifu bait oc to be their digital ambassador cause she's completely digital, get it?

But on a more serious note, denmark has embraced its new shadowrun overlords.

Ok if anyone could clarify something for me that would be great:

If I'm a white secular person and I was considering a move to America within the next 5 or so years, how much harder did it just get?

I've heard that Trump has introduced certain restrictive policies but I don't understand what they are and don't consider myself really qualified to comment.

They seem to be specifically targeted towards 7 countries, so you're probably fine?

No one really seems to know what's likely to happen anymore.

He's not profiling demographics, just the countries themeselves

Saudi King Agrees To Support Safe Zones In Syria, Yemen

"Saudi Arabia's King Salman, in a phone call on Sunday with U.S. President Donald Trump, agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, a White House statement said.

Trump, during his presidential campaign last year, had called for Gulf states to pay for establishing safe zones to protect Syrian refugees.

A statement after the phone call said the two leaders agreed on the importance of strengthening joint efforts to fight the spread of Islamic State militants.

"The president requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts," the statement said.

The Saudi Press Agency, in its readout of the call, made no specific mention of safe zones. It said the two leaders had affirmed the "depth and durability of the strategic relationship" between the two countries.

A senior Saudi source told Reuters the two leaders spoke for over an hour by telephone and agreed to step up counter-terrorism and military cooperation and enhance economic cooperation. But the source had no word on whether the two leaders discussed Trump's order to put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily ban travelers from Syria and six other Muslim-majority countries.

The source said Saudi Arabia would enhance its participation in the U.S.-led coalition fighting to oust Islamic State from its strongholds in Iraq and Syria."

Bill Maher can be a dick in the name of comedy and had his head up his own ass for several months in regards to how the election proceeded, but he's 100% correct in this video addressing just how easily people can be walked all over if they are somehow accused of being offensive.

It's amazing because it's got nearly 800K views in two days, AND has a high like/dislike ratio. Like, this hardly happens on his channel. For instance, his last week's final new rule had a like/dislike ratio split in half.

My brother lectured me on how racist america is, how I'm part of the problem for not admitting it's a racist country, and how I'm a bad person for thinking racists' minds won't be changed just because you assaulted them. He also thinks I'm a bad person for donating to Donald Trump's campaign/voted for him. He called Trump a dictator for using executive orders. When I asked how America is a racist country he just went all aids skrillex and said "you're a white male" and that's why I didn't understand. I asked again but the only evidence he could give me was the recent incident at o'hare airport and that mosques get burned down.
Where do people get this crap from? I thought indoctrination didn't happen until college. He's only seventeen.

Ask him. The answer might be good to know.

Also, point out that's he's white as the driven snow himself.

Tell him to first calm the fuck down and THEN try to explain himself why he thinks that way. If he can't then the real problem is him and who ever brain washed him. He sounds like he's a near hysteric over this.

I'd expect those court orders to get slapped down given SCOTUS long ago gave the executive branch a wide berth when it came to immigration--and by "wide berth" I mean "people entering the US don't get a habeas corpus hearing if they're denied entry."

Colonel Dude said:

So, what do you guys think of the DNC chair race?

Mentioned it a couple pages back, but given how their debate went, if I were a Dem, I'd be pretty mad. It seems like the line of thinking party big wigs have is "we only lost by 100,000 votes, so just carry on." Sure, Clinton could have won if a 100,000 strategic voters voted differently, but that ignores the rot the Democratic Party has right now--they lost more in the last decade than at any point in the last century. The centerist and leftist wings of the party are more or less at each other's throat with neither side willing to give in. And, so far at least, there's no sign that all these hashtags and boycotts will translate to much come midterms.

The Democratic Party needs to sort itself out--figure out whether it's center-left or full blown left, give state parties the resources they need to compete, and stop assuming people will turn out for them in droves just because of the color of their skin or accent and actually lay out their policies and agenda (communicate!) to get people to vote for them.

elmashojaldra said:

how dead is NAFTA…

3/10. It may get renegotiated, but since the original was ratified by Congress, it'll likely need to go through there again and given how Reps like free trade and Dems are looking for any way to give Trump a middle finger, I'd imagine it'd be difficult to redo.

