"California judge" blocks President Trump order withholding funding to sanctuary cities

[usmbguest5318]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

Easier said than done. The 10th amendment, the state rights amendment so loved by conservatives also protect sanctuary cities. You can't pass a federal law that commandeers state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Even a conservative judge would shoot that down.

They are not enforcing the law, you dim bulb!

There always have been and will be laws that are not enforced, or enforced without exception. The best leaders do not enforce laws and rules merely because they are "on the books." Factotums do that.

Laws and rules exist to guide, not constrain or stipulate, the decisions of the fortunate few who find themselves asked to lead. Recognizing that is why most communities accord only to the brightest people the honor of leadership, for one must be an astute enough critical thinker to accurately gauge when is the right time to ignore/break a rule and when not to. You see, nearly all rules have relevance and value at least some of the time, but nearly none have it universally. One can as thoroughly "screw things up" by at the wrong time following/enforcing a rule merely because it exists as one can by opting to ignore the very same rule.

Everyone who's taken algebra II/Pre-calculus has seen the preceding concept illustrated, and they've quite likely applied it. For instance, though there are several rules/techniques for determining the measurements of a right triangle, and there is no question about the merit of the rule/technique being "right," one'd never get anywhere, say, trying to use the Pythagorean theorem to determine the perimeter size of any triangle other than a right triangle.

On the level of adolescent matters like a math exercise in a classroom, few and minor are the consequences of following a rule at the wrong time. When one leads an large firm or a county, state, city, country, etc. there's a lot more at state if one applies a rule merely because it exists.

 

[Flopper]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

dang your boy can't win for losing, eh?

bigly sad

ICE just arrested 100 folks in 4 days. WE ARE WINNING. and you're losing.

95 arrested in Southeast Texas during 4-day ICE operation targeting criminal aliens, illegal re-entrants and immigration fugitives

At that rate it will take about 194 years to remove them all from Texas.

 

[Care4all]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

What is disgusting about this is that on one hand they say that "not giving these sanctuary cities funds will hurt these cities", but on the other hand they tell these same cities that if an illegal immigrant which they defend harms or kills a citizen, they cannot be sued and are protected from culpability. Which is it? Do these cities have responsibility for their actions or not? If not, they shouldn't be given a penny from the rest of the nation that opposes these cities

Arrogant and hypocritical. These "cities" want their cake and eat it too even though the vast majority of Americans are against their positions. Kate Steinles family should sue all the way to the Supreme Court. This is bothersome at the very least. One state or another impacting the entire nation by playing a political power play.

the federal govt LET THEM IN....not the States. If the federal govt did their jobs, the States/cities would not be faced with this predicament?

So?

Do we just roll over and suck our thumbs like a good liberal does?

If a local government and their law enforcement, who were hired to keep their citizens safe, believe it is in their citizens best interest to not fill up their jail cells with illegal immigrants, and safer for their citizens to use their Police who they pay, to protect their neighborhoods instead of stopping people on the streets asking for ID, or their Police department, based on the neighborhood watch groups and calls they have received from those who are undocumented on illegal doings in their neighborhoods or even harm done to them.... and how those calls have helped them capture more perps and keep their neighborhoods safer and believe using their jail cells and their money and their time to do the job that ICE and the federal govt is suppose to do would harm their citizens more by making it less safe for them, then I think there could be some merit to that argument.

I do NOT believe that if a citizen commits a crime and is jailed for that crime that a non citizen should simply be let loose for committing the same crime....they should be jailed also.

I just don't think the Police should be forced by the Federal govt to take the time and ask every person they stop for a minor traffic violation if they are a citizen or not and spend the time arresting them and putting them in their jails until someone from ICE decides to mosey on down there and retrieve them.

 

[Flopper]

This is actually great news for us Conservatives.

If nobody has to adhere to Federal immigration laws then nobody has to adhere to the Federal gun laws, paying Federal taxes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Brown v Board, Roe v Wade or that stupid Obamacare law.

