Yes. The immediate precedent that comes to mind is the "Saturday Night Massacre." Nixon demanded the AG fire the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. Richardson refused and resigned (note this wasn't really a major stand on principle, Richardson was one of the people responsible for Watergate in the first place. Richardson simply recognized that firing Cox would not work and would not help). His second, Deputy AG William Ruckleshaus likewise refused and resigned when ordered to fire Cox. Then the third in the hierarchy, Robert Bork, went ahead and obeyed. And has been unfairly hated by the Dems for it ever since. The point had been made, Nixon was going to fire Cox, and at someone needed to go ahead and do it so the matter could shift to the Supreme Court. No one is better off with having the entire senior leadership of a Department gone.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Or do you mean having the transitional chief refuse to defend an executive order? That hasn't happened before but no President has passed an objectionable and legally challenged EO before his own choice for AG was in place before either.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Thanks Fuzzy.
While similar I was more thinking the basic refusal to do as instructed and instructing your subordinates to do the opposite of what the POTUS has instructed rather than resigning. She should have resigned honourably IMO rather than wait to get fired this way.
Over here it is quite common for politicians to resign if they can't follow the instructions of their party leader. To disobey them and get fired rather than resigning first is not common.
It is unusual in that regard yes. But. . . she's an outgoing partisan appointee of the Opposition, not career civil service, and the directions coming down for the enforcement of this EO are at least as problematic. If she'd been someone put in place by the new administration then sure. As it is, this is frankly the sort of thing that SHOULD happen if/when an incoming administration wants to jump the gun this way. If you insist on making questionable orders, you're getting what is coming to you if you're so impatient that you push the orders out before your own people are in place to support that implementation.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yes that's the other part that looks weird from what I'm used to: Trump working with Obama's partisans. I thought someone said the other day that the window of transition between the election results and the elected candidate taking office was in part needed to deal with this issue? Has the Senate been slow at approving Sessions or is this standard for Obama's partisan appointees to be working with a President they opposed?
I hope Sessions perishes of old age and is completely dissolved from within by the bile and other vile fluids flowing through his veins before he's approved.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Why don't you tell us what you really think
This is going to be a long 4-8 years.
They commonly work for several weeks with the incoming administration. Even if you get someone that knows the job you still need to know the physical lay of the land, schedules, etc. This is also why it was big news when the The State Department’s entire senior administrative team walked off. Trump has no idea what he is doing and reports early on said his team wasn't expecting to have to replace as many people as they are.
You'll notice that Trump already swore in a new acting attorney general.
and its totally not surprising you would rather have a member of justice department rollover and quit rather than stand up for the constitution and against illegal acts thats going to cost the government a stupidly large amount of taxpayer money defending without an expected win.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-31-2017 at 11:25 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
New Experience: in ideal moments, legitimately wondering which way the US Military is going to jump.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
A principled resignation is not "rolling over" especially if you have no tenure and can be unilaterally fired if you don't resign. Maybe it's a different culture over there but a principled resignation here is newsworthy and the resignation of Geoffrey Howe is credited with the downfall of Margaret Thatcher.
my friends keep saying how they have never seen this much open mockery of a president from within their ranks. Granted they're all in their 30s.
they laughed at the suggestion that trump wanted tanks at his inauguration. but knew that the military wouldn't cave. They've got the same reaction as the public to the false drain the swamp claims, ranging from "thats a politican for you" to "hmmm". They don't like what they see concerning the president getting played by Nieto concerning the wall and May concerning NATO. It makes him look weak, which makes the military look weak, which makes their job harder. I think the tipping point was the muslim ban. A lot of our guys served in the region, a lot of our guys have gotten close to guys over there. Our military members understand the world better than most people give them credit for. A lot of the military members are either in or from mixed families, be it race or nationality. Not a single one I've talked to will defend Bannon, his influence, or the power he holds.
That being said there are still a few racists that have that "anyone is better than obama" and still far to many who are so overly religious that even someone who falsely claims to be christian was better than a liberal. They still aren't happy with Trump decisions, and those are the wild cards, cause if something were to happen, they would need a lot reassurance in who would be giving the orders next.
except in our world of alternative facts a resignation (even if done publicly) can be spun as a firing, as Trump did with the ones who resigned from the administrative team. Taking a public stand against an illegal action was way more noteworthy and carried a far greater weight.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Didn't the US military voted 2-1 in favour of Trump?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
and a lot of that had to do with being tired of the way things are. A largely "politicians are all the same mentality".
