Speakeasy forum

Alert

YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
WHICH judges?

In reply to: YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!

I know of ONE and he was appointed by, wait for it......BO. He deliberately appointed very liberal judges, especially in NY, Chicago, and DC districts who would decide in his agendas favor. (Both sides do this, btw). I've seen a number of judges actually interviewed on talk shows, even on liberal media channels, who have agreed that SHE BROKE THE OATH SHE TOOK TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. That she decided NOT to for (her reasons) 'moral reasons', 'I don't think it's lawful', and 'I don't believe it's constitutional'.  Now, I don't quite get how she has been an attorney for over 30 years and NOT KNOW, especially as a DOJ attorney, what that actual Constitution says. What I DO believe is that she saw an opportunity to get her 15 seconds of fame by now being able to go on talk shows for a short while and bash Trump.  She KNEW she was going to be replaced as soon as Sessions became AG and 'needed' to go out in a blaze of radical left wing glory and took that opportunity.  She'll be a 'hero' to that faction for about a week while liberal news milks her story and then be tossed to the curb until one day you'll see her show up as a possible VP pick for some OTHER whack-job like Elizabeth Warren when she runs for president.

IF she really believed she was doing this out of some phony 'moral' outrage, she WOULD have quit....but that wouldn't put her name in lightbulbs as much as she could get by being FIRED by Trump.

The only "Monday Night Massacre" (according to CNN) that happened was when former AG under GWB Terwiliger was interviewed by phone last night by Lemon on CNN and that AG ripped Yates a new one and praised Trump for quick action.  Lemon didn't get the response he wanted so he couldn't get out of that interview fast enough.

Collapse -
RE:WHICH judges?

In reply to: WHICH judges?

You want names?

I'll provide initials...

US District Judge L B
US District Judge T Z
US District Judge A B
Magistrate Judge J G. D

I know of ONE and he was appointed by, wait for it......BO.

NOW you know four...OR You could know four ..... IF you let your fingers do the walking on the interweb....

wait for it BO?

When POTUS appoints someone they are beholding to the POTUS?

And YOU don't agree with that? Be careful how you respond...be very, very careful....

Collapse -
IF the judges appointed

In reply to: RE:WHICH judges?

by either party are, by their records, true Constitutional advocates for REAL justice, then YES...and they would be overwhelmingly be Conservatives and not ACTIVISTS who rule/decide in favor of agendas no matter WHICH party appoints them, JP. NEITHER party should appoint judges on ANY court, local, State, or Federal, (and nearly ALL start out in the local courts and are ELECTED by the people so if you're from San Francisco, for instance, that elected judge will run on a LIBERAL LEFT WING platform, and with THAT record of decisions made, a POTUS who is also a liberal left winger will look to him/her for an appointment to a higher State court position automatically. The POTUS who is a conservative right winger will do the same) based solely on getting their agendas moved along.....they should want LEGAL justice served and not have a judge's PERSONAL beliefs imposed at trial. That's what EVIDENCE should dictate and not the judge. That's why Scalia was such a great SCOTUS........his written decisions regarding his votes, even when he didn't PERSONALLY believe/agree with a law being challenged decided to vote on the side of how the law was actually WORDED. If you look up his written decisions, you would see his personal feelings outlined in them but you would see also WHY he voted in the opposite direction. The liberal Justices have not been able to separate the two for many decisions they've written.....but they have honestly gotten better at it with age and length of time and they voted AGAINST a number of BO's EO's that have been challenged, sometimes in a UNANIMOUS vote.

And, yes....appointees to the DOJ ARE beholden to POTUS and his directives....BUT THEY HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL. They don't include, as part of that oath, the right to interpret the actual LAW in their own personal favor or DIRECT others in the DOJ to do the same by ORDERING them not to follow the law or the President. THAT is turning your job into one of ACTIVIST, which is what HOLDER and LYNCH both did under BO....

Again, with the stupid warning, JP.....Too bad you can't take your own advice. And the personal insult to me suggesting my family would be happy if I was detained at an airport. When do you suppose that will end with you?

Collapse -
RE:They don't include, as part of that oath,

In reply to: IF the judges appointed

They don't include, as part of that oath, the right to interpret the actual LAW

"as part of the oath"?

So YOU can't/won't make the statement

They don't include the right to interpret the actual LAW

Which means, they CAN/DO interpret the actual LAW.

There will NEVER be a reversal of a ruling made by the Supreme Court?

Don't like a "ruling" appoint a Judge that "interprets a law" the way that YOU think?

Like TheRUMP doesn't know how HIS appointee will vote?

Even BEFORE the Judge hears ALL the evidence is placed before the court...

How naive are the voters?
Collapse -
I said

In reply to: RE:They don't include, as part of that oath,

"And, yes....appointees to the DOJ ARE beholden to POTUS and his directives....BUT THEY HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL. They don't include, as part of that oath, the right to interpret the actual LAW in their own personal favor or DIRECT others in the DOJ to do the same by ORDERING them not to follow the law or the President. THAT is turning your job into one of ACTIVIST, which is what HOLDER and LYNCH both did under BO...."