I love it. Great way to cutback on the abuse of the Federal government.

Even the queer Moon Bat Libtard judges in San Francisco can get it right every once in awhile.

That's an invalid assumption. Everyone is required to adhere to federal immigration laws just as they are required to adhere to federal gun laws. However, the states are not required to enforce either.

 

[basquebromance]

Judge Orrick blocked the Sanctuary City Order and Planned Parenthood videos - and donated $250,000 to Obama to get his job

Linkie?

Obama Appointee Blocks More Video Releases By Group Behind Planned Parenthood Sting

says a lot about you that you laugh while our great republic is being usurped.

Oh no Boilbutt, I'm laughing at you.
I want a link to this here "$250,000 donation".

Judge Who Blocked Trump Sanctuary City Order Bundled $200K for Obama

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

Simply impeach all these Obama judges that are destroying our way of life and replace them with constitutional mind who will not act like they are President. Then have GOP Congress change what federal judges can rule on. Do not let them decided whether a President is acting Constitutionally. Save that for the SCOTUS exclusively. Problem solved

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So Drumpf has once again overstepped his authority and was slapped down by the courts. What's a small-hands Mussolini wannabe to do?

Go to the Supremes, and hopefully put these wannabe fed judges in their place.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

SCOTUS will have to decide on its constitutionality. The screaming and yelling here of the antifas does not meant a thing in the real world. Poor neo-fascist alt right snowflakes just melting away in all of their steam.

Are you trying to say that antifa and fascists are the same?

indeed they are the same

No they aren't but you need a history lesson anyway.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Say it with me: SEE YOU IN COURT!

Being how Trump keeps getting humiliated in court, why are you asking for more humiliation?

It's not complicated. If Trump wants to stop losing in court, he should stop pissing on the Constitution. If you Trump-bedwetters want the country to stop laughing at you, you have to stop whining like little loser bitches.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So Drumpf has once again overstepped his authority and was slapped down by the courts. What's a small-hands Mussolini wannabe to do?

Go to the Supremes, and hopefully put these wannabe fed judges in their place.

The same judges that told Arizona that immigration is exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government have suddenly got the states rights religion.

They really just want want foreigners replacing Americans. They will say whatever they need to.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

As I've been saying, please take note of which side DOES EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO ENABLE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Any chance you get, punch a liberal right in the nose.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hey Jakey the Fake...what branch did you serve in again?

Wasnt it the sewage branch?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So Drumpf has once again overstepped his authority and was slapped down by the courts. What's a small-hands Mussolini wannabe to do?

Go to the Supremes, and hopefully put these wannabe fed judges in their place.

The same judges that told Arizona that immigration is exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government have suddenly got the states rights religion.

They really just want want foreigners replacing Americans. They will say whatever they need to.

Anything to appease illegals, and Muslims, that's the religion of todays Dimocrats.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

well. the Republicans spearheaded the Sanctuary Cities phenomenon in the first place during the Reagan administration.

Public sanctuary[edit]
The Sanctuary Movement formed as a reaction to these policies. It originated along the border with Mexico. The first church to declare itself a sanctuary for Central American refugees was Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona. The movement was sparked by the increased presence of Central American appearing at the US-Mexico border. In 1980, Jim Corbett, Jim Dudley, John Fife and other residents of Tucson, Arizona, began providing legal, financial and material aid to Central American refugees.[4]

Sanctuary drew on many aspects of Christian theology, but was centered on compassionate concern for those fleeing violent civil wars raging in Guatemala and El Salvador, but who met with routine deportation in the United States. As Jim Corbett recounts, the tradition of his Quaker faith, and its involvement in the Civil War-era Underground Railroad that assisted fugitive slaves, was--in part--what compelled him to take action. For others such as Gary Cook, associate pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church in Massillon, Ohio, the simple experience of personal interaction with desperate families required conscientious response: "We're a very conservative group of folks politically. But once we encountered the refugees face to face, we couldn't justify not taking them in."[5]

Sanctuary movement - Wikipedia

TODAY, AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS, IS THE LEFT ARE THE ONES WHO SOLELY WORK TO MAINTAIN SANCTUARY CITIES, AND ENABLE ILLEGALS TO STAY ! PERIOD!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

SCOTUS will have to decide on its constitutionality. The screaming and yelling here of the antifas does not meant a thing in the real world. Poor neo-fascist alt right snowflakes just melting away in all of their steam.

