Trump passes executive order restricting immigration, in violation of the Constitution.

[Ralin]

Which part? There is no exception for jews in the order, and the holocaust remembrance declaration did omit jews. This is a matter of public record at this point, would you like the text, or are you smart enough to look them up?

As for the inference...well... that is an inference.

I think he was talking about the inference.

Honestly, my first reaction would be that it was just...kinda assumed, that a declaration about remembering the Holocaust and its victims is referring to Jews. Seems like that would be the default given the context. Usually if there's an issue with that sort of thing it's people neglecting to mention the fact that non-Jews were targeted in the Holocaust.

That said, I'm not Jewish, so maybe I'm missing some of the nuance.

[Zaune]

If it were almost anyone other than Trump reading the statement, I would also be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Joun_Lord]

We already understand them and their psychology. That's what Simon is saying. The part we didn't understand until the election is the degree to which it pervaded American society. And god damn does it pervade American society.

We already know why this has been building up. It is much different from knowing how far it's built up. One is qualitative, the other quantitative. It's a waste of society's CPU cycles to keep on examining the why when we need to examine the total.

I respectfully disagree that its a waste to examine it.

Trump is a problem, pretty much nobody but Trump himself and his most deluded or desperate followers and supporters probably think other wise. Trump even if he just keeps his campaign promises and nothing more is a massive problem.

But he is a problem that is the end result of other problems, symptom of other problems if you will. The anger, the desperation, the loss of national identity, the rapidly changing society socially and technologically, the loss of hope, ineffectual and outright corrupt leaders, and so on. These are problems that pervaded society but people ignored, forgot, or just plain ridiculed.

Trump is the shit stained prize we got for all that.

To stop Trump I am of the opinion we need to do more then just stop Trump, we need to deal with the problems that led him to rise like the teenage me watching a JLo video with the sound muted (don't judge me, I had no internet or anything else as a teen). Even if tomorrow we kick Trump out of the White House the problems that led to him going in will still be there, will still be able to be exploited to cause more problems and even a Trump 2.0.

We have the choice of ignoring the problems, making it worse, or solving the problems. I kinda want to go for option 3.

Do we need Hitler committing the Final Solution for us to recognize that he is bad? Or would it not be better to stop Hitler once he gets 90% close to there?

Let's not make any mistake. If Trump ignores the law, that's a bad signal. It's a signal that he will continue forward. We may not be at 90% now, but that we can see it coming very soon ... that is something no one can ignore.

We need to have the appropriate response is what I've been getting at. We need to stop Trump before he turns into New Hitler who tastes just as bad as New Coke and insert joke about New Jersey corruption but it needs done the correct way, it needs done in manner that doesn't automatically treat Trump like Hitler when he hasn't yet gotten to that point.

Currently Trump is acting like a corrupt politician, we have ways of making corrupt politicians talk......I mean legally dealing with them. We have courts, have voters, have marches and protests and all kinds of groups like the ACLU who know laws like I know self loathing. He can hopefully currently be stopped within the confines of da lawwwwwww.

The best shitty analogy I can think of would be like home invasion. Hitler is like full on panic room armed dudes in ski masks busting in stealing your junk threatening your family and kicking your cat, Trump is like some dudes sitting across the street casing the place. Both are incredibly bad, both needs stopped but both also require different responses. In alot of place you could blow away the fucks in your house waving guns and probably should for hurting a cat. For the people casing your place the proper response is to call the cops, let the system handle it but be ready if for some reason the donut chomping incompetent asses act like donut chomping incompetent asses, go out and buy a gun, install new locks, be proactive and defensive.

What you cannot do is be offensive, take your piece and let lead fly at the fucks in their car not on your property, not threatening you, breaking only minor laws currently. You are supposed to have appropriate response (unless you live in Florida), having an inappropriate response will get you drawn up on charges of murder and maybe have MSNBC edit your phone calls and others lighten your woefully out of date pic to make you look more white because journalistic integrity, whats that?

Trump is currently across the street from our house, probably masturbating while texting about it because this is Trump, snapping photos and being the criminal fuck he is. We need to call the cops, we need to prepare for in case that invariably fails, we need to be extremely vigilante and we need to do things right.

Good god I make the shittiest analogies ever, like seriously.

