The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
LOL at the hypocrisy of libs' responses to Kim Davis and Sally Yates
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:08 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant The cognitive dissonance is rich (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508849) |
 |
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:11 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night You seem very dumb to not understand the difference. Try hard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508878) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:12 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant What's the difference? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508886) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:12 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Are you being serious or are you trolling? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508890) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:13 PM Author: Stirring nursing home crotch seriously, what's the difference? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508895) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:13 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Sally Yates refused to enforce an Executive Order because she BELIEVED it to be unconstitutional.
Now, what did Kim Davis do? |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:15 PM Author: floppy rigor nice try, shitlib, but Yates didn't make a legal argument. She exposed herself as an Obama tool and political hack (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508920) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:16 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night She doesn't need to make a legal argument. She stated that she believed it was unconstitutional/unlawful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508934) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:18 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant "My Kentucky constitution that I took the oath to uphold in January stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. And that is the constitution that I have vowed to uphold, this is a much bigger battle than one small county or two small counties that are standing up for what they believe in." - Kim Davis |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:20 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Except that the SCOTUS told her that it was constitutional and they get the last word. That's the fucking difference you reptilian fucktard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508989) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:29 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant They both acted on their personal beliefs, you stupid idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509094) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:41 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain They both acted on their personal beliefs rather than following the chain of command and doing their job.
Yates is supposed to defend the government's policies in court.
Davis is supposed to issue marriage licenses.
Perhaps you need a meme to make it clear: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTocYT---d0VkNLuFzyRWaDPVsHTHPSd13iaQApdzi935aLT6KmgvN7spo |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:43 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Dude, stop being a stupid ape. These 2 incidents aren't at all comparable.
Yates legal belief is that the EO is unlawful. If SCOTUS ruled it was, she would have enforced. Unlike Davis.
|
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:46 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain I think they are certainly comparable, although obviously not identical.
I think the distinction here is that Yates is not simply declining to enforce the EO (which may or may not be constitutional); she is declining to defend the policy of the US government in court (and publicly saying she agrees with the arguments asserted against the US). Her job is to defend the US in court when it is sued. She's not doing her job. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:46 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Not according to Attorney general Sessions.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/826303833504628736/video/1 |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:51 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain So? Look, if she doesn't want to defend the policy, I think she should resign (and keep her mouth shut) like any attorney. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509350) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:53 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night That is an entirely different argument.
And one in which I actually agree with.
However, this situation isn't comparable at all to the Davis situation, which is what the retarded OP states. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:57 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain Why not? If Davis doesn't want to issue same-sex marriage licenses, she should resign her post. If Yates doesn't want to defend the policy of the US in court (where there is a non-frivolous argument to be made), she should resign her post.
I believe that making that defense in court is part of her job description. Reasonable people may disagree I guess, but then who is supposed to represent the US in court where arguments need to be made to determine constitutionality? |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:01 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night As stated supra, Davis situation dealt with no ambiguity whatsoever. SCOTUS determined gay marriage to be constitutional and Davis refused to grant marriage licenses for gay marriage in direct conflict with a SETTLED ISSUE.
In the Yates matter, the EO was issued with no legal scrutiny from the AG, who upon her review, determined it to be unlawful. Now, that issue is open because courts have not yet ruled. Should she have resigned rather than grandstand, in my view yes. But the 2 circumstances are vastly different. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:03 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain I understand the legal issues are settled v. unsettled.
But I still think both refused to do their job. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:24 PM Author: demanding mediation I'm confused. Do you actually think this a good point you've made here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509031) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:26 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509064) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:29 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant It must take a very low IQ to not understand the premise of that post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509107) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:34 PM Author: demanding mediation Your premise is something like "just like Yates, she acted based on a good faith belief that her orders would be unlawful." Then you used a quote where she blatantly ignores the supreme law of the land. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509164) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:36 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant The premise is that both acted on their personal beliefs. Libs applaud one but completely vilify the other. If Obergefell went the other way, do you seriously think libs would have any qualms about rogue county clerks giving same sex marriage licenses in Texas? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509198) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:38 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night You are fucking retarded.
Yates' job as AG is to only enforce laws that are Constitutional. The EO may or may not be Constitutional, but she believes it to be unconstitutional, so she isn't going to enforce until the courts tell her otherwise as to Constitutionality,
Davis was told by the FUCKING SCOTUS that the law WAS CONSTITUTIONAL and she refused to enforce it. Get it now you stupid fucking faggot? |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:42 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant LOL. I caught you in a corner and now you're throwing a tantrum because of your subpar IQ. So libs would villify rogue Texas county clerks who gave same sex marriage licenses if Obergefell went the other way, huh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509256) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:42 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain I think you are miscasting her role. Her role is to defend the US government when sued in court as long as there is a non-frivolous argument for doing so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509265) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:44 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Do I really have to link you to the Sessions video where he asks her in confirmation if she should enforce unlawful orders? Do I really have to do that you fucking disingenuous fuck?
