- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here's Jeff Sessions asking Sally Yates if she would say no to the President
Posted on 1/31/17 at 11:25 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 1/31/17 at 11:25 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:What type of relationship did Holder and Obama have? Did Holder hold Obama accountable and stand up to him when he didn't feel comfortable about the legality of something Obama was pushing?
Draconian Sanctions
1
Posted on 1/31/17 at 11:39 am to ReauxlTide222
Exactly, never have I seen a more corrupt, shock collar obedient AG than Holder with Obama
Posted on 1/31/17 at 11:40 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
What she was opposing isn't unconstitutional
who determines if something is unconstitutional?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 11:44 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Draconian Sanctions
quote:
You're a hypocrite who supports your "team" over the constitution
Please, I would love to hear your legal analysis on how this is unconstitutional.
It's not a 1st amendment issue.
It's not a religious test issue.
If anything, it's a statutory issue.
8 U.S.C. 1182(f) gives him the statutory authority to do this.
The only "argument" you can make is that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) was amended by the more recent 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A).
Even if that is the case (it's not), you'd basically need a written admission from Trump that he is excluding citizens of these seven countries based on nationality and not out of concerns for national security. Do you think Trump has it out for these 7 specific countries? Or is it more likely that they were determined by the previous administration to be terror risks?
Hell, 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) says nothing about discriminating based on religion, so I know that's not your argument.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 11:56 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
Even if that is the case (it's not), you'd basically need a written admission from Trump that he is excluding citizens of these seven countries based on nationality and not out of concerns for national security.
If Trump was so concerned about national security, why was a country like Saudi Arabia (where like 15 of the 19 9/11 high jackers were from) not included in the ban?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:02 pm to Mudge87
quote:
If Trump was so concerned about national security, why was a country like Saudi Arabia (where like 15 of the 19 9/11 high jackers were from) not included in the ban?
STRIKE 1 - NOT A LEGAL ARGUMENT
What you have done instead is to suggest a motive you cannot objectively prove.
STRIKE 2 - DUMB
Really? Saudi Arabia is not on the list because we do major business with them and they feed us more actionable intelligence than any other middle eastern country besides Israel. No one likes the Saudis, but it's obvious why they are not on the list. I note that Obama tried to veto a bill that allowed 9/11 families to sue them. Why is that?
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:10 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
You misunderstood. In your HOME. I'm sure there are a couple of 18-35 year old male refugees that can sleep on your couch or air mattress. Let them into your home. Foot the bill for their food and clothes. You do that and then get back to us on here.
Who is proposing that we resettle refugees in your actual home?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:16 pm to shamrock
quote:I'm just trying to confirm that DS is the hypocrite who supports "team" over the constitution.
Exactly, never have I seen a more corrupt, shock collar obedient AG than Holder with Obama
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:21 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Even if it were deemed illegal based on religion, that's not what this is and it can't be proven that's what this is. Giuliani has no role in the admin and anything he says is just hearsay anyway. Anything said during the campaign has no standing currently.
What I take from this is you saying yes, it's a muslim ban but you can't prove it because Trump found a way to achieve the ban without having to declare it
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:23 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:
What I take from this is you saying yes, it's a muslim ban but you can't prove it because Trump found a way to achieve the ban without having to declare it
No, but if it is, so what?
Note: If it is a muslim ban, it's the shittiest muslim ban in history. Like 8 percent of world muslims are banned.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:24 pm to Draconian Sanctions
How would you have felt if a DoJ employee refused to go along with all of Obama's EOs that have been overturned?
If she felt it was illegal she should have resigned.
She wanted her attention, and now it's off to a cushy job on K St or Planned Parenthood.
If she felt it was illegal she should have resigned.
She wanted her attention, and now it's off to a cushy job on K St or Planned Parenthood.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:25 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Apparently that doesn't matter anymore. Sean Spicer just said agreed A line has been drawn and that if someone does not agree or carry out the president's orders or agenda he or she will be relieved of their duties.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:27 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Apparently that doesn't matter anymore. Sean Spicer just said agreed A line has been drawn and that if someone does not agree or carry out the president's orders or agenda he or she will be relieved of their duties.
Good. What do you think should happen? These people are EMPLOYEES of the executive branch. They serve at the pleasure of the president. There is no gray area.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:30 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:
What I take from this is you saying yes, it's a muslim ban but you can't prove it because Trump found a way to achieve the ban without having to declare it
For the sake of argument, let's pretend this 90 day "ban" is intended to be aimed solely at Muslims. Explain to me how that is illegal.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
even if this is true
It's true, and grounds to argue the entire thing is based on religion. As the ACLU is doing. Helps to have Trump's own words argue he was going to implement a Muslim ban upon entering office.
quote:
they still have the right to challenge this via court, as many have done
Many are not being given access to attorneys before being shipped home or signing away their visa rights.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:54 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
I note that Obama tried to veto a bill that allowed 9/11 families to sue them. Why is that?
you don't want to bring this up. One of the most embarrassing Republican blunders of this decade.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:56 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
visa rights
Oh lord
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:02 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Gives exceptions for one religion over another.
Where does it say that?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:02 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
You guys keep throwing this line out yet many many constitutional scholars argue it is unconstitutional.
Many many links ... or stfu and gtfo.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:03 pm to scrooster
quote:
Many many links ... or stfu and gtfo.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News