Sally Yates Owned and Humiliated Ted Cruz

Owned, yes. Humiliated, not so much. Of course you have to have a sense of humility to be humiliated.

 

It is not unprecedented. That is the standard for reviewing a facially neutral law for discrimination.

 

Are you, or have you ever been, Muslim? My guess is no.

And the fact that you believe you do "know enough" about Islam without even following the religion is even more proof of your bigotry.

 

Or oblivious to reality

 

And your qualifications? Oh wait, this is the itrawebz I'm sure WE ALL qualify

 

Absolutely unprecedented. Campaign speeches while not President have never been used as a basis to protest a legal order.

 

I'm not the president.

 

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't matter. Even if his travel ban was on "Muslims", which it wasn't, it is well within the President's power to do that. The reality is that he did not block immigration to 90+% of the Muslim world, only to states with active ISIS militants because the goal was to limit ISIS travel. It is actually MORE reality based to say that the Democrats support free travel of ISIS members than it is to say that Trump banned Muslim travel because the former actually has a an affirmed commonality, while the "Muslim ban" does not.

There is also more evidence that Obama's refugee policy was a CHRISTIAN and YAZIDI ban since his policy specifically limited Christian and Yazidi immigration from ISIS areas in favor of Muslim refugees even though Christians and Yazidi were far more endangered in those regions than were Muslims.

 

How in the world did Obama get the nickname "Deported in Chief" if he wasn't enforcing immigration laws?

 

I guess if Yates owned Cruz.....then Senator John Kennedy of La. Owned Yates when he asked her. Who appointed you to the SCOTUS.

 

She did exactly what she promised Jeff Sessions she would do when vetted by the Senate for her position.

 

I have never heard Obama called that before as nicknames are subjective. Obama's system was one of telling people to go into court but the illegals just stayed and didn't show up but they still were counted as "deported" even though all that happened is they were told to show up to court in order to be deported. What sane person is going to willfully on there own show up to court in order to be deported from a place they wanted to enter?

 

Sally Yates played a political card instead of upholding her oath of office.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...itical_decision_rather_than_a_legal_one.html#!

Yates is yet another Progressive who can't seem to bring herself to follow the rules when placed in a high level position of responsibility.


Several years of Obama Administration neglect has lead to this epidemic of, "above the law," bureaucratic arrogance.

 

I was never an Aztec or a Comanche, but I do know a good deal about them. And I certainly don't want to dress up like them and hurt people.

There are many places where one can get idea of Islam than reading the Major Media propaganda that so inspires you.

"One thing we can definitely say about Islam is that is it not solely confined to a belief system. If it is a religion it is not a religion only. Islam is a total system of life and contains within itself a particular social system, judicial system, and political system which includes geo-political aspirations - the conquest and administration of territory."
http://newenglishreview.org/Rebecca_Bynum/Why_Islam_is_Not_a_Religion/


https://thereligionofpeace.com/

 

How many Presidents wrote a campaign speech where they called for an unconstitutional Muslim ban, got elected, and then enacted said travel ban?

That's the only thing which is unprecedented. The standard has existed for far longer.

 

I'm sure the LEFT WING MEDIA didn't have anything to do with it. I'm still trying to figure how the DRONANATOR ended up with a Nobel Peace prize and was allowed to keep it after eight years of war

Got Propaganda, it's the milk of Libbyism!

 

I dunno, does it count that FDR (Democrat) put Japanese Americans in Concentration Camps until Harry S Truman (Democrat) finally addressed their lineage with the gift of a thousand years of



CANCER!

 

Yates quoted a statute that could be considered to be in conflict with another existing statute.

There is nothing that Yates can point to that establishes Trump's EO as un-Constitutional. Zip... Zero... Nada... So her objections can only fall into the political activist category.

And that is why she deserved to be fired and was fired. She can't legally contest her firing because she broke her oath of office.

 

Yates argued her point effectively. She is a capable litigant, so I'm not surprised.

I do not believe the President has the right to order an immigration ban based on religious affiliation. That said, I do not believe the ban imposed by President Trump is based on religious affiliation. Reasons? (1) All persons from the countries in question are excluded, regardless of their religion. (2) Other countries with predominantly Muslim populations were not included within the ban. Both these factors appear to indicated that the ban is legal and well within the purview of presidential authority, but that will be up to the high court to decide.

Question asked.

Question answered.

Yes it is.

Yes it does, and yes, anyone but Trump would have had no problem.

I too watched this objectively, and I agree with your assessment: she and Cruz both stated their positions well.

 

There are multiple aspects of the Constitution that she can, and did, point to that provided the foundation for her refusal to enforce the immigration ban - namely the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause.

She mentioned those in the brief video that is located in the OP. Those Constitutional Objections were also cited by the Washington State Federal District Judge who blocked the original order as well as the three court panel from 9th Circuit that upheld his ruling.

There is a reason that Trump's team did not continue to appeal the original order despite his call to see the Judges "in court."

 

I see a typo in my post. It should read deporter in chief. If you Google that phrase, many, many links pop up on Obama and the fact that he has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President. It was a rather well known nickname, but of course, not everyone would have heard it, like you. Here it says he deported 2.5 million people between 2009-2015. I don't see any evidence of what you've stated about people being counted as deported if they showed up in court, but weren't really deported. I know those caught crossing the border were turned around and bused back were counted as deportations, when previously, that was called a "Voluntary Returns," so it may have skewed the numbers, when it comes to the President deporting the most. The fact remains that Obama did deport lots of illegal immigrants though, even if you discount the ones turned around at the border.

 

Seems to me, and according to the news, the Republicans are as wrapped up in propaganda as any other party, but some of it might have originally been written in Cyrillic. I'm not trying to get into a partisan back and forth, since I don't belong to either party, but the irony was funny to me.

I did read that Obama's Nobel has been called the "Not GWB" award, and not so much about what he actually did as what he could do, if encouraged. Lots of that stuff is as political as elections.

I'm not really happy about all the drone killings, but I would certainly prefer drones over American boots on the ground.

 

Didn't read whole thread, but watched video. There was no "owning" or "humiliating" by either side in the video, so thanks OP for yet another dishonest troll thread from you.

To the topic, Yates should have resigned, no debate of that really possible. But... female and Democrat... so different, lesser, rules and standards of responsibility, accountability, decorum and behavior apply than to the rest of us. No surprise there.

The travel restriction issue will resolve over whether legislative history and intent reveal that the latter INA provision 1) was extending actual Constitutional protections to non citizen immigrants, or just statutory protections, 2) was specifically tailored to restrict enumerated, broad Presidential authority.

If the answer to either of the above questions is "Yes," then it is likely that Trump's EO will fail scrutiny. If the answer to both questions is "No," then we don't even have to go to his campaign speeches, which have always been a red herring, he has the authority, and jurisprudence to the contrary is erroneous.

 

That seems to be the concensus.

 

Only by the dishonest left,
Cruz brought up the law that authorized the executive order, and Yates did not recognize it. She then answered by referring to another law, which does not supersede the first. She then tried to argue that the order was unconstitutional, but Cruz pointed out that her argument was a partisan one, driven by her own policy views. She then claimed no court would enforce the order — which is contradicted by the fact that one actually did.

Tom will love this, lol
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/09/ted-cruz-sally-yates/