@BluePhil8
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 13,425
Sally, you're fired!
Refusing to enforce a constitutionally legal order, what did she expect?
And due to Trump she can't lobby for 5 years.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter RichardDunneOwnGoal
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Refusing to enforce a constitutionally legal order, what did she expect?
And due to Trump she can't lobby for 5 years.
Of course.
Yes that seems to describe most of the things you write
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,561
Hang on.Think about that a second, and then apply it to the man on the street. Maybe extrapolate interest rates to double digit inflation and consider how wages act "in real terms" to such actions. Then, go one step further and consider the effects of the following recession.
You replied to a long post saying "one word: inflation"
That was it. I pointed out that inflation is actually needed (and is currently well below what is considered as healthy. 0% inflation 2015. 1.5% 2016.)
I'm not sure where you are getting your double digit inflation figures from.
Paul Lake's Left Knee
Well-Known Member
There's a whos who of posters on each end of the divide on here today... could get good
kas_tippler
Well-Known Member
They'll be content with smashing up Starbucks etc.thats true - similar numbers on the streets against the Iraq war, the Chinese PM and pro hunting made fuck all of a difference so that petition won't. Can't say that it will be an edifying spectacle though - chorus's of boo's whenever Trump or May make a move in public in London.
I think the point he/she is trying to make is that the left are very quickly outraged by perceived injustices to liberal
values perpetrated by the US, or indeed the UK, even when those alleged injustices have the backing of democratically elected
governments. The countries listed have heads of state that have (probably) been invited to visit without the resultant hysteria
we are currently witnessing, yet are proven mysogynistic, autocratic, theocratic hellholes.
Might also be worth mentioning that "Under Israeli law, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen are designated "enemy states" and an Israeli citizen may not visit them without a special permit issued by the Israeli Interior Ministry." This is a list drawn up in 1954, before the others reciprocated with bans on Israeli passports I believe.
So an Israeli citizen is banned by their own government to travel to those countries anyway, which makes the Arab countries ban little more than ceremonial posturing.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
But one of the exec orders was to repeal Obamacare? So I don't get it this guy seems to have ultimate power to do what the hell he wants.
I don't think it did repeal Obamacare, did it?
I thought it instructed people to not increase burdens, and formulate an alternative. They need the alternative before they take down the existing one.
Sally, you're fired!
Refusing to enforce a constitutionally legal order, what did she expect?
And due to Trump she can't lobby for 5 years.
Perhaps she expected to be fired, but decided she wouldn't carry out an unjust ruling?
She took a stand, hopefully inspiring others in the US government to do the same and not simply roll over for Trump's regime. Her days were obviously numbered anyway given the way he's started.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
In exactly the same way that all that shit security at every airport makes aviation safer.Can anyone explain how this makes America safer? I don't really understand it.
It sends a message of intent.
Neither actually does anything substantive to improve security but it shows an intent that may well deter opportunists.
But one of the exec orders was to repeal Obamacare? So I don't get it this guy seems to have ultimate power to do what the hell he wants.
Apparently the Exec order only starts off the process. Its a declaration of intent and an instruction to federal agencies to start planning the necessary changes. He has to follow the "Administrative Procedures Act" before it takes effect.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
1987?Hang on.
You replied to a long post saying "one word: inflation"
That was it. I pointed out that inflation is actually needed (and is currently well below what is considered as healthy. 0% inflation 2015. 1.5% 2016.)
I'm not sure where you are getting your double digit inflation figures from.
I remember my first motgage was something like 13% at one stage.
I'm still alive and able to feed myself so even double digits aren't the Armageddon they are painted as these days.
@BluePhil8
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 13,425
The ruling is just though. She might personally disagree with it but that's not her job. And if you personally disagree with your boss I think the correct thing to do is resign with dignity, not get fired for insubordination.Perhaps she expected to be fired, but decided she wouldn't carry out an unjust ruling?
She took a stand, hopefully inspiring others in the US government to do the same and not simply roll over for Trump's regime. Her days were obviously numbered anyway given the way he's started.
You asked for it - it's not exactly campaign trail stuff, is it?
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the "Act"). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.
Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.
Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.
Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.
Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2017.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the "Act"). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.
Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.
Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.
Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.
Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2017.
r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
They'll be content with smashing up Starbucks etc.
silver linings and clouds spring to mind
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
The ruling is just though. She might personally disagree with it but that's not her job. And if you personally disagree with your boss I think the correct thing to do is resign with dignity, not get fired for insubordination.
She's the (acting) Attorney general and said she doubted the legality of it. What evidence do you have that the ruling is 'just'?
It wasn't an outright block, as she's only holding the position until the senate committees accept a nominee for the role, hence she said "as long as I'm AG"
Senate Majority Leader McConnell:
"It's going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far,"
I note (from the BBC): "Mr Trump also replaced the acting director of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Daniel Ragsdale, who has been in the post since 20 January."
Cor, he lasted a long time!
In exactly the same way that all that shit security at every airport makes aviation safer.
It sends a message of intent.
Neither actually does anything substantive to improve security but it shows an intent that may well deter opportunists.
I get the airport security deterrent as there have been so many tradgedies recently and some near misses with airports.
Not sure who its supposed to be deterring with this though. Genuine question, when was the last time a Muslim terrorist snuck into the states and carried out a terrorist attack?
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,069
Yes that seems to describe most of the things you write
Of course.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
When was the last time you drove into the back of a stationary vehicle?I get the airport security deterrent as there have been so many tradgedies recently and some near misses with airports.
Not sure who its supposed to be deterring with this though. Genuine question, when was the last time a Muslim terrorist snuck into the states and carried out a terrorist attack?
Guess you don't need a seatbelt then!
The ruling is just though. She might personally disagree with it but that's not her job. And if you personally disagree with your boss I think the correct thing to do is resign with dignity, not get fired for insubordination.
Legal =/= Just, and she doesn't even think it's legal - and she's the supreme authority on American law.
The first job her replacement has will be defending the goverment against the 15 states who are taking to court to stop Trump's ban.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.