lol Trump sanctuary city order blocked

[hal2kilo]

It's taken a long time to get a consistent behavior down with the Trump admin, but a key characteristic which judges are using is Trump's big mouth and Spicer backing up his untenable positions. Ironically this behavior gives judges ammunition as to intent. The DOJ can argue to the courts that orders mean nothing while Trump clearly claims this action is based on intent to harm. The judge noted this as "schizophrenic" behavior and shot this this order down. Likewise the inability to control himself left Trump open to rejection of his immigration order.

As perverse as it may seem we really need Trump to keep Twittering his nonsense because they form a current basis to ascertain intent. Spicer likewise.

His inability to get his little fingers off the Twitter, or his bigly pie hole shut is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

His inability to get his little fingers off the Twitter, or his bigly pie hole shut is the gift that keeps on giving.

Yes, it's the best defense we have. Just saw a piece on Trump going irate once again and saying "see you at the SCOTUS". The most hilarious outcome of that would be for the Court to refuse to hear the case and let the lower court ruling stand. Really they should or all the court will do is review Trump and while he may not understand it, he is not the alpha and omega.

 

[tweaker2]

Trump burns bridges and expects everyone to take a flying leap over said burnt bridges to his side and kiss his ring (read rectum) because he is the omnipotent one who gets to ultimately decide the fate of anyone who disagrees with his edicts, needs and desires.

That he thinks he can do this to the courts because he lords over his AG and he gets to pick candidates for the SCOTUS is insanity defined.

Some people gotta learn the hard way, but this guy Trump with his privileged upbringing, with his arrogance, his urge to use his well honed talent of bullying as a way to persuade others to see things his way.......I mean, would you let him marry your daughter? Would you hire him to work for you and expect him to give you the respect you deserve as his boss? Would you trust him not to stab you in the back and then stab you a dozen times more to make sure you get the message the first chance he gets in order to take over your business?

Of course not. So then why is it that some folks thought he'd make a really good POTUS and STILL think he's one of, if not the greatest Prez that ever lived?

Fvck if I'll ever know.

 

[sm625]

States, cities, or corrupt judges cannot order the federal governemnt to give grants to states or cities. That is absurd.

This is a matter of black letter law, section 8 U.S.C. 1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

These cities are in violation of this law and they should be fined whatever dollar amount is equivalent to the grants they are "ordered" to be given by this dirty commie judge.

 

[alien42]

blah, blah, corrupt judges, blah blah blah, this dirty commie judge.

what is your stance in regards to law enforcement in states where marijuana has been legalized?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

States, cities, or corrupt judges cannot order the federal governemnt to give grants to states or cities. That is absurd.

This is a matter of black letter law, section 8 U.S.C. 1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

These cities are in violation of this law and they should be fined whatever dollar amount is equivalent to the grants they are "ordered" to be given by this dirty commie judge.

You realize it is congress who sets the funding right? Not the president? He gets no say. Besides it's quite frankly dangerous for one man on his own to be able to decide on a whim what does and doesn't determine what funding is allowed to continue just because he doesn't like something a city or state is doing. They can't even spell out the measure for determining compliance. That's not how it works.

 

[Pens1566]

States, cities, or corrupt judges cannot order the federal governemnt to give grants to states or cities. That is absurd.

This is a matter of black letter law, section 8 U.S.C. 1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

These cities are in violation of this law and they should be fined whatever dollar amount is equivalent to the grants they are "ordered" to be given by this dirty commie judge.

Perry Mason cracked the case!!!!11!!1! Quick, someone get this info to the FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE that clearly wasn't aware of this hidden nugget.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

States, cities, or corrupt judges cannot order the federal governemnt to give grants to states or cities. That is absurd.

This is a matter of black letter law, section 8 U.S.C. 1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

These cities are in violation of this law and they should be fined whatever dollar amount is equivalent to the grants they are "ordered" to be given by this dirty commie judge.

If I am reading reports correctly the administration could make a case for withholding funds given for the purpose of immigration compliance, however what the Admin has claimed does not include just that but federal funding as a whole, which is not something seen as proper. Congress would have to rewrite the law for blanket exclusions of money and even then that would be a whole can of worms because of intent. Just punishing for something one does not like is not a proper Constitutional use of power.

 

[fskimospy]

States, cities, or corrupt judges cannot order the federal governemnt to give grants to states or cities. That is absurd.

Of course judges can order the government to do things. Haven't you ever heard of Marbury v. Madison?

This is a matter of black letter law, section 8 U.S.C. 1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

These cities are in violation of this law and they should be fined whatever dollar amount is equivalent to the grants they are "ordered" to be given by this dirty commie judge.

1) Being in compliance with code 1373 is not a requirement of any grant that these sanctuary cities get to the best of my knowledge. Adding such a condition to grants already awarded would be unconstitutional. (NCIB vs. Sebilius)
2) I see no stipulation for fines in that code but even if that were the case, making fines equal to the amount given in grants would be seen through immediately by a judge and also found unconstitutional.
3) Section 1373 is likely unconstitutional itself. In the words of Justice Scalia, someone who I assume you think was an excellent jurist:

'federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.'

. Section 1373 certainly does this.

I would suggest reading this analysis that I have linked before:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.ee396a35a112

 

[fskimospy]

If I am reading reports correctly the administration could make a case for withholding funds given for the purpose of immigration compliance, however what the Admin has claimed does not include just that but federal funding as a whole, which is not something seen as proper. Congress would have to rewrite the law for blanket exclusions of money and even then that would be a whole can of worms because of intent. Just punishing for something one does not like is not a proper Constitutional use of power.

