easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,137
...or something.
Of course Barry's beloved corrupt city of Chicago would be where liberal 'Judge Shopping' finally located a judge willing to declare Tax Payers have to - must - fund Sanctuary Cities through 'Safety' Grants.
Chicago, of course, is already one of the deadliest cities in the United States, a virtual annual record-setting 'Murder Capitol', so security for Chicago citizens has already been bad enough without it's mayor's embrace as a proud sanctuary for violent illegals. If a city refuses to curtail its activities that constantly place its citizens in harm's way, why should the tax paying citizens of this country continue to thrown good money after bad to financially support a city that is breaking US immigration law, further endangering its citizens lives?
BOTTOM LINE:
Why must Americans pay Chicago to take steps to keep it's people safe when they take the money but refuse to act to keep their people safe?
The real 'moral' of this story, however, is that if you engage in 'Judge Shopping' long enough, you can eventually find a judge to rule any way you want....
A Chicago judge amazingly rules that grant money can be mandatory - Hot Air
"A federal judge has ruled Attorney General Jeff Sessions cannot follow through with his threat to withhold public safety grant money to Chicago and other so-called sanctuary cities for refusing his order to impose tough immigration policies.
U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber on Friday granted Chicago’s request for a temporary “nationwide” injunction. That means the Justice Department can’t deny requests for the grant money until Chicago’s lawsuit against the agency is concluded. He wrote that Chicago has shown a “likelihood of success” in its arguments that Sessions overstepped his authority with the requirements."
Of course Barry's beloved corrupt city of Chicago would be where liberal 'Judge Shopping' finally located a judge willing to declare Tax Payers have to - must - fund Sanctuary Cities through 'Safety' Grants.
Chicago, of course, is already one of the deadliest cities in the United States, a virtual annual record-setting 'Murder Capitol', so security for Chicago citizens has already been bad enough without it's mayor's embrace as a proud sanctuary for violent illegals. If a city refuses to curtail its activities that constantly place its citizens in harm's way, why should the tax paying citizens of this country continue to thrown good money after bad to financially support a city that is breaking US immigration law, further endangering its citizens lives?
BOTTOM LINE:
Why must Americans pay Chicago to take steps to keep it's people safe when they take the money but refuse to act to keep their people safe?
The real 'moral' of this story, however, is that if you engage in 'Judge Shopping' long enough, you can eventually find a judge to rule any way you want....
A Chicago judge amazingly rules that grant money can be mandatory - Hot Air
"A federal judge has ruled Attorney General Jeff Sessions cannot follow through with his threat to withhold public safety grant money to Chicago and other so-called sanctuary cities for refusing his order to impose tough immigration policies.
U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber on Friday granted Chicago’s request for a temporary “nationwide” injunction. That means the Justice Department can’t deny requests for the grant money until Chicago’s lawsuit against the agency is concluded. He wrote that Chicago has shown a “likelihood of success” in its arguments that Sessions overstepped his authority with the requirements."
