Sally Yates James Clapper at the Senate.

[Sean]

It's live on CSPAN3. Fantastic stuff.

 

[jomar]

FOX and CNN as well.

 

[Sean]

She bitchslapped Ted Cruz. It was beautiful.

 

[Conager]

She bitchslapped Ted Cruz. It was beautiful.

You say that each and every time someone you agree with gets argumentative.

Was there ever a time when someone you believed had truth and light on their side simply argued their point of view ineffectually? No?

I guess it's just a coincidence that everyone you agree with is also a debate champ.

I can't wait til Cruz is promoted to SCOTUS so you can tell us how he got his ass handed to him...right before he authors a majority opinion going the other way.

 

[Sean]

You say that each and every time someone you agree with gets argumentative.

Was there ever a time when someone you believed had truth and light on their side simply argued their point of view ineffectually? No?

I guess it's just a coincidence that everyone you agree with is also a debate champ.

I can't wait til Cruz is promoted to SCOTUS so ypu can tell us how he got his ass handed to him...right before he authors a majority opinion going the other way.

Ted Cruz is, literally, a debate champ. And Yates fucking OWNED him.

 

[Conager]

Ted Cruz is, literally, a debate champ. And Yates fucking OWNED him.

:nods:

Of course.

To be fair, you would have wiped the floor with him as well, amirite?

 

[Sean]

:nods:

Of course.

To be fair, you would have wiped the floor with him as well, amirite?

I don't claim to be as well versed in con law as Sally Yates obviously is. Did you actually see it or is this just a kneejerk defence of Eyeliner Ted?

 

[OldJourno]

Sounds like this Yate might be the second coming of Hillary. The Republicans don't have a chance.

 

[lovecraft68]

:nods:

Of course.

To be fair, you would have wiped the floor with him as well, amirite?

Cruz is hindered by the fact his side is guilty as fucking sin.

 

[Phelia]

It's live on CSPAN3. Fantastic stuff.

She was so impressive. Damn. Of course they fired her, the fucking cowards.

Fabulous to watch. Really hope her star keeps rising.

 

[Sean]

She was so impressive. Damn. Of course they fired her, the fucking cowards.

Fabulous to watch. Really hope her star keeps rising.

She was fantastic. The GOP Senators looked like those hyenas you see on nature docs trying to bring down a buffalo and getting tossed away by the horns.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Ted Cruz is, literally, a debate champ. And Yates fucking OWNED him.

I don't claim to be as well versed in con law as Sally Yates obviously is. Did you actually see it or is this just a kneejerk defence of Eyeliner Ted?

Not quite. Yates is wrong on the "establishment of religion" and discriminatory acts related to non-immigrant visa applicants for the same reason the 9th Circuit is wrong on the same issues. It would have far better had the President brought her in on the first EO up front, but she is way off base directly opposing his authority on a policy question despite her legal judgment of its validity. That's a job for the courts, not her.

Both Yates and the 9th Circuit were RIGHT with respect to DUE PROCESS arguments which aliens with resident immigrant status had when they were denied re-entry visas under the initial EO. Those people did not receive the due process to which they were entitled under immigration law. That was the major difference between the President's first EO and the second.

So that currently, the latest judicial invalidation of the second EO is primarily on the religious question. I predict that holding will not stand for the simple reason that the entire case law precedents extending Constitutional protections to non-citizens are predicated upon legal jurisdiction which the United States has over an alien by virtue of the person being on United States territory or under provisions of ratified treaties or international law.

The idea that the United States is, by its own laws or Constitution prohibited, from religious, racial, gender or natural origin discrimination of foreign citizens NOT UNDER ITS SPECIFIC JURISDICTION, is, if not legally bankrupt, a truly novel legal interpretation without current judicial precedent.

If the Supreme Court pursues this specious Constitutional "theory" to its ultimate absurd practical consequence, there will eventually be no legal basis for denying entry to any visa applicant than there is currently any legal basis for deporting a native born or naturalized American citizen.

Because when and where in this day and age can denial on the basis of national security, state sponsored terrorism, health quarantines, or God knows what else, possibly supercede the hallowed prohibitory status of traditional forms of discrimination?

Quite simply in the minds of far too many, legitimate forms of ANY discrimination no longer exist. Period. That strain of extremism would be the death of us all to the self-righteous joy of a perplexing population of political sociopaths.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What did she have to say about Flynn and the Russian connection?

 

[Sean]

Not quite. Yates is wrong on the "establishment of religion" and discriminatory acts related to non-immigrant visa applicants for the same reason the 9th Circuit is wrong on the same issues. It would have far better had the President brought her in on the first EO up front, but she is way off base directly opposing his authority on a policy question despite her legal judgment of its validity. That's a job for the courts, not her.

