Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was going to anyway, such is politics. Makes me laugh when people expect no push back whatsoever or think some random judge has the power to stop Trump from doing it.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.
Plan for a Trump Presidency for 8 years and followed by 8 years of Pense.You've got more gaps going on than those in your post.
I think there could be a little payback going on here.
Judges, even on a local level, are arrogant as hell. Worse than surgeons.
So federal district judges think they are gods and will protect their own against pigs like Trump.
And I LIKE IT. I don't care HOW Trump gets taken down, just as long as he 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.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?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.
So?
Do we just roll over and suck our thumbs like a good liberal does?
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.
We don't want local LE to enforce immigration law, but they should help when needed.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.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?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.
So?
Do we just roll over and suck our thumbs like a good liberal does?
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.
Even in the most conservative communities in the country, I doubt the locals would really want their local police enforcing immigration law. They would have to allocate significant portions of their time and local tax dollars chasing down people that are at best guilty of of a just a misdemeanor instead of going after thieves, murders, and rapists.
The people being deported today are mostly convicted criminals whose nationality and location is know to law enforcement. So picking these people up and deporting them is repetitively easy. However, they are in the minority. Most undocumented immigrants are not known to the police and have not been convicted of any serious crime. These people will not be easy to apprehend or deport. To find these people ICE will need significant help from local law enforcement and other agencies and they are not likely to get it.
What gets me is that Obama withheld federal funding from states who didn't comply with the transgender bathroom laws. They complied. What's the difference in this situation?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.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?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.
So?
Do we just roll over and suck our thumbs like a good liberal does?
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.
Even in the most conservative communities in the country, I doubt the locals would really want their local police enforcing immigration law. They would have to allocate significant portions of their time and local tax dollars chasing down people that are at most guilty of a just a misdemeanor instead of going after thieves, murders, and rapists.
The people being deported today are mostly convicted criminals whose nationality and location is know to law enforcement. So picking these people up and deporting them is relatively easy. However, they are in the minority. Most undocumented immigrants are not known to the police and have not been convicted of any serious crime. These people will not be easy to apprehend or deport. To find these people ICE will need significant help from local law enforcement and other agencies and they are not likely to get it.
The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.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 solvedI'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.
Lack of conservative activist judges. This is why the liberal activist judges are so wrong and bad for the country.that Obama withheld federal funding from states who didn't comply with the transgender bathroom laws. They complied. What's the difference in this situation
The reason has something to do with financially penalizing States as punishment for not following what the feds want them to do when the penalty was not part of the law when it was introduced and passed....The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.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 solvedI'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.
This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.
The key statement by the judge was, "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves."Bahahahahaha....This ought to give the mo'fo a heart attack.
Federal judge blocks Trump's sanctuary cities order
Federal judge blocks Trump's sanctuary cities order
A San Francisco judge has blocked enforcement of President Trump’s executive order barring federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities.
San Francisco and Santa Clara County won preliminary injunctions to block Trump’s January order to withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to comply with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws, according to multiple reports.
According to the judge’s order, the Justice Department can still withhold grants from places that don’t comply with the law, but it cannot enforce the order “in a way that violates the Constitution,” according to a Washington Post reporter.
The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.
This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.
There are people in this country, many of them democrats that just want more Americans to to die. They enjoy the Kate Steinleys, they celebrate the Brian Terrys. All those who were just in the wrong place and got tortured to death or burned alive, those are appetizers to democrats and many of them are judges. It's better to kill thousands, tens of thousands if necessary than to support a republican president.
Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.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 solvedI'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.
This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.
I was responding to the notion that the Judicial branch will usurp the power of the president and "run" the country.That is not 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!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.What "that" do you mean is untrue?That is not true.
The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.
Once again for the short bus ----- the judicial branch is put there specifically as a check on the others. That's ITS Constitutional responsibility.
This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.
Your faggot post did not show any basis for its conclusion.
See what I did there? Naaah, you prolly don't.
The federal government aren't penalizing the sub-federal jurisdications. It's establishing civil consequences -- because a state, county, city, etc cannot be incarcerated or punished -- for failing to notify ICE upon the apprehension, location or identification of an undocumented immigrant.The reason has something to do with financially penalizing States as punishment for not following what the feds want them to do when the penalty was not part of the law when it was introduced and passed....The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.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 solvedI'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.
This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.
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.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.GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.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!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.
They are not enforcing the law, you dim bulb!
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.