Yes. Yes I do.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/826303833504628736/video/1 |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:48 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant Exactly how did she determine Trump's EO is "unlawful"? Describe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509324) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:50 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Do I need to link you to the dozen or so lawsuits that were filed in the last few days that state why it is unlawful? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509335) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:52 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant LOL. You're using that as the standard for "unlawful" you dumb retard? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509351) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:18 PM Author: Passionate lodge associate jfc you're dumb (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509589) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:58 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain We don't know. And, in all fairness, she would be engaging in even worse actions if she publicly explained why she thinks it is unlawful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509419) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:49 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain What the fuck is that supposed to prove? Obviously the AG should give frank legal advice to the president. You may note that she doesn't say the AG should decline to defend the policies of the US in court if she thinks they are unconstitutional.
At any rate, you think Jeff Sessions is the end-all, be-all of legal ethics? |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:51 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night You said that the AG's only job is to enforce THE LAW, the new attorney general says the job is specifically NOT to enforce unlawful EOs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509346) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:54 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain You are mischaracterizing both me and Sessions, dude.
I said it is the DOJ's job to defend the US in court when sued. I didn't say it is their only job. I also didn't say they should do so if it requires a frivolous argument. But where there is a non-frivolous argument to be made in defense of the policy of the US government, then yes I think it is the DOJ's job to make that argument.
The Sessions quote doesn't even touch on the gray areas that any competent attorney (even you) knows exist in matters of constitutional interpretation, and it doesn't touch on defending the US in court when sued. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:58 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night "But where there is a non-frivolous argument to be made in defense of the policy of the US government, then yes I think it is the DOJ's job to make that argument."
That is your opinion brother. One that I do not share. If the AG thinks the law is unconstitutional, he/she has the duty to tell POTUS he/she won't enforce it.
Then in my view, he/she should resign if the POTUS disagrees. In this instance, she did it in a way to get fired for publicity, which I do think was wrong. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:06 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain Fair enough. I'm not sure if there are well-settled ethical opinions on what the AG's obligations are where she thinks the odds of winning are less than 50% but there are still good arguments to be made. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509505) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:46 PM Author: thriller forum ratface "Her role is to defend the US government when sued in court as long as there is a non-frivolous argument for doing so."
And sometimes that means exercising prosecutorial and litigation discretion, because that would be in the best interests of the US. The limits of this discretion are not nearly as easy to divine as you think. As I discussed below, there are problems with vigorously defending the EO, even if you think it could largely survive the current challenges. |
|
Date: February 1st, 2017 12:51 AM Author: Dull Galvanic Lettuce Crackhouse There is no reasonable argument that Trump's EO is unconstitutional. The situations are very similar. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32515849) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:40 PM Author: thriller forum ratface "Obergefell went the other way, do you seriously think libs would have any qualms about rogue county clerks giving same sex marriage licenses in Texas?"
Who cares what dumb libs would do? A clerk has no discretion to interpret the legality of same sex marriage, especially when it was settled by the highest court in the country. An AG has very broad discretion in how she handles litigation and prosecution. These are very different situations. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:42 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant Read the thread title you histrionic dumb lib. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509267) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:44 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain And you think that breadth of that discretion extends to not only declining to defend the US in court, but also publicly taking the side of the parties suing the US? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509285) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:50 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509336) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:51 PM Author: Exhilarant organic girlfriend cr. this arguemnt is ridiculous, you have a rudolph and another shitlib quoting his shitlib friend who 'works in doj' (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509349) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:52 PM Author: thriller forum ratface "And you think that breadth of that discretion extends to not only declining to defend the US in court, but also publicly taking the side of the parties suing the US?"
Yeah, I do. The big concern among the immigration litigators at the DOJ (at least according to my friend) was the fear that this litigation will give the courts (largely liberal judges in these cases) the opportunity to create law, like they did with the big illegal immigration case in the late 90's that forced a time limit on detaining illegals. And the worst part is that this EO is absolutely worthless as a matter of security policy. So they are exposing themselves in order to defend something that's useless. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:57 PM Author: arousing circlehead lol holy shit, that is insane reasoning.
"we have to kill the deer so they don't die" |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:01 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain That is some broad-ass discretion. Do you have any basis for opining that DOJ attorneys have discretion to do something that would get a normal attorney sanctioned by bar authorities (publicly taking the side of the parties suing their client)?
I realize there are gray areas when determining who the "client" is for the AG, but when the US government is being sued in court, I'm pretty sure the US government is the AG's client. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:09 PM Author: thriller forum ratface "That is some broad-ass discretion. Do you have any basis for opining that DOJ attorneys have discretion to do something that would get a normal attorney sanctioned by bar authorities (publicly taking the side of the parties suing their client)?"
The Atty Gen is not an attorney representing a private company. It's like a DA. They have to worry about things like conserving office resources, protecting the credibility of the office, and yes, litigating in a manner that doesn't create bad precedent for future cases. These aren't concerns for private attorneys. That's why the prosecutorial and litigation discretion given to the AG (and DA's of major cities) is very broad.
For instance, they will often knowingly not prosecute a case that they can win (or at least get an indictment on) because of the three issues I noted above. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:15 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain And AGs and DAs totally come out and publicly trash their government's legal position all the time, right?
If you've got a legal dept independently making its judgment as to what policies are worth defending, you are short-circuiting the political process. You really think the DOJ should/can effectively act as as a veto on any government law or policy (by declining to defend it against legal challenges)?
|
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:26 PM Author: thriller forum ratface "And AGs and DAs totally come out and publicly trash their government's legal position all the time, right?"
Pay more attention to the relationships of local executives and their DA's. It happens all the time. It's not an easy position to be in because there's a constant battle between doing what your executive wants (especially if he appointed you or ran on the same ticket as you) and carrying out your office's mission which is to act in the long-term best interests of the jurisdiction.
And yes, the ethical rules as to Chief DA's and the AG are different than they are for private attorneys because of the blend between the law and public policy. It's not an easy balance. In this case Sally Yates argued that vigorously litigating the EO would damage the credibility of the office and create bad precedent that would harm the office's ability to litigate and prosecute future cases. I believe she acted ethically. I also believe Trump had the right to fire her. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:31 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain According to the DOJ, their attorneys owe the same ethical duties to their client (usually the executive branch or DOJ) as private attorneys, in addition to specific rules regarding government employees.
And I don't think it's within an AG's or DA's discretion to publicly take the side of a party suing his/her government, regardless of how much political tension there might be. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:22 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain For what it's worth:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oarm/docs/oarm9.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530B
|
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:32 PM Author: thriller forum ratface Of course there are ethical rules for attorneys at the DOJ. And of course there are many cases and Inspector General opinions interpreting these rules in the many complicated circumstances that arise. I don't disagree that this is a complicated ethical question (I believe what Ms. Yates did was legally and ethically defensible). But the OP's equivalence between Kim Davis and Sally Yates is preposterous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509741) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:33 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain You were saying they don't owe the same duties to their client as private attorneys, but the DOJ apparently thinks they do (or that the same ethical rules apply). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509753) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:43 PM Author: thriller forum ratface They owe a duty to their client but there are different circumstances at work here. Something like the exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not enter the discussion when you're talking about a private attorney representing his client. For instance, a DA implementing a broad policy of not prosecuting certain crimes or seeking only reduced sentences for certain crimes is entirely defensible under certain circumstances, even if said law is still on the books and is still supported by the legislature and executive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509805) |
|
Date: February 1st, 2017 1:59 AM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain Ok, but that has nothing to do with the situation we're talking about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32516161) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:02 PM Author: Embarrassed to the bone cuckold field are you familiar with the Supremacy Clause? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509459) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:06 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Probably not. Welcome to XO 2017. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509501) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:18 PM Author: lemon startling preventive strike abode based on what legal argument?
her FEELINGS dont count, shitlib |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:19 PM Author: Learning disabled exciting public bath boltzmann I think it is unconstitutional that a cop can just show up to a traffic court hearing and present video evidence of me not stopping at a red light. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508980) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:20 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night LOL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508992) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:19 PM Author: thriller forum ratface A clerk has no discretion in the issuance of a marriage license. They are there to ensure everything is stamped and filed properly. The atty gen does have discretion in deciding litigation strategy, including which cases to pursue, defend, prosecute etc..
I actually talked to a friend at DoJ last night in their immigration unit and she said that there is a legitimate fear that even if the EO is upheld in courts, the courts will create new case law that will cabin the power of the executive on immigration enforcement. Everyone thinks it's a complete waste of resources too. Normally, they work to denaturalize terrorists but now have to waste a lot of time litigating cases involving regular people detained because of a retardedly incoherent policy. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:22 PM Author: lemon startling preventive strike abode yeah, good luck curbing the power of the executive when it comes to natl security
your friend sounds like a delusional shitlib |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:25 PM Author: thriller forum ratface lol, ok I'm sure you're an expert. Courts have intervened plenty with regards to detention of terror suspects and illegals and on the issue of torture as well.