[Simon_Jester]

To stop Trump I am of the opinion we need to do more then just stop Trump, we need to deal with the problems that led him to rise like the teenage me watching a JLo video with the sound muted (don't judge me, I had no internet or anything else as a teen). Even if tomorrow we kick Trump out of the White House the problems that led to him going in will still be there, will still be able to be exploited to cause more problems and even a Trump 2.0.

We have the choice of ignoring the problems, making it worse, or solving the problems. I kinda want to go for option 3.

None of which addresses the point. We know why this is happening. Insofar as people are able to do anything about it, that is being done and will be done. We know that there are deep undercurrents of racism and xenophobia. We know that there are people desperate for change but so illiterate when it comes to history and political science that they'll vote in a blustering demagogue idiot as long as he shouts "I'll fix things" loudly enough. We know where this desire for change comes from.

It is not mysterious, it is not inexplicable, and your services as an anthropologist are not urgently needed to explain it. All you're accomplishing by repeatedly bringing up how sympathetic is wasting time and creating a distraction from the topic at hand.

There isn't much point in talking about how the people beating up old ladies in the street had a rough childhood et cetera. Not while they're beating up old ladies. It's a pointless distraction from the task of creating a response to the old ladies get beaten up. Talk about their rough childhood when they've been stopped, physically, from causing the direct harm.

What you cannot do is be offensive, take your piece and let lead fly at the fucks in their car not on your property, not threatening you, breaking only minor laws currently...

Trump is currently across the street from our house, probably masturbating while texting about it because this is Trump, snapping photos and being the criminal fuck he is. We need to call the cops, we need to prepare for in case that invariably fails, we need to be extremely vigilante and we need to do things right.

Good god I make the shittiest analogies ever, like seriously.

The thing is, "call the cops" IS a serious reaction to the situation. What people are doing even on this very thread is saying "we need to call the cops, oh, and honey? Make sure our panic room and shotgun are ready in case this guy goes berserk."

And you're all like "WHY ARE YOU CHECKING THE PANIC ROOM? HE HASN'T BROKEN THE DOOR DOWN YET!"

And the answer is that the time to discuss 'is there a panic room, can/will we shoot back if this guy suddenly flips out and starts riddling the house with bullets' is BEFORE he actually does that. Not AFTER. After the would-be dictator goes full Hitler it is far too late to have polite conversations about these things. Especially in a society with this many potential surveillance tools.

[Joun_Lord]

None of which addresses the point. We know why this is happening. Insofar as people are able to do anything about it, that is being done and will be done. We know that there are deep undercurrents of racism and xenophobia. We know that there are people desperate for change but so illiterate when it comes to history and political science that they'll vote in a blustering demagogue idiot as long as he shouts "I'll fix things" loudly enough. We know where this desire for change comes from.

It is not mysterious, it is not inexplicable, and your services as an anthropologist are not urgently needed to explain it. All you're accomplishing by repeatedly bringing up how sympathetic is wasting time and creating a distraction from the topic at hand.

There isn't much point in talking about how the people beating up old ladies in the street had a rough childhood et cetera. Not while they're beating up old ladies. It's a pointless distraction from the task of creating a response to the old ladies get beaten up. Talk about their rough childhood when they've been stopped, physically, from causing the direct harm.

Even if you know the why of how this happened, which is debatable considering you are still comparing the fearful idiots to blatantly violent thugs, the fact is you are ignoring it.

The why of Trump is just as important as Trump. Not for sympathy or anything but to completely understand the problem at hand. Trump does not standalone, he stands upon a foundation of fear, hate, and plain old stupidity.

Doing away with Trump does not solve the problem, only solves the end result, does not solve the underlying causes and allows the problem to repeat. Its like patching your car tires after running over a road of glass, you have only fixed the end result of the problem rather then the problem that led to it and will recreate the problem when you drive back over the glass tomorrow.

To use your people beating up old ladies example, just stopping them from beating up the old ladies only solves the immediate problem temporarily. You need to understand the why and solve the why to stop the rash of old lady beatings. People aren't just going to be beating up old ladies for shits and giggles usually no matter how shitty their childhood is, there is a reason. Are they beating the lady up because they are robbing her? Because there is some tension like classism or racism? Maybe because the old lady is a moron who likes to pick fights with people? Who knows. But until you know and until you solve the reason dentures will continue to fly, people will fall and cannot get up, and hips will be shattered.

