The challenge on the vote had to take place when the electoral college votes were counted in January. There was no challenge, so the vote is held to be valid.
]]>Appeals Court Denies Request For “Immediate” Order Bringing Back Trump’s Travel Ban
Yes! A win for Law, sanity & reason (for a change!) Did trumpet’s head explode??! (or more importantly, did Bannon’s? Maybe it’ll force him to do more booze & dope, then he’ll OD!)
]]>Apparently, a small group of women started this & were told every step of the way it wouldn’t get anywhere. But it has reached the Supreme Court. Now they need a lot of exposure to get the Supreme Court to move it forward and hear it ASAP. So they started Twitter & other social media campaigns to gain support. Please pass this on. It may just be the only real chance we all have.
Here’s the docket on SCOTUS:
SCOTUS docket 16-907 Petition for a writ of mandamus
Maybe this will work:
Prof: “Can you sue the President based on his tweets? We’re about to find out”
]]>On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions.
As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.
Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.
In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
I’ve been admiring (along with many others) J.K. Rowling destroying Trumpet loving trolls on Twitter! She’s becoming quite the celebrity (I mean, for something other than her books!) 😀 She’s been quite active. 🙂 Not afraid to jump all over the MSM either, such as this:
]]>So now Sally Yates is a celebrity lawyer, and likely is going to go to work for the same law firm as Eric Holder suing the Federal government on behalf of states that Cheeto Mussolini tries to screw. Troll rating: 100%. Career prospects for Sally Yates: 500% better. You go, girl!
– Badtux the Troll-admirin’ Penguin
]]>