Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 15:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 15:44:05 GMT
You are wrong and need to go back and read through the post to understand why. and you are welcome to your opinion of me!
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,333
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Jan 31, 2017 15:46:47 GMT
You are wrong and need to go back and read through the post to understand why. and you are welcome to your opinion of me! What you said/agreed with was incorrect. I won't apologize for hurting your feelings by pointing that out.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 15:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 15:47:46 GMT
and you are welcome to your opinion of me! What you said/agreed with was incorrect. I won't apologize for hurting your feelings by pointing that out. trust me you did not hurt my feelings....
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jan 31, 2017 16:21:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jan 31, 2017 17:05:48 GMT
I'm not surprised he did. But apparently it's a bigger deal then I originally thought. The AG office is suppose to be independent from the President. Sally Yates raised concerns about the EO and without answers felt she could not defend it. There were other ways he could have handled this without firing her. In other words his actions compromised the independence of the AG office. Agree with me or else.... Fired on a point of principle. I'm sure the discussion is long past this point already since I just started reading this thread, but on NPR this morning I heard an audio clip from back during her confirmation hearing: the particular clip was Sessions asking her if she would feel free to defy the President if she felt something was un-Constitutional, and him saying how important it is for the AG to NOT be political, and referencing a couple times in US history when it had happened (Nixon was one of the Presidents, although I don't remember the specifics).
I cannot WAIT for someone to ask him the VERY SAME QUESTION during HIS hearing so we can hear him fumble through what he would do (WILL do) in those circumstances.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jan 31, 2017 19:04:47 GMT
We're all good, peano Very, very classy! Well done to all involved in this exchange. This is how it can be around here and with a few exceptions I am starting to see real exchanges of opinions. I am learning a bit more about your system, checks and balances and so on as we go along. Thanks, peas. Agreed. This is how reasonable people discuss things.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jan 31, 2017 19:42:51 GMT
So I got curious, and went looking for the actual oath of office for the United States Attorney General. Here is a video of the swearing in of Loretta Lynch. If something has changed within the oath since this took place, I was unable to find it. For the actual oath, begin watching at the 11:45 mark.
Loretta Lynch sworn in as Attorney General of the United States of America
And from the transcript:
I WANT TO PUT YOUR LEFT HAND ON THE BIBLE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. I -- LORETTA LYNCH: I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME. I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATIONS OR PURPOSE OF EVASION. I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE ON WHICH I'M ABOUT TO ENTER. SO HELP ME GOD. So I feel it's fair to deduce that Ms. Lynch took the same oath, which means she is sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Nowhere in the oath do I see a sworn allegiance to the President, himself.
(Disclaimer: Obviously I am NOT a legal scholar, I just google for stuff, but I felt the video record was a reliable source)
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,987
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Jan 31, 2017 20:28:47 GMT
So I got curious, and went looking for the actual oath of office for the United States Attorney General. Here is a video of the swearing in of Loretta Lynch. If something has changed within the oath since this took place, I was unable to find it. For the actual oath, begin watching at the 11:45 mark.
Loretta Lynch sworn in as Attorney General of the United States of America
And from the transcript:
I WANT TO PUT YOUR LEFT HAND ON THE BIBLE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. I -- LORETTA LYNCH: I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME. I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATIONS OR PURPOSE OF EVASION. I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE ON WHICH I'M ABOUT TO ENTER. SO HELP ME GOD. So I feel it's fair to deduce that Ms. Lynch took the same oath, which means she is sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Nowhere in the oath do I see a sworn allegiance to the President, himself.
(Disclaimer: Obviously I am NOT a legal scholar, I just google for stuff, but I felt the video record was a reliable source)
You are correct about the sworn duty to defend the Constitution. And as an attorney, she is also an officer of the court and legally obligated to uphold certain standards regarding the validity of claims brought before the court. If she is convinced the action is unconstitutional, she not supposed to pursue it. This is different than a defense attorney that throws out possible claims to raise reasonable doubt. Once the government takes an action that is discriminatory on its face (which the EO in question is), the burden of proof is on the government to prove that it is justified. If she cannot put forth a valid justification, then she should not be wasting court resources to defend it.
|
|