The thing is, "call the cops" IS a serious reaction to the situation. What people are doing even on this very thread is saying "we need to call the cops, oh, and honey? Make sure our panic room and shotgun are ready in case this guy goes berserk."

And you're all like "WHY ARE YOU CHECKING THE PANIC ROOM? HE HASN'T BROKEN THE DOOR DOWN YET!"

And the answer is that the time to discuss 'is there a panic room, can/will we shoot back if this guy suddenly flips out and starts riddling the house with bullets' is BEFORE he actually does that. Not AFTER. After the would-be dictator goes full Hitler it is far too late to have polite conversations about these things. Especially in a society with this many potential surveillance tools.

No, I'm all like "WHY ARE YOU LOCKING YOURSELF IN THE PANIC ROOM AND GETTING READY TO SHOOT A BITCH? HE HASN'T EVEN LEFT HIS CAR YET!"

My problem is people seem to be jumping the gun, no pun intended even if it would be fun hun, when its not yet at the shooty shooty stage yet, its still at the call the cops I don't give a fuck stage. It the point where you check to see if your gun is loaded, preferably with actual ammo that isn't rusted to shit, but aren't aiming it down range ready to bust a cap in somebody's ass.

Yeah waiting to long to pull the trigger is bad but so is doing it too soon.

[Simon_Jester]

Even if you know the why of how this happened, which is debatable considering you are still comparing the fearful idiots to blatantly violent thugs, the fact is you are ignoring it.

Did you, of all people, just try to chew me out for using an analogy to make my point? Or go after my specific choice of analogy? After you literally just said you do the worst analogies?

I mean hell, you just made a New Coke joke while talking about Hitler. He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.

To use your people beating up old ladies example, just stopping them from beating up the old ladies only solves the immediate problem temporarily.

Yes, and you still need to do that, and talking about 'we have to go deeper to find the root causes' while people are getting beaten (or in this case being thrown in jail for being Iraqi Muslims) is still in large part a waste of time and energy.

No, I'm all like "WHY ARE YOU LOCKING YOURSELF IN THE PANIC ROOM AND GETTING READY TO SHOOT A BITCH? HE HASN'T EVEN LEFT HIS CAR YET!"

In which case you're hallucinating.

See, that would be people actually organizing an armed rebellion, which is exactly what is not happening.

What you're currently seeing is people discussing things like the level of necessary protest, what will happen if the protests are ignored, and (potentially) the possibility that violence may result. Maybe a couple of people are overestimating the likelihood of violence, but that's part of the conversation.

This is, again, rather like the case of checking your shotgun when you think the suspicious van parked across the street MIGHT contain a bunch of masked goons about to invade your house, as opposed to the one suspicious pedo. And yes, you do this in addition to calling the cops, not instead of... But the cops have already been called, protests are already being organized nationwide and court orders have already been issued.

All that's left to do is hope for the best while at least trying to figure out what the hell 'prepare for the worst' even looks like, so that we are prepared in the undesirable situation where we need those preparations. And by 'prepared' I don't even mean 'ready to start the revolution' or whatever, I just mean we know what we think about it if and when things get worse.

[Joun_Lord]

Did you, of all people, just try to chew me out for using an analogy to make my point? Or go after my specific choice of analogy? After you literally just said you do the worst analogies?

I mean hell, you just made a New Coke joke while talking about Hitler. He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.

My problem the analogy or comparison was you are comparing people that aren't meaning to hurt anyone but protect their own but hurt others through inaction to people who willfully harm people. As someone who knows a thing or two or five about flawed analogies it seems a bit flawed. The fuckers who support this ban are not out there beating people down themselves but allowing people to come to harm by not acting to stop it or prevent it. There just seems a considerable difference to me.

Yes, and you still need to do that, and talking about 'we have to go deeper to find the root causes' while people are getting beaten (or in this case being thrown in jail for being Iraqi Muslims) is still in large part a waste of time and energy.

I disagree that its a waste of time and energy. Something needs to be done to help at risk people certainly but we also don't need to not let our zeal to do something, anything, cloud what got us here in the first place. We don't want to make things worse, increase the harm in long term, and undo any gains we might make. Blindly rushing in is in my opinion exactly what would cause that to happen.