And she's not a shitlib. Her office is actually relatively conservative relative to the other offices in the DoJ. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:27 PM Author: black orchestra pit your comparisons are inapposite. both refused to follow the law for similar reasons. the clerk because it went against her religious beliefs as a Christian; the ag because it went against her religious beliefs as an atheist shitlib. both were reacting to changes in 'laws' that didn't exist during their preceding time in the job, too |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:31 PM Author: thriller forum ratface "the ag because it went against her religious beliefs as an atheist shitlib"
That was not what the AG said at all. And an AG has far more discretion in this situation than a clerk. And yes, there are serious legal issues with the EO, even if most or even all of it are upheld. The EO unnecessarily exposes the the executive branch to court-created rules as to process and enforcement that will be used in the future by those challenging their denaturalization or deportation. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:10 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain And so the DOJ is defying the executive branch in order to save it? How selfless of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509529) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:13 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant What's the difference? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508900) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:14 PM Author: boyish trust fund reading party now i'm curious (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508914) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:16 PM Author: Crawly market what is the actual difference (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508931) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:19 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night The acting AG of the US refused to enforce an order she believed was uncostitutional/unlawful.
Kim Davis refused to enforce a law that the SCOTUS told her was constitutional/lawful. And as we all know, SCOTUS gets the last word on that, just as they will on Trump's EO.
That's the difference. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:27 PM Author: Hilarious Locus Water Buffalo (guy who thinks he's poasting on xo2005) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509078) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:28 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Fair criticism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509088) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:33 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant So you mean how they both believed their superiors overstepped their powers? Is that right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509155) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:39 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night No.
SCOTUS always gets the last word on constitutional and they said gay marriage was constitutional and Davis STILL insisted you wouldn't grant licenses.
That isn't at all what Yates did, you fucking retarded ape. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:46 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant Okay, so since libs show total deference to SCOTUS decisions, you're saying that they would totally accept a SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v. Wade? They would totally favor imprisoning doctors who performed abortions, correct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509300) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:52 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night Deference is irrelevant. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will be the law of the land. That's how it works in the United States. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509357) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:55 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant Libs would defer to an overturned Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision with glee and favor imprisoning all rogue doctors who perform abortions in Texas, Florida and Kansas. Got it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509394) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:07 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night I can't tell if you are trolling or no. Deference is wholly irrelevant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509506) |
|
Date: February 1st, 2017 1:00 AM Author: black orchestra pit guy who thinks jews should take the sat on saturdays, 'cause, you know, it's legal |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:19 PM Author: Talented nighttime ticket booth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508982) |
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:09 PM Author: boyish trust fund reading party cop (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508855) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:13 PM Author: judgmental university tank (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508901) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:16 PM Author: Mauve fragrant toilet seat umm not sure if you're aware but the university has a code of conduct (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32508933) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:34 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509168) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:57 PM Author: Crawly market (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509416) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:16 PM Author: Trip Rough-skinned Sandwich She should have just resigned if she disagreed with the order, just as is the norm.
But with this move now she's a political figure who can run for office in a couple years |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:20 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night This is all true. She decided to grandstand. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509002) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 12:20 PM Author: Sepia Telephone Double Fault cr, brilliant on her part, but at least Trump got rid of her quickly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509003) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:08 PM Author: Vibrant Whorehouse Queen Of The Night I'll say this. Dude doesn't waste time thinking things through. He fucking reacts instantly not at all like normal Washington pace. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509514) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:27 PM Author: Internet-worthy Really Tough Guy Theater It was all symbolic either way, as was the firing. He will have a new AG very soon. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509695) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:23 PM Author: Internet-worthy Really Tough Guy Theater Should I poast the clip of Sessions saying he believes an AG should sometimes disobey unlawful executive orders (WHILE questioning YATES)? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32509655) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:25 PM Author: multi-colored narrow-minded dilemma stain (Rudolph)
Also, that's not what he says (although the main thrust is not far off) |
|
Date: February 1st, 2017 1:03 AM Author: black orchestra pit do you think history will agree with her? from what i've read, trumps eo only had to meet rational basis scrutiny which means it will pass |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 1:46 PM Author: silver heady home The two are identical.
Yates admitted the order was lawful, but added in some bullshit about how her position required her to take the context behind the orders into account.
In other words, both women refused to follow lawful orders on the basis that it went against their religion.
Davis's religion was Christianity while Yates' religion was shitliberalism. |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 11:22 PM Author: Cracking Legal Warrant 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32515188) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2017 11:22 PM Author: glittery state (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32515192) |
|
Date: February 1st, 2017 1:06 AM Author: silver heady home If you ever make the argument to someone that modern shitliberalism is like a religion, this is the perfect example to use. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32515938) |
|
Date: October 18th, 2025 3:48 PM Author: Maroon bateful blood rage karate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#49358142) |
|
Date: February 1st, 2017 11:46 PM Author: Frisky Dun Range Newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3510546&forum_id=2Ã#32523967) |