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

[mamooth]

The judge who issued the order is a homosexual.

But is he black?

Because if he is, all the Trump-snowflakes will crave his manhood that much more.

 

[Meathead]

Only some beta male with tons of butt hurt would or could come up with that.

That would be why all the Trump-wimps are whining out their butthurt here in thread after thread.

It's strange. You'd think they'd be pleased about winning, but instead, the Trump-wimps constantly keep getting more whiny and butthurt. Every day they're here crying even harder about how the mean ol' liberals keep humiliating them and DearLeader.

You poor Trump-snowflakes. I suggest you all create a SafeSpace where you don't have to worry about those awful liberals laughing at you and triggering you with facts and evidence. Then you can retreat there, and do what conservative men always do when they're together out of the public eye.

Deflecting from your own weaknesses is appropriately beta male - textbook in fact.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

That would be illegal and a violation of the Constitution.

 

[DarkFury]

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

That would be illegal and a violation of the Constitution.

No it would not. Quote the law that says that...

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yep! As I predicted for two years straight, virtually everything in Trump's agenda is unconstitutional. Surprise, surprise, Trumpettes!

 

[Harry Dresden]

Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut instead of making racist remarks about Judge Curiel last year. He was too stupid and somebody should have told him about checks n' balances and separation of power! LOVE IT.
Trump is fucking IMPOTENT.

so you are saying this is all a personal vendetta? Interesting

Idiot.

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.

I don't care HOW Trump gets taken down, just as long as he does
i bet you went ballistic when some righty said the same about Obama.........

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Trump = not winning

Appeal it, Trump and go to the Court. You will win there.

Jake Fakey= Stolen Valor Lying Cuck.

See!

Yeah, I see you are a cuck. And a fake soldier.

Trump = not winning

Appeal it, Trump and go to the Court. You will win there.

Jake Fakey= Stolen Valor Lying Cuck.

See!

Yeah, I see you are a cuck. And a fake soldier.

Jake the fake

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jake Fakey= Stolen Valor Lying Cuck.

Jakey Fakey at a local Rainbow Coalition meeting; he found his pot o' gold!

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

yep....starting way back before any of us were here....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yep! As I predicted for two years straight, virtually everything in Trump's agenda is unconstitutional. Surprise, surprise, Trumpettes!

That is ridiculously untrue.

Trump has signed dozens of EOs most of which have past muster and he has started reducing regulation and straightening out the mess Obama left us in, reviving the Coal industry and perking up the economy.

But you cant perceive any of that because you are an ideologue.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Jake Fakey= Stolen Valor Lying Cuck.

Jakey Fakey at a local Rainbow Coalition meeting; he found his pot o' gold!

View attachment 123333

Hahahaha

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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

 

[Bush92]

It's a federal judge. What's "California" got to do with anything?

Is California "an island in the Pacific"? Or is there some new geographical feature this week that magically nullifies the federal judiciary?

Because it's the most fucked up state in the Union.

 

[Bush92]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

Act of Congress will pass...will be signed by Trump...will be upheld by Supreme Court.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

If Jake served, he was a potato peeler.

 

[Auld Phart]

Both of Trump's travel bans are in the toilet

Scotus will soon be informing those judges that what they are doing is illegal. And the revenge that follows will be epic!

Don't hold your breath. Both of Trump's travel bans are in the toilet, in case you forgot. Oh, you did. You people are like gerbils when it comes to staying focused.

They are?

I was under the impression they were temporary stays.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

Act of Congress will pass...will be signed by Trump...will be upheld by Supreme Court.

And we will laugh in these fag's faces. Lol

 

[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 country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

The judicial branch is there as a check on that executive branch. That's kind of the whole point.

Do you think that was an abuse of power or something?
Because, otherwise, I don't even see the point in you saying that. The last travel ban was within his authority. Pretty sure holding municipalities and states accountable for doing illegal acts and helping criminals is within his administrations authority as well.

Oh I didn't even address the content. I addressed the use of the adjective "California" firstly, and the wish of the other poster to dispense with the intentionally-designed system of checks and balances secondly.


Any minute now we'll hear from AG Gump: "I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an estuary in the most populous state can issue an order that stops the President of the United States in what appears to be clearly his statutory constitutional duty". I wonder if Gump voted to put this judge in place too...

the wish of the other poster to dispense with the intentionally-designed system of checks and balances secondly.

Whoa, nelly! That is an inference you made from what I wrote. It is not something to which I alluded, nor is it someting to which I attested.