Both Yates and the 9th Circuit were RIGHT with respect to DUE PROCESS arguments which aliens with resident immigrant status had when they were denied re-entry visas under the initial EO. Those people did not receive the due process to which they were entitled under immigration law. That was the major difference between the President's first EO and the second.

So that currently, the latest judicial invalidation of the second EO is primarily on the religious question. I predict that holding will not stand for the simple reason that the entire case law precedents extending Constitutional protections to non-citizens are predicated upon legal jurisdiction which the United States has over an alien by virtue of the person being on United States territory or under provisions of ratified treaties or international law.

The idea that the United States is, by its own laws or Constitution prohibited, from religious, racial, gender or natural origin discrimination of foreign citizens NOT UNDER ITS SPECIFIC JURISDICTION, is, if not legally bankrupt, a truly novel legal interpretation without current judicial precedent.

If the Supreme Court pursues this specious Constitutional "theory" to its ultimate absurd practical consequence, there will eventually be no legal basis for denying entry to any visa applicant than there is currently any legal basis for deporting a native born or naturalized American citizen.

Because when and where in this day and age can denial on the basis of national security, state sponsored terrorism, health quarantines, or God knows what else, possibly supercede the hallowed prohibitory status of traditional forms of discrimination?

Quite simply in the minds of far too many, legitimate forms of ANY discrimination no longer exist. Period. That strain of extremism would be the death of us all to the self-righteous joy of a perplexing population of political sociopaths.

Sally Yates argued, when she spanked Eyeliner Ted, that 8 U.S. Code § 1152 made the EO illegal.

 

[SyKoKo]

has she done porn yet?

 

[Emerson40]

has she done porn yet?

It is not difficult to see why the village idiot adores you.

 

[Conager]

... she is way off base directly opposing his authority on a policy question despite her legal judgment of its validity. That's a job for the courts, not her.

A lawyer with a duty to advocate for the client? No, that can't be right. . .

That the executive orders turn on any kind of religious discrimination grounds argument exist only in the minds of those who claim to be able to read trumps mind, ascribe him nefarious motivations and bigotry, and rule on what is not in any way stated in the EO.

Even if they are 100% right and he has a heart of darkness and entirely motivated by religious intolerance, he gets to discriminate any way he sees fit. There is no right to entry and he holds sole power over imigration policy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

A lawyer with a duty to advocate for the client? No, that can't be right. . .

A government lawyer's relationship to the government is sometimes a bit more complicated than attorney-client. E.g., a criminal defense lawyer, public or private, has a simple duty to get his client the best possible deal out of the system, whatever the facts of the case may be; but a public prosecutor's duty is not simply to get the harshest punishment -- he has an ethical duty to drop the case if he sees good grounds to believe the defendant is innocent.

 

[Conager]

A government lawyer's relationship to the government is sometimes a bit more complicated than attorney-client. E.g., a criminal defense lawyer, public or private, has a simple duty to get his client the best possible deal out of the system, whatever the facts of the case may be; but a public prosecutor's duty is not simply to get the harshest punishment -- he has an ethical duty to drop the case if he sees good grounds to believe the defendant is innocent.

We are not talking "a government lawyer" we are talking her duty to serve at tbe pleasure of the President. If she had conscientious objections, that is what resignation letters are for.

She can advise, she can refuse, what she cannot do is litigate her OPINIONS in the court of public opinion on her employers dime against the stated interest of her client. Which in this case is the law. Which says the President sets policy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We are not talking "a government lawyer" we are talking her duty to serve at tbe pleasure of the President. If she had conscientious objections, that is what resignation letters are for.

She can advise, she can refuse, what she cannot do is litigate her OPINIONS in the court of public opinion on her employers dime against the stated interest of her client. Which in this case is the law. Which says the President sets policy.

Well, I don't expect Trump would have much luck grieving her to the Bar for an ethics violation.

 

[Conager]

Well, I don't expect Trump would have much luck grieving her to the Bar for an ethics violation.

Didn't mean to cause you any worries in that regard. Keep in mind you won't have to worry about that until long after you get your first client.

 

[Conager]

What would you say if under the previous administration, someone wanted to refuse Obama's order to ignore defense of DOMA, and just decided to either show up in court and defend it or simply go on any publicity campaign announcing why it is that the Obama Administration is wrong not to defend?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

She did well. I can cherry pick a few clips where she "owned" him.

He did well. I can cherry pick a few clips where he "owned" her.

Take away style points and judge purely on merits and the pure facts of law are on his side.

But this is Lit. Like politics as a whole.... facts do not matter.

 

[Adre]

You have to love hearing Lit's legal experts weighing in on Sally Yates' opinions. Bahahhahaha.

 

[renard_ruse]

It's live on CSPAN3. Fantastic stuff.

Fantastic stuff on CSPAN, or excuse me CSPAN3?

What kind of loser watches CSPAN or CSPAN3?