Magical Girl ☆ Egla Egla Eglamore~ said:

If I’m a white secular person and I was considering a move to America within the next 5 or so years, how much harder did it just get?

"Where do you live?" and "What countries do you have citizenship in?" are the key questions. The ban only applies to those in 7 (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yeman) countries. (As an aside, I cannot seem to find 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), the section specifically referenced in the EO--it only goes up to (a)(11).)

Britbong. Fortunately I think Trump likes us, apart from the parts of Birmingham and London he seems to believe have been taken over by the muslamic ray guns.

I'm part Scottish and Trump's mother was Scottish, so maybe he'll be nice to me.

Also Theresa May is talking a lot right now about "renewing the special relationship" between the US and the UK, and there are protests going on soon here asking that she do something about Trump. Obviously this will be completely ineffectual and I personally find it kind of strange that we are having protests about another country's leader.

There is a currently a petition to stop Trump visiting the UK but I think it's very stupid to even think of alienating America, no matter her leader. It won't really achieve much other than enforcing even more divisionary thinking anyway.

I thought indoctrination didn’t happen until college. He’s only seventeen.

Usually indoctrination doesn't even occur in college (the exception is if you're a Humanities major and are naive), in fact being a STEM major can more or less be a defense against indoctrination because you're trained in classical skepticism. Most indoctrination happens during middleschool, if you exclude the fact that as a child you're designed to believe your parents as a defense mechanism, due to the fact that this is when most cognitive development occurs.

">tfw you finally get to say "You're fired!" as the POTUS because the AG decided she wouldn't let her department do its job":http://www.wcvb.com/article/trump-fires-yates-as-acting-attorney-general/8656269

>Obama admin appointee

Ah, well there's yer problem!

Full White House Statement:

"Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons. The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel."

Black Lives Matter Speaker: "And we need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die." [Warning: Salty NSFW Language]

(Phooey, I screwed up the hyperlinking. If someone could fix that, that'd be great.)

I dunno-- if you're going to do professional phrasing, then you have to be more subtle with your jabs.

Oh, goodness. This is rich. Look at this rapid fire vague sourcing

Before the President issued the order, the White House did not seek the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that interprets the law for the executive branch, according to a source familiar with the process.

A source said the creation of the executive order did not follow the standard agency review process that's typically overseen by the National Security Council.

Separately, a person familiar with the matter said career officials in charge of enforcing the executive order were not fully briefed on the specifics until Friday.

Am I actually supposed to believe these unnamed sources? I can only buy the last person, because we saw the confusion and disarray.

Acting ICE Director Also Out, Replaced

"Release Date:
January 30, 2017

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON – Today, the president appointed Mr. Thomas D. Homan acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Since 2013, Mr. Homan has served as the executive associate director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). In this capacity, he led ICE’s efforts to identify, arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens, including those who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts.

Mr. Homan is a 33-year veteran of law enforcement and has nearly 30 years of immigration enforcement experience. He has served as a police officer in New York; a U.S. Border Patrol agent; a special agent with the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; as well as supervisory special agent and deputy assistant director for investigations at ICE. In 1999, Mr. Homan became the assistant district director for investigations (ADDI) in San Antonio, Texas, and three years later transferred to the ADDI position in Dallas, Texas."

I was pretty surprised to hear the debate went pretty badly. Still, who do you think will become the chair in the end? Ellison and Perez are still my top choices. I don't even want to encourage the possibility that Sally Boynton Brown will become the chair; the though of the embodiment of SJWness being chair scares me.

Trump fires top lawyer after she refused to support the travel ban

(^Story already posted, though this article is lengthier.)

A comfirmed canadian Alt Right shoot at a mosque while Sean Spicer hinted that this justify Trump Travel Ban
Suspect Info

Something about this Canadian mosque incident doesn't sit well with me. This makes no sense given what the victims said they saw and what info was coming out earlier. The people in the mosque said there were two shooters, who allegedly yelled “Allahu Ackbar”, and police immediately capture two suspects. After capturing the suspects, they state the attack was a terrorist attack and wouldn’t give any identifying info regarding the suspects for a decently long time.They then release the names of said suspects much later and we find out that one of them is a Moroccan national. Now all of a sudden they release one of the suspects saying he was a witness and not a suspect, and this other suspect is being painted as a Trump supporter and general right wing nut when his facebook also showed that he was part of Laval University’s feminist group FEMUL? Smells like collusion to me.