None of them expected that he would be so hostile against so many citizens so quickly. The veterans take credit for being the tipping point for Obama allowing Keystone to lapse. I could see that mentality of protecting average citizens spreading like wildfire if Trump were to move aggressively against protesters, especially if the pipeline fight reignites first.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Is there anything to prevent Democrats from blocking SCOTUS nominations for the next four years? If the GOP can keep SCOTUS at 8 justices for nearly a year since Scalia's death, why can't the Democrats keep SCOTUS at just 8 justices [or 7 if another one dies] for four years?
Theoretically could SCOTUS run out of justices?
Dems could filibuster, GOP could change the rules concerning filibustering.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The so-called nuclear option.
Can you filibuster a rule change affecting filibustering?
IIRC Every two years in principle there's a chance to scrap the filibuster by simple majority. So far neither party has done so as there was a chance. There's no special reason why the Supreme Court couldn't function with less Justices.
Congratulations America
Yes, there have been delays for Sessions. Some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have choked on his history or racism and past disrespect for constitutional requirements. And, well, not all the Republicans on the committee are friends of the new administration. Lindsey Graham is one of its senior members and one of its junior members is Ted Cruz, for instance.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That makes sense, so if Trump was a mainstream politician selecting mainstream politicians to be his cabinet then he should have had his own Attorney General in place by now?
Yeah, that doesn't mean they're interested in domestic action.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Doesn't the Constitution preclude domestic action? Or is that a rule by Congress?
The fact that one SCOTUS term is a lot shorter than eight SCOTUS terms? And normal turnover is at least two justices during an eight year administration which would jack up the pressure. It would be easier for Parliament to decide to stay in the EU.
*shrugs* Maybe? Even more mainstream politicians will sometimes select a candidate who just get disliked. But since the committee and Senate aren't held by the Opposition, yes, usually he'd been in place by now. But hell, sometimes nominees for cabinet posts will get outright rejected, even (albeit rarely) by a friendly Senate. This is not a parliamentary system, these are two genuinely independent bodies.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Hence why I said theoretically. Theoretically Parliament could decide to stay in the EU, it just isn't plausible. I never thought for one second this was plausible either.
Actually in our system there is no ratification at all, Parliament has no say over the matter. The PM decides "Jeremy Wright is the new Attorney General" and like that Jeremy Wright is the new Attorney General. Technically the appointment is made by the monarch but the PM decides and that's the end of discussion.*shrugs* Maybe? Even more mainstream politicians will sometimes select a candidate who just get disliked. But since the committee and Senate aren't held by the Opposition, yes, usually he'd been in place by now. But hell, sometimes nominees for cabinet posts will get outright rejected, even (albeit rarely) by a friendly Senate. This is not a parliamentary system, these are two genuinely independent bodies.
If one branch of government says do this one thing, and another branch of government says no that shits illegal arrest him and then the first branch of government says, no arrest the other branch for treason, it often comes down to whose side the people with all the guns decide to take.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
In America that's all sides and none. Nobody has all the guns, though one side has bigger guns.
Not sure which thread had the Rogue POTUS Twitter account posted by Steely but seeing that on a site as a source claiming that Neil Gorsuch is the SCOTUS nominee. Not sure if that's been leaked elsewhere and they're copying it or not.
Never heard of him.
EDIT: From his Wiki bio he sounds just like Scalia.
I don't think hill billies with rifles and rambo fantasies are going to be terribly relevant when when the military or the FBI or whoever are deciding whether or not to arrest the POTUS for treason on the orders of congress, or place congress members under house arrest and shut down the Capitol building on the orders of POTUS.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I'm pretty sure that's fake now, and I kind of regret posting it. The Gorsuch news had already broken an hour before that account posted anything. I've been looking at I've found nothing on there that isn't either a) completely impossible to verify or b) nothing a clued in political observer couldn't doing a bit of informed guess work couldn't have posted.
They didn't say shit about the biggest story of the week, the muslim ban, until it had already happened. That's the biggest red flag for me.
I invite everyone to take a look and see if they can find anything posted before it became available elsewhere, but I think it's fake at the moment.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Each Congress gets to set its own rules. These rules are set by a majority decision. Therefore, they could decide not to include the filibuster in those rules. Not sure if it's too late for that for this session of Congress though.
We have 3 branches. The faction with 2 branches on its side is pretty much guaranteed a win. No military help needed. If Congress goes against Trump, they can refuse to fund a military that doesn't do what it's told, for instance.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/statu...45822594633728
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote