The executive order was backed by the law though. The President does have the powers he exercised, at least, near as I can tell from the US Code cited in the order. I don't necessarily like the order, or how it was carried out, but I'm not sure her actions were justified on the grounds she cited.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu... and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchap...

Aren't many of the objections to the order based on constitutional concerns like depriving people of due process? That would override anything in the US Code.

Get real. The objections to the order are based exclusively on whether there's an (R) or a (D) next to the President's name. Nothing more. Incredible to see how many people suddenly "care" about the Constitution after 8 years of Obama wiping his feet on it.

Maybe because George W. Bush didn't pull anything like this and he was President during 9/11? You can't claim that the "D" is just as bad as "R" and then forget about every other President from both parties who didn't go about indiscriminately banning people with Permanent Resident status from entering the country.

And I'll take a Law Professor over a reality TV star when it comes to protecting the Constitution and running the government while obeying the law.

Just to clarify, are you an (R) who is OK with this stuff? Or are you just more upset about consistency than rights abuses?

Why, are you confused about whether to downvote me? I don't see (a) why it should matter or (b) that it's any of your business... The fact that you need to know the letter next to my name to evaluate my statement is exactly what is wrong with America.

Because if you imagine yourself to be above the fray and are merely attacking me based on consistency, then my reply would involve asking you what you want (given that we can't go back in time and start fighting Obama harder) and why you're more concerned about consistency than abuses. If you're a Trump supporter, then I'd just go straight to pointing out how much worse Trump's actions are in this department.

What do I want? I'd love for the (D)s to be way less fucking smug and sanctimonious for starters. Less hypocritical would be nice too, but let's stay within the realm of the conceivable... As for what to do now, well, figure it out yourself; the people in the crowd who actually care about civil liberties are too busy enjoying the sweet, sweet liberal tears to do anything for a few more weeks at least.

"the people in the crowd who actually care about civil liberties are too busy enjoying the sweet, sweet liberal tears to do anything for a few more weeks at least."

This is a contradiction. If you'd rather enjoy the defeat of your enemies, you don't actually care about civil liberties.

This is what's actually wrong with America: the fact that politics has devolved into a simple team sport, where the only goal is to win and have the other team lose.

No, no, you weren't paying attention. The (D)s aren't our enemies; they're the smug hypocrites who are or will soon be completely inconsequential in American politics, and who (to our immense amusement) haven't accepted this yet. I didn't say we derive pleasure from your loss, only your tears. The tears of the right would have been just as sweet if they were the sort to throw tantrums, which, thankfully, they're not.

Edit: Also, back to, er, polite discourse, I don't believe the state of civil liberties has significantly changed in the past, what, 11 days. I know you won't accept that thanks to fake-news-ordered outrage, but it's true. So you mistake my non reaction to a non event for apathy, which it's not.

What nonsense. You derive pleasure not from their loss, but from their tears? Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess, but it sure looks silly when stated in public.