What I wrote reflects the beginning and end of what I wanted to say and meant. You've surely seen enough of my posts to know damn well that I do not shy from nor am I incapable of providing a full picture of the ideas I aim to express. Nobody has to play "mind reader" with my posts.

How then are we to interpret "we're going to end up with country [sic] being 'run' by the judicial rather than by the executive branch."?

Btw I completely concur with everything before this particular sentence. It's perfectly logical.

"we're going to end up with country [sic] being 'run' by the judicial rather than by the executive branch."?

Btw I completely concur with everything before this particular sentence. It's perfectly logical.

In a subsequent post I discussed the theme of how, sage/good policy execution happens in a way that doesn't create conflict and thus require arbiters for every damn policy one implements. That post has a link to a credible source that discusses that concept in more detail than I cared to write about.

I don't want the "third leg" of our governance model to disappear. It's just that I know that one isn't doing a very good job as an executive, as a principal, when repeatedly one's decisions meet with challenge and one goes ahead with them anyway rather than building consensus, understanding and awareness among one's critics. The monarchical, leadership by fiat, style Trump uses is fine in some situations, mostly ones that have immediate, literal and legitimate "life or death" risks and exigencies.

The "sanctuary city" issue is not that. Even the most passionate pushers of immigration reform who also are sharp thinkers recognize as much. Because he's been a CEO, I expect Trump to recognize it too, and manage the matter as would any good CEO. One aspect of that is recognizing that the "sanctuary cities" issue doesn't quality well for using an authoritative management style, and the corresponding tools of that style, to resolve it.

I don't know if I've shared this on here or not, but back in 2014, I was optimistic about the notion of a Trump presidency. I didn't know Trump and I didn't know much about him. What I did know is that he'd been CEO of a multibillion dollar company. I knew several CEOs of similarly large companies and though they are all different individuals with different political points of view, each of them is a very competent problem solver who considers the situation and the goals, and then chooses a fitting approach, that is a win-win one, for overcoming the challenges the matter presents and advancing toward resolving it.

Over the course of 2015 and 2016, I began to realize that Trump has very little in common with those people. He's rich, he's a (former?) CEO, people give him "the time of day" because of his position. That's pretty much, aside from minor things, the end of the commonality. That's when I realized this "Trump thing" is not going to be good, cohesive or go smoothly, which, being cohesive and smooth running, are the two f*cking things that, seeing as a CEO is in the White House, should at a minimum have happened from day one, yet they are not at all how one can describe the whole of the first 100 days of his presidency.

I have before said this. My problems with Trump have very little to do with his policies, however thin his presentation and development of them be. (They're more aptly called "vision statements" than "policies.") Agree with them or not, I can live with most of his policy proposals. I may not like doing so with regard to some of them, but they aren't going to be my undoing, and there's something to be learned in implementing his ideas and finding out the nature and extent to which they "work." It's an expensive as hell "learning opportunity," but the man's in the WH and his party controls Congress. We may as well learn what we can -- great and small -- from that being so.

My issue with the man is that I don't see in him the leadership qualities, behaviors and character traits of a CEO. Having run my own company and, after it was purchased, joining the senior management team of a global firm, I'm well aware of what those things are and the various ways -- accounting too for each person's individuality -- they manifest themselves. With Trump, there's no manifestation. Trump's "good enough" to be a senior exec, just not the CEO. He is a CEO because it's his company, not because he's earned that position the way CEOs of public companies must.


Does all that mean that I will refrain from voicing my opposition to Trump policies with which I disagree? Hell, no! It means that I can live with not getting my way on the matter, and neither will I be mute as I endure not getting my way. That's how my freedom of speech gets exercised for I know that although one does not always get what one asks for, one almost never gets that for which one does not ask. (That's a lesson I learned in middle and high school. My high school teachers actually said almost exactly that. Heeding it has served me very well over the years.)

 

[Bush92]

Breaking: Degeneracy In Action

The judge who issued the order is a homosexual.

Could be he has an illegal partner that violates his southern border.

 

[Bush92]

Only some beta male with tons of butt hurt would or could come up with that.

That would be why all the Trump-wimps are whining out their butthurt here in thread after thread.

It's strange. You'd think they'd be pleased about winning, but instead, the Trump-wimps constantly keep getting more whiny and butthurt. Every day they're here crying even harder about how the mean ol' liberals keep humiliating them and DearLeader.

You poor Trump-snowflakes. I suggest you all create a SafeSpace where you don't have to worry about those awful liberals laughing at you and triggering you with facts and evidence. Then you can retreat there, and do what conservative men always do when they're together out of the public eye.

Kate Steinle thought she was in a safe place!

Yeah but she was expendable...she is white.