Even if Congress rewrote the law it would be unconstitutional as per NCIB vs. Sibelius. Congress passed the ACA, which attempted to retroactively change the rules for Medicaid grants. SCOTUS ruled they couldn't do that, a decision celebrated by conservatives at the time, all the way up until about mid-January of this year.

I wonder what changed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Even if Congress rewrote the law it would be unconstitutional as per NCIB vs. Sibelius. Congress passed the ACA, which attempted to retroactively change the rules for Medicaid grants. SCOTUS ruled they couldn't do that, a decision celebrated by conservatives at the time, all the way up until about mid-January of this year.

I wonder what changed.

Isn't the key retroactive though? It makes sense that allocated funding is one thing, but I can't see future funding being locked in forever so Congress could make future changes. From what I have read the judge in this case sees intent as the reason for blocking the order, not that it can't happen at all. Might have missed something though.

 

[brycejones]

States, cities, or corrupt judges cannot order the federal governemnt to give grants to states or cities. That is absurd.

This is a matter of black letter law, section 8 U.S.C. 1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

These cities are in violation of this law and they should be fined whatever dollar amount is equivalent to the grants they are "ordered" to be given by this dirty commie judge.

Lol I am guessing this came from Reddit or something? You never shown this level of creative bull shit before. You should give credit when you steal someone's work.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't the key retroactive though? It makes sense that allocated funding is one thing, but I can't see future funding being locked in forever so Congress could make future changes. From what I have read the judge in this case sees intent as the reason for blocking the order, not that it can't happen at all. Might have missed something though.

If Congress passed new, different statutes that had additional requirements to qualify for funding that would be one thing, and constitutional so long as those requirements weren't insane. As far as already passed statutes though no, they can't change them, even as a requirement for funding in future years. That's really exactly what the ACA was looking to do with Medicaid and SCOTUS shot that down.

 

[agent00f]

Worth mentioning that sm625 almost certainly copy pasted it from some fake news site and don't know about law or anything to argue the point, and given he does this routine clearly doesn't care. The degenerate in the previous sentence is entirely fungible with any other.

States, cities, or corrupt judges cannot order the federal governemnt to give grants to states or cities. That is absurd.

This is a matter of black letter law, section 8 U.S.C. 1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

These cities are in violation of this law and they should be fined whatever dollar amount is equivalent to the grants they are "ordered" to be given by this dirty commie judge.

 

[agent00f]

Apparently this morning Trump blasted the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for blocking his order. That's the count which will hear his case should he choose to appeal the current lower District Court decision.

This paints the absolute perfect picture of Trump & minions.

 

[sonoma1993]

Apparently this morning Trump blasted the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for blocking his order. That's the count which will hear his case should he choose to appeal the current lower District Court decision.

This paints the absolute perfect picture of Trump & minions.

Heard on the radio and saw few articles on the internet. Trump is thinking about breaking up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals since they keep turning down his executive orders.

 

[alien42]

Heard on the radio and saw few articles on the internet. Trump is thinking about breaking up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals since they keep turning down his executive orders.

Trump doesn't have the power to do that, Congress does, and that hasn't happened since 1981 IIRC.

 

[pcgeek11]

The 9th circuit does have I think the third largest overturn percentage by the SCOTUS. Nearly 80%, Seems like a pretty crappy record IMO.

 

[alien42]

The 9th circuit does have I think the third largest overturn percentage by the SCOTUS. Nearly 80%, Seems like a pretty crappy record IMO.

and then there is reality...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-ninth-circuit-have-overturn-record-close-80/

i know that's a long read, but it really does cover the facts.

 

[pcgeek11]

and then there is reality...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-ninth-circuit-have-overturn-record-close-80/

i know that's a long read, but it really does cover the facts.

I know, I read that already and it says exactly what I said above " Nearly an 80% overturn rate" or to be more exact: 9th Circuit - 79 percent. That is pretty damn close to 80 % isn't it? In my opinion it says they make crappy calls 80% of the time.

Please tell me how my post disagrees with reality as you implied?

Be specific, please.

 

[ElFenix]

It's more like a 10th of a percent since most cases are allowed to stand.


Edit: probably the fairest would be "of cases that applied to sct, how many are reversed"? And that number is fairly low as well, since sct takes only a small percentage of those. Keep in mind that sct taking a case almost certainly means some circuit is going to get reversed.* Which the stats bear out since the reversal rates for pretty much every circuit are fairly high when looked at as a % of cases taken up by sct. 9th ain't the worst.


Edit3: what would be really interesting would be some sort of agreement rating. Let's say there's 3 appeals courts, A, B, and C. A and B ruled one way, C comes along and rules the other, and sct takes up the C case on cert due to the split, and reverses C. So you have any easy to find reverse rate for C. What you don't have is an agreement rate with A and B, because those never went up on cert. And so that's not simply 1-(reversal rate).



*Pretty much the only way cases get before sct these days is splits, as shown in Rule 10:

Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

 

[pcgeek11]

The Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. Among cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it reversed about 79 percent.

The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit placed third.

6th Circuit - 87 percent;

11th Circuit - 85 percent;

9th Circuit - 79 percent;

3rd Circuit - 78 percent;

2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;

8th Circuit - 67 percent;

5th Circuit - 66 percent;

7th Circuit - 48 percent;

DC Circuit - 45 percent;

1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;

10th Circuit - 42 percent.

"Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court," Hofer wrote in his article published by the American Bar Association. "Conversely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically."

In comparing courts’ "performance," it makes more sense to compare reversal rate in terms of the ratio of cