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

[JimBowie1958]

These are conditional grants based on compliance with federal l aw. It is not general funding.

How many ways does it have to be assplained to you?

Post a link to prove your point. I did.

Wow talk about Google Fu challenged, it is in post 294, Grass Hopper.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

let's take it to SCOTUS. Include Travel Ban ... SCOTUS will smack down activist judges (aaaagain).

They're not "activist" judges.

They are simply doing their job - upholding the law.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The same ones supporting c

I say withhold the funds anyway, screw the psycho libtard judge.

I agree. That would speed up impeachment quite a bit.

Sure. The senate will get right on that. Hahahahahaha

 

[Bush92]

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.

Alt Right neo-fascists are antifa

this is false

antifa and fascists do have much in common

Anti first amendment people, and fascists who hate democracy and civil rights, and people like you who don't like checks and balances are all peas in a pod.

The judge has ruled, and now the judicial process must play out.

Nope. Just pass an Act of Congress. Fast track it to High Court. In fact. Fast track all these obstructionist turd ruling by Democrats in a robe...and rule them unconstitutional.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Suppose we were under attack by North Korea and an ultra liberal judge blocked Trumps ability to wage war.

This is a MUCH more serious national problem than the just the irresponsible actions of a lone judge. They can and will put us ALL at risk over their agendas.

There needs to be some kind of judicial consensus requiring "X" number if judges from "X" number of various states to halt Executive orders that pose no threat to national security and are in fact necessary to ensure national security.

Allowing one idiot on the bench here and there to stop the President from protecting the nation is a serous risk to national security.

Under attack by N Korea? Oh brother. Just what do you believe would happen? Hint: Google comparative size of world militaries.

The whole point of the system is to stop partisan decisions and favoritism.

The real reason you RWNJs are whining is that the pussy grabber is only the prez. You and he believe he's and orange god who should not have to abide by the law.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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 ecluksively. Problem solved

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

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

 

[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.

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

 

[tycho1572]

It's just another obama appointed judge putting our best interest on the back burner.
It's going to take some time before we get rid of those idiots.

 

[WEATHER53]

Trump is not the chief executive, several hundred non elected politically appointed judges are. That's wrong
The judiciary is supposed to be a sort of balancing act and not the main player

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Yep and what is going to try to come and arrest him and what is going to be there to prevent it?
Mr President -you are under arrest for failing to obey one piss ant judge in CA-I don't think so

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Yep and what is going to try to come and arrest him and what is going to be there to prevent it
Mr President -you are under arrest for failing to obey one piss ant judge in CA-I don't think so

If the noted sequence of events happen, we'll all get to know the answer to your question.

 

[Flopper]

Like I said before. Trump cannot withhold federal money from state and local governments with an EO, it HAS to be done by Congress, because if it involves money, Congress has to pass a bill to authorize spending.

Same thing with the border wall.

The administration can withhold federal funds that are closely related to the task that police are not doing that is required by the grant. For example, if the a police department has a federal grant to collect data on undocumented immigrants they arrest and they refuse to share that information with the government, those funds can certainly be withheld. What the administration can't do is withhold federal funds that are unrelated to immigration, say Head Start, or Homes for the homeless. There has to be a clear link between the purpose of funds and the task in the grant that is not being performed by the police.

The city I live in considers itself a sanctuary city which means the police dept. will not provide arrest information to ICE without a court order, detain suspected undocumented immigrants without a warrant, and they will not require that officers make citizenship inquiries. However, they will notify ICE of documented illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony upon their release but will not hold them without a warrant. The chief of police said the town could potential lose .5% of it's budget if Trump carries through on his promise to withhold funds and provided the courts do not block the executive order.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

And who exactly is going to try to arrest the President? And get their asses killed.

 

[Correll]

Like I said before. Trump cannot withhold federal money from state and local governments with an EO, it HAS to be done by Congress, because if it involves money, Congress has to pass a bill to authorize spending.

Same thing with the border wall.

The administration can withhold federal funds that are closely related to the task that police are not doing that is required by the grant. For example, if the a police department has a federal grant to collect data on undocumented immigrants they arrest and they refuse to share that information with the government, those funds can certainly be withheld. What the administration can't do is withhold federal funds that are unrelated to immigration, say Head Start, or Homes for the homeless. There has to be a clear link between the purpose of funds and the task in the grant that is not being performed by the police.

The city I live in considers itself a sanctuary city which means the police dept. will not provide arrest information to ICE without a court order and they will not require that officers make citizenship inquiries. However, they will notify ICE of documented illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony upon their release but will not hold them without a warrant. The chief of police said the town could potential lose .5% of it's budget if Trump carries through on his promise to withhold funds and provided the courts did not block the executive order.

These cities are aiding and abetting law breaking on a massive scale.

They are siding with foreign invaders against the Federal Government and the Citizens of this Nation.


If we cannot take any steps to resist these crimes, and attacks because there will always be some asshole lefty judge some where who is willing to stop US from doing so, then our form of government is already over, we have just been too fucking stupid to notice.

 

[Flopper]

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

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Yep and what is going to try to come and arrest him and what is going to be there to prevent it?
Mr President -you are under arrest for failing to obey one piss ant judge in CA-I don't think so

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

 

[Correll]

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Yep and what is going to try to come and arrest him and what is going to be there to prevent it?
Mr President -you are under arrest for failing to obey one piss ant judge in CA-I don't think so

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

I don't think that the Congress of the United States, nor the people of the United States would consider the President trying to punish sanctuary cities to be a high crime.


I think that the vast majority would support him, and see the Judge as the fucking power mad asshole who needs put in jail.

 

[WEATHER53]

Like I said before. Trump cannot withhold federal money from state and local governments with an EO, it HAS to be done by Congress, because if it involves money, Congress has to pass a bill to authorize spending.

Same thing with the border wall.

The administration can withhold federal funds that are closely related to the task that police are not doing that is required by the grant. For example, if the a police department has a federal grant to collect data on undocumented immigrants they arrest and they refuse to share that information with the government, those funds can certainly be withheld. What the administration can't do is withhold federal funds that are unrelated to immigration, say Head Start, or Homes for the homeless. There has to be a clear link between the purpose of funds and the task in the grant that is not being performed by the police.

The city I live in considers itself a sanctuary city which means the police dept. will not provide arrest information to ICE without a court order and they will not require that officers make citizenship inquiries. However, they will notify ICE of documented illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony upon their release but will not hold them without a warrant. The chief of police said the town could potential lose .5% of it's budget if Trump carries through on his promise to withhold funds and provided the courts did not block the executive order.

These cities are aiding and abetting law breaking on a massive scale.

They are siding with foreign invaders against the Federal Government and the Citizens of this Nation.


If we cannot take any steps to resist these crimes, and attacks because there will always be some asshole lefty judge some where who is willing to stop US from doing so, then our form of government is already over, we have just been too fucking stupid to notice.

Excellent summary. If we have judges permitting illegality they need to be ignored and removed

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

BULLSHIT!

That post wins the dumbest post of the year, hands down, and we're only in April!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Yep and what is going to try to come and arrest him and what is going to be there to prevent it?
Mr President -you are under arrest for failing to obey one piss ant judge in CA-I don't think so

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

If you believe what you just posted, then YOU are that dumb!

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

Yep and what is going to try to come and arrest him and what is going to be there to prevent it?
Mr President -you are under arrest for failing to obey one piss ant judge in CA-I don't think so

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

I don't know if he is or isn't. I know he's got attorneys who are "not that dumb," but that doesn't mean he'll heed their advice.

criminal intent

Well, I suspect nobody thinks Trump isn't willful.