Do things right the first time and we won't have to do them again, we won't hopefully have a Trump again. Fuck things up and we'll be back doing this dance in 8 or 12 years and I ain't got enough dancing fever to want to do that.

In which case you're hallucinating.

See, that would be people actually organizing an armed rebellion, which is exactly what is not happening.

What you're currently seeing is people discussing things like the level of necessary protest, what will happen if the protests are ignored, and (potentially) the possibility that violence may result. Maybe a couple of people are overestimating the likelihood of violence, but that's part of the conversation.

This is, again, rather like the case of checking your shotgun when you think the suspicious van parked across the street MIGHT contain a bunch of masked goons about to invade your house, as opposed to the one suspicious pedo. And yes, you do this in addition to calling the cops, not instead of... But the cops have already been called, protests are already being organized nationwide and court orders have already been issued.

All that's left to do is hope for the best while at least trying to figure out what the hell 'prepare for the worst' even looks like, so that we are prepared in the undesirable situation where we need those preparations. And by 'prepared' I don't even mean 'ready to start the revolution' or whatever, I just mean we know what we think about it if and when things get worse.

I might be hallucinating but I'm fairly certain I did not hallucinate talk of civil disobedience, setting shit on fire, wondering if the country should be split up, and outright cheering of the harm of another human being (if we stretch the definition by a bit, alot bit). I wasn't saying that its yet on the level of armed rebellion but on the level of violence and destruction. Armed rebellion would be actually pulling the trigger which I hope nobody thinks we are anywhere close to being yet.

We should indeed be hoping for the best while preparing for the worst but we shouldn't be advocating for the worst, hoping for it, or starting it.

Anyway, I think we are mostly just talking in circles at this point thanks to our difference in opinions. I respect your position and I hope you respect mine such as it is but as things are going we've mostly hit a wall conversation wise so I'm probably going to bug out if you don't mind. I'll read your response but probably won't respond. Sorry in advance.

[Flagg]

Even if you know the why of how this happened, which is debatable considering you are still comparing the fearful idiots to blatantly violent thugs, the fact is you are ignoring it.

Did you, of all people, just try to chew me out for using an analogy to make my point? Or go after my specific choice of analogy? After you literally just said you do the worst analogies?

I mean hell, you just made a New Coke joke while talking about Hitler. He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.

This is the same guy who joked (poorly, I mean it was a South Park reference from one of their weakest episodes ever, not that that's saying much) about being "HIV Positive". I think the bar for him is pretty low.

[Flagg]

Which part? There is no exception for jews in the order, and the holocaust remembrance declaration did omit jews. This is a matter of public record at this point, would you like the text, or are you smart enough to look them up?

As for the inference...well... that is an inference.

I think he was talking about the inference.

Honestly, my first reaction would be that it was just...kinda assumed, that a declaration about remembering the Holocaust and its victims is referring to Jews. Seems like that would be the default given the context. Usually if there's an issue with that sort of thing it's people neglecting to mention the fact that non-Jews were targeted in the Holocaust.

That said, I'm not Jewish, so maybe I'm missing some of the nuance.

Yeah, I don't think it really has any meaning because the only real use for Jews the religious nuts on the right have is to bring about Armageddon and the return of their favorite socialist hippy (involving millions of Jews dying in the process which is just the blood drenched cherry on top for them).

[Simon_Jester]

This is the same guy who joked (poorly, I mean it was a South Park reference from one of their weakest episodes ever, not that that's saying much) about being "HIV Positive". I think the bar for him is pretty low.

Hey, I have nothing against him having a low bar. He can stock the cheapest liquor in his low bar in his glass house that he wants. And I won't say a word against it. I just don't recommend him throwing rocks at other people's houses and bars while doing so.

My problem the analogy or comparison was you are comparing people that aren't meaning to hurt anyone but protect their own but hurt others through inaction to people who willfully harm people. As someone who knows a thing or two or five about flawed analogies it seems a bit flawed. The fuckers who support this ban are not out there beating people down themselves but allowing people to come to harm by not acting to stop it or prevent it. There just seems a considerable difference to me.

See, there's your problem. You're talking about the people who support the ban. I'm talking about the people who are enforcing it, because they are now the real problem.