Just to clear up some potential confusion:

The AG, as a cabinet position, is beholden to the President, and can thus be legally fired by said President without warning. Nixon actually did this several times through his time in office.
The whole point of the AG is to represent the President in court; nobody should be surprised that she was fired after publicly opposing a direct order from the POTUS. Why would anyone keep a lawyer around if they intended to work against you?

I know a lot of people on sites like Tumblr are declaring Sally Yates a hero and unfairly persecuted for apparently standing up for the right thing.

The reason the removal isn't sitting well is that it stinks of what happened to Ashcroft. Fighting an AG in order to do something unconstitutional/awful and making the awful thing the sticking point. You're also citing Nixon as to why getting rid of people who disagree with you is normal.

The AG also doesn't take an oath to the president, the oath is to the US people and constitution. Like all civil servants.

Or, alternatively, people are uncomfortable that he's removing anyone with a spine.

Where is it stated he was part of the feminist group FEMUL?

Something about this Canadian mosque incident doesn’t sit well with me. This makes no sense given what the victims said they saw and what info was coming out earlier. The people in the mosque said there were two shooters, who allegedly yelled “Allahu Ackbar”, and police immediately capture two suspects. After capturing the suspects, they state the attack was a terrorist attack and wouldn’t give any identifying info regarding the suspects for a decently long time.They then release the names of said suspects much later and we find out that one of them is a Moroccan national. Now all of a sudden they release one of the suspects saying he was a witness and not a suspect, and this other suspect is being painted as a Trump supporter and general right wing nut when his facebook also showed that he was part of Laval University’s feminist group FEMUL? Smells like collusion to me.

I'm just gonna slap a big, huge, [CITATION NEEDED] on this entire paragraph.

Nixon actually did this several times through his time in office.

I don't feel like Nixon is the best example of a president. (Other than that, pinkiespy said everything I wanted to and more.)

Bill would end Virginia’s ‘winner take all’ electoral vote system

A bill to end Virginia’s “winner take all” system of awarding Electoral College votes was approved by a House subcommittee Tuesday.

The electoral votes should be divided among presidential candidates based on how many of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts they win, the subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee decided on a 5-2, party-line vote.

HB 1425, sponsored by Del. Mark Cole, R-Fredericksburg, would give Virginia’s remaining two electoral votes to the winner of the state’s popular vote.

This system is used in Maine and Nebraska and is known as the “congressional district system.” Under the system, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would have received six of Virginia’s 13 Electoral College votes, even though Democrat Hillary Clinton carried the state last fall.

It has issues – most notably, gerrymandering – but I think it's a good step in the right direction. I hope it passes.

And now, gay shit.

Trump vows to continue LGBT workplace rights protection

In a break with his party's traditional stance on gay rights, Republican U.S. President Donald Trump vowed on Tuesday to uphold protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people working for federal contractors.

The White House said in a statement that Trump, who took office this month, would continue to enforce an executive order signed in 2014 by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.

…

The move puts Trump at odds with many of his fellow Republicans, who for the most part have fought civil rights protections based on sexual orientation and gender. Some conservatives have softened their positions in recent years, however, particularly toward gay marriage.

Unexpected and appreciated. +1 for Trump.

Boy Scouts of America to begin accepting transgender boys

The Boy Scouts of America said on Monday the group would begin accepting transgender boys, bucking its more than a century-old practice of using the gender stated on a birth certificate to determine eligibility.

"Starting today, we will accept and register youth in the Cub and Boy Scout programs based on the gender identity indicated on the application," Boy Scouts of America communications director Effie Delimarkos said in an emailed statement.

Delimarkos cited shifting definitions of gender under state laws, which can "vary widely from state to state," in explaining the change.

She said that while the organization offers programs for all youths, its Cub and Boy Scout programs are specifically for boys. The change will allow children to apply even if male is not listed on their birth certificate.

I wonder if this will start a rift between the gay community's political side and their constituents.

It's not the AG's job to uphold the Constitution anyway, even if it wasn't explicitly stated to be legal in federal law, that's the Supreme Court (They are, however, supposed to follow it just like any governement position).The AG is still a part of the Executive Branch, which is headed by the President, and is thus beholden to the President's orders, like I said.