I was, for your benefit so you can comprehend what you "perhaps" read in its entirety, referring to Yates, the AG and HER "interpreting" the ACTUAL laws written in the Constitution in favor of HER PERSONAL agenda and carrying it so far as to ORDER others to do the same who work 'under' her.

However, to answer your question about judges, including those on the Supreme Court....Justice John Roberts had consistently been a Conservative and a reliable vote in that direction because he was considered to be pretty close to Scalia's way of reading the wording of the Constitution....right up UNTIL CHANGED THE WORDING OF THE TAX/PENALTY ARGUMENT AGAINST OBAMACARE. I can't say he became an 'activist' jurist like the liberals on that Court BUT he DID deliberately CHANGE the WORDING which means he REWROTE the LAW itself and they are NOT there to do anything other than to make a decision based on THOSE FACTS. The challengers noted that it was a PENALTY, and it was worded that way IN THE LAW......the BO DOJ argued that it was really a TAX (which they lied about for years to the American PEOPLE because they ALWAYS called it a PENALTY if you don't buy the plan) and that the IRS and BO could implement a TAX anytime they feel it's needed and do it legally without Congress. Roberts agreed with the DOJ argument and voted with the liberals as the deciding vote since it was tied at that point....BUT he ALSO said in his written ruling/decision "YOU GET WHAT YOU VOTE FOR", so it was a two edged sword considered by many to be a warning to the voters to be careful from that point on with regard to local, State, and Federal ballots. We'll probably never know why he alone decided to change the wording of an actual law in order to vote the way he did....but he was never challenged on it by Republicans/Conservatives and probably never will be. A request for a 'rehearing' could have been placed (although it being granted is pretty rare) or writing an Amendment to the Constitution would be the only other option, like they did with Prohibition.

The long and the short of this 'history lesson' for you, JP, is that NO ONE has the right to interpret actual LAW to their own personal benefit when you take a Constitutional oath to defend it. A appointed or elected official all take that oath and if you can't live up to it, you deserve to be removed/replaced/resign/or be FIRED over it.

Collapse -
RE:the ACTUAL laws written in the Constitution in favor of H

In reply to: I said

the ACTUAL laws written in the Constitution in favor of HER PERSONAL agenda and carrying it so far as to ORDER others to do the same who work 'under' her.

And here I thought the dustup was about some EO that TheRUMP signed...NOT the constitution.

They don't include, as part of that oath, the right to interpret the actual LAW in their own personal favor or DIRECT others

AGAIN? with "as part of the oath"?

SHE can't tell HER underlings what to do? ...AND TheRUMP can tell HIS underlings what to do? What's the point of being a boss? That's what TheRUMP would say?

AND, I read YOUR entire post...anything that I didn't respond to was what I refer to as chaff/background noise/distraction/key rattling...
Collapse -
One last time....

In reply to: RE:the ACTUAL laws written in the Constitution in favor of H

SHE said That she decided NOT to for (her reasons) 'moral reasons', 'I don't think it's lawful', and 'I don't believe it's constitutional'.  Now, I don't quite get how she has been an attorney for over 30 years and NOT KNOW, especially as a DOJ attorney, what that actual Constitution says.

The EO was ruled/determined to BE Constitutional by her OWN DOJ attorneys when they were consulted by Trump PRIOR to writing that EO.

At the point that SHE decided she wasn't going to enforce or defend that EO in court, she was no longer in charge of the DOJ as the AG but had become an ACTIVIST and an ACTIVIST does NOT have the authority to command that the REST of the DOJ attorneys to ALSO refuse to enforce/defend it. 

All done....get over it and watch how many talk shows she shows up on now for her 20 seconds of fame as the Dem/liberals/media heroine and 'martyr' as she's being called by some of them already, and I'll be proved right again, JP.

Your refer to the rest of my post as "chaff/background noise/distraction/key rattling" so it's not worthy of your time to respond to any of it.....now you know how I feel about your incessant babbling/nonsense, divert, and deflect statements and questions because you prefer to AVOID having to defend the garbage you spew.

Collapse -
RE: The EO was ruled/determined to BE Constitutional

In reply to: One last time....

The EO was ruled/determined to BE Constitutional by her OWN DOJ attorneys when they were consulted by Trump PRIOR to writing that EO.

Sure they did....and then those 4 Judges, that I pointed out, ruled that it wasn't...

So she was in agreement with the 4 Judges that adjudicated the 4 cases....

What's the point in having a law that, when someone is charged...they go before a Judge, and the case is thrown out?

Your refer to the rest of my post as "chaff/background noise/distraction/key rattling" so it's not worthy of your time to respond to any of it.....now you know how I feel about your incessant babbling/nonsense, divert, and deflect statements and questions because you prefer to AVOID having to defend the garbage you spew.

There's a cure for that....I know what it is....

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.