Teaching everyone enough civics lessons to know why arresting all the Ay-rabs and Mexicans is wrong is important, but it's a long term project. Stopping us from sliding into complete tyranny is a rather urgent short-term project.

In which case you're hallucinating.

See, that would be people actually organizing an armed rebellion, which is exactly what is not happening.

What you're currently seeing is people discussing things like the level of necessary protest, what will happen if the protests are ignored, and (potentially) the possibility that violence may result. Maybe a couple of people are overestimating the likelihood of violence, but that's part of the conversation.

This is, again, rather like the case of checking your shotgun when you think the suspicious van parked across the street MIGHT contain a bunch of masked goons about to invade your house, as opposed to the one suspicious pedo. And yes, you do this in addition to calling the cops, not instead of... But the cops have already been called, protests are already being organized nationwide and court orders have already been issued.

All that's left to do is hope for the best while at least trying to figure out what the hell 'prepare for the worst' even looks like, so that we are prepared in the undesirable situation where we need those preparations. And by 'prepared' I don't even mean 'ready to start the revolution' or whatever, I just mean we know what we think about it if and when things get worse.

I might be hallucinating but I'm fairly certain I did not hallucinate talk of civil disobedience, setting shit on fire, wondering if the country should be split up, and outright cheering of the harm of another human being (if we stretch the definition by a bit, alot bit). I wasn't saying that its yet on the level of armed rebellion but on the level of violence and destruction. Armed rebellion would be actually pulling the trigger which I hope nobody thinks we are anywhere close to being yet.

Civil disobedience isn't an overreaction to this level of government action. Hundreds if not thousands of people have been imprisoned. An unknown number more are in danger of being imprisoned. The immediate situation is a big enough deal that this is not a disproportionate response.

People wondering if the country should be split up is a level of random talk that I've been hearing on and off for this forum for years; it's background radiation.

And you're stretching the definition of "cheering" pretty hard.

This is not people actually locking themselves in the panic room. This is people trying to figure out where the panic room even is, what options exist and are/are not ethical to use.

If you think this is appalling, you've got very low bars for what constitutes "appalling," and I don't know how you even survive living in modern America without falling over dead from the shock.

[TimothyC]

And now the acting AG has decided to revolt:

WASHINGTON — Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, ordered the Justice Department on Monday not to defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration in court.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

The decision is largely symbolic — Mr. Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is likely to be confirmed soon — but it highlights the deep divide at the Justice Department and elsewhere in the government over Mr. Trump’s order.

Mr. Trump has the authority to fire Ms. Yates, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department.

“For as long as I am the acting attorney general, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so,” she wrote.

Fire her, and preemptively pardon those conducting any of the surveillance until such time as Sessions is confirmed.

And if you think that's too strong, imagine if something like this eight years ago (a holdover from Bush going into revolt over something Obama was doing). I can see many of the people here screeching for their head.

Edit: Text of the Letter

[Zaune]

Obama didn't issue any executive orders that resulted in the ACLU obtaining an injunction against them.

[Flagg]

Obama didn't issue any executive orders that resulted in the ACLU obtaining an injunction against them.

Yeah, but <insert ignorant bubble-boy bullshit here>.

Also, she's doing her job, which is to follow the US Constitution, not to do whatever President Pussygrabber says regardless of its legality. "I was just following orders" is no more of an excuse for these Nazi's than it was for the last bunch.

[Simon_Jester]

Yates refusing to do something she did (or would have done) for Obama would be wrong- because that would be a plain and simple case of a politically motivated "Oh, hey, suddenly I remember that I have a conscience, let's see, I know I left it around here somewhere!"

This is... not quite the same thing. Because this is a case of Yates honestly believing that she's being tasked with defending an unconstitutional executive order.

TimothyC, what would you expect a government official who genuinely believed they were being ordered to violate their oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" in a case like this?

[TimothyC]

TimothyC, what would you expect a government official who genuinely believed they were being ordered to violate their oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" in a case like this?

Do this and be ready to be canned faster than you can say "revolt" or resign.

Edit: Issue the letter & resign is also acceptable.

[Zaune]

So she can be replaced by someone who will do what they're told instead of doing their actual job?

[JLTucker]

TimothyC, what would you expect a government official who genuinely believed they were being ordered to violate their oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" in a case like this?