You’re also citing Nixon as to why getting rid of people who disagree with you is normal.

No, I'm citing Nixon as to why getting rid of people who disagree with you is legal. I'll say it again: Would you hire a lawyer who explicitly states that he/she will work against you?

I never mentioned morality. I don't even think the ban in question was a good idea, at least in how it was implemented, but it's certainly not illegal (or even surprising) to fire an AG that explicitly goes against an executive order.

See, here's the biggest thing about the AG
"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

An attorney general cannot fulfill their oath of office by defending something they believe unconstitutional. So what you're seeking here is to make it impossible for the AG to disagree with the president. Something that came up in her confirmation hearing btw, by one Jeff Sessions. Turns out the incoming AG believes the AG should work against the president in such matters.

I will again point you towards the shit-show that ended with warrantless wiretaps.

Yah, it's legal. It's also unethical. And the sort of logic that burned what would have been a historically significant presidency to a by-line when talking about Watergate. It's the paranoia and shit-listing that sank Nixon.

And for the meantime, looks like the court agrees with the former AAG.

You'll probably see people compare this to Saturday Night Massacre, and that would be incorrect of them.

What Nixon did was try to get his AG to fire a special prosecutor that, overall, was doing his job. His AG refused, and resigned. The deputy AG resigned as well. He eventually did get the special prosecutor fired, only for him to be rehired because he was fired for no good reason, and for Nixon to get in trouble over it. If not unethical, it's plainly illegal (and it probably was illegal, given that the prosecutor was rehired).

Yates said she wouldn't defend the president should the EO go to court. She agrees that the EO was evaluated to be legal before it was signed, but had currently unsubstantiated and vague objections nobody could possibly take to court if they ever had the chance. And, as far as I know given the officially stated role of the OLC, she also tried to undermine the value of the OLC in her letter. The reality is that the OLC found the EO constitutional and generally lawful. As to why she thought it wasn't, she doesn't say in any certain terms.

Not only did she refuse to do her job preemptively and order the department to do the same-- which is absolutely reasonable firable offense by itself-- she has explained no concrete objection to the EO as far as her own jurisdiction was concerned.

They're not the same scenario. Not even in principle.

Are we talking about the Executive Order regarding the 7 countries?

"Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization."

The exception for religious minorities fleeing persecution is what's going to be fun to see. Because this allows for religious minorities like Iraq's Sunni Muslims to be first in line.

An attorney general cannot fulfill their oath of office by defending something they believe unconstitutional. So what you’re seeking here is to make it impossible for the AG to disagree with the president. Something that came up in her confirmation hearing btw, by one Jeff Sessions. Turns out the incoming AG believes the AG should work against the president in such matters.

No? Don't put words in my mouth, you don't know what I'm "seeking". Yes, the AG should work against the POTUS in any matter that can be (rightfully) deemed unconstitutional, as should anyone working in federal government. However, that is not the case here, since neither the temporary immigration ban or firing the AG itself violate any federal laws. All of the cabinet members can give the POTUS advice even if they disagree on things, but they don't get to overturn executive orders without legal leverage.

Yah, it’s legal. It’s also unethical. And the sort of logic that burned what would have been a historically significant presidency to a by-line when talking about Watergate. It’s the paranoia and shit-listing that sank Nixon.

How is this paranoia? She explicitly stated that she would not uphold an executive order from her boss; not out of any legal leverage, but out of principle. There's a massive difference there that shouldn't be downplayed. If your job is to be someone that represents the interests of the federal government, you should probably have the same interests as the federal government you're representing. I'm not gonna talk about ethics since that's subjective territory and I'm trying to avoid a flame war.

Somehow I don't think going on with this debate is going to convince anyone that hasn't already been convinced one way or another, so I'm going to leave my point at that since I'm tired and probably not posting my best right now anyway. Sorry if I got anything wrong, I tried to mostly use sources like legal documents to avoid sounding like a complete idiot.

Just as a related side-question, though, does anyone know a good neutral news source? I'd like to find a place that's essentially just "this happened today" without any opinion pieces. Or does that sort of thing not exist? It takes awhile looking through dozens of articles to try and form a coherent understanding of what actually happens.