Are you trying to say that antifa and fascists are the same?

indeed they are the same

No they aren't but you need a history lesson anyway.

Yes, anti-1st amendment types are fascists, who are anti-democracy and anti rule of law. That is the Alt Right to the T.

We see many anti-1st Amendment people like JimBowie, OOM, and such bubba-ish rubbish trying to shut down others' speech on the Board, and just getting so mad they have to listen to real Republicans and Democrats and centrists and independents who know that the Far Right and the Alt Right are pieces of shit pretending to be Americans, and telling them so. Just fries their grits, yeah.

But the truth is the truth and the anti-first amendment pro-fascist Alt Right are going to have toughen up.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Just do it, Trump. These 'judges' have no say.

Withhold the funds . Fuck that judge. Although he'd probably enjoy it. Let the Constitutional minded SCOTUS sort it out. In our favor.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This is actually great news for us Conservatives.

If nobody has to adhere to Federal immigration laws then nobody has to adhere to the Federal gun laws, paying Federal taxes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Brown v Board, Roe v Wade or that stupid Obamacare law.

I love it. Great way to cutback on the abuse of the Federal government.

Even the queer Moon Bat Libtard judges in San Francisco can get it right every once in awhile.

That's an invalid assumption. Everyone is required to adhere to federal immigration laws just as they are required to adhere to federal gun laws. However, the states are not required to enforce either.

And of course if the cities are ran by libs, and most large ones are, you can bet they will be sanctuary's and the libs will GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to keep all information away from ICE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In the cases of the sanctuary cities, I do think the Pres has the power to sequester money to them.

However, we have a system, and his EOs are going to have to go through the courts, just like those of Obama.

 

[Flash]

This is actually great news for us Conservatives.

If nobody has to adhere to Federal immigration laws then nobody has to adhere to the Federal gun laws, paying Federal taxes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Brown v Board, Roe v Wade or that stupid Obamacare law.

I love it. Great way to cutback on the abuse of the Federal government.

Even the queer Moon Bat Libtard judges in San Francisco can get it right every once in awhile.

That's an invalid assumption. Everyone is required to adhere to federal immigration laws just as they are required to adhere to federal gun laws. However, the states are not required to enforce either.

You are confused.

If you think that the states and cities are required to adhere to Federal immigration laws then you would know that sanctuary cites are a direct violation of the law. They are saying that the laws do not apply to them and they are wrong.

The Feds can't throw a city in jail so their only enforcement tool would be to withhold funding.

Of course the filthy ass judge that made the ruling is an Obama appointee that contributed a quarter of a million to Obama's campaign so that pretty well makes him a piece shit, wouldn't you agree?

We need to decide if Federal law is applicable or not. If it ain't then that is fine with me. I will let the Libtard Moonbat cites have their friggin sanctuary for illegals. I will stop adhering to Federal gun regulations, stop paying federal taxes and that filthy ass 1964 Civil Rights Act can kiss my ass. I'll discriminate against whoever I want to. Deal?

What if the city I lived in decided not to adhere to the NFA and everybody could have a machine gun that wanted one. Is that OK? It is the same thing.

I wish this deal about telling the Feds to cram it and being upheld by the courts could be retroactive back to 1861. The South would be a lot better place to live, don't you think?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

Simply impeach all these Obama judges that are destroying our way of life and replace them with constitutional mind who will not act like they are President. Then have GOP Congress change what federal judges can rule on. Do not let them decided whether a President is acting Constitutionally. Save that for the SCOTUS ecluksively. Problem solved

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.