Do this and be ready to be canned faster than you can say "revolt" or resign.

Edit: Issue the letter & resign is also acceptable.

Would you be saying this crap if the situation was reversed with a president you'd likely not support, like Obama? I'm guessing not.

[Ralin]

Fire her, and preemptively pardon those conducting any of the surveillance until such time as Sessions is confirmed.[/url]

Ever since learning that the president could pardon people I've always wondered why, theoretically speaking, the president couldn't have their minions murder anyone who opposes him and then pardon them afterward.

Guess maybe I'm going to find out!

[SCRawl]

TimothyC, what would you expect a government official who genuinely believed they were being ordered to violate their oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" in a case like this?

Do this and be ready to be canned faster than you can say "revolt" or resign.

Edit: Issue the letter & resign is also acceptable.

She's clearly willing to accept being fired. And frankly, it's a better career move to be fired for doing what is right than to hang onto a job for another few days or weeks following what will almost certainly be regarded as illegal or unconstitutional orders.

But President Trump will be right to fire her, because, well, she serves at the pleasure of the president, and I can't imagine that he's pleased.

[Raj Ahten]

Trump's incompetence here is stunning. What did he think would happen? Everyone would just go along with his power grab, even holdovers from the previous administration? He couldn't even wait until his own cronies were in place. That's the level of stupid we have to deal with now. Hopefully Trump learns nothing from this and manages to kneecap his fascict lite ambitions for as long as he remains in power.

Edit: for autocorrect nonsense.

[Ralin]

Trump's incompetence here is stunning. What did he think would happen? Everyone would just go along with his power grab, even holdovers from the previous administration? He couldn't even wait until his own cronies were in place.

It's a pretty effective way to sort out the obedient from the disobedient. And to keep up a non-stop stream of outrages to make sure everyone constantly on edge and drain people's energy for the next batch.

Trump hasn't exactly lost anything and he's set a precedent that he can do things like this without consequences. Assuming he's not impeached or something. Which he won't be.

[TimothyC]

TimothyC, what would you expect a government official who genuinely believed they were being ordered to violate their oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" in a case like this?

Do this and be ready to be canned faster than you can say "revolt" or resign.

Edit: Issue the letter & resign is also acceptable.

She's clearly willing to accept being fired. And frankly, it's a better career move to be fired for doing what is right than to hang onto a job for another few days or weeks following what will almost certainly be regarded as illegal or unconstitutional orders.

But President Trump will be right to fire her, because, well, she serves at the pleasure of the president, and I can't imagine that he's pleased.

Yes, she took the shot, and Trump has fired her.

President Donald Trump fired acting US Attorney General Sally Yates after she defied him on his controversial executive order on immigrants and refugees, according to a statement White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer issued Monday night.

Yates — an appointee of former President Barack Obama — told the Justice Department earlier Monday not to defend Trump's executive order.

Yates, who was set to be replaced by Trump's appointee Jeff Sessions once he's confirmed, denounced the executive order in a letter to Justice Department lawyers, saying it may not be lawful.

"I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right," Yates said in the letter.

"At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful."

Trump's executive action, authorized on Friday, calls for a temporary halt on all refugees coming to the US, and bars the entry of foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries. The order has sparked protests in streets and airports across the country, and has been roundly condemned from members of both parties. Trump spent the day Monday vigorously defending the order.

Trump criticized Yates in a tweet Monday evening:

Code: Select all

The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2017 

Yates's directive is generally a symbolic one and would only have been enforced until she left office. Sessions is expected to be confirmed later this week.

[Elfdart]

At least Nixon waited nine months after being sworn in before he carried out the Saturday Night Massacre. This is more like the Monday Night Tantrum.

[Coop D'etat]

The issue with Trump firing the acting Attorney General isn't that the President fired her for not defending in court an order he considered to be valid.

Its that the President issued an executive order in a non-emergency situation apparently without consulting with legal staff if the order was legal. Thus point the acting Attorney General in the position to defend such a poorly drafted order in the first place.

The primary issue here is utter and complete incompetence from the Chief Executive, creating an unnescessary and far-ranging crisis.

[Flagg]

Good for her. She'll make an excellent SCOTUS appointment assuming we have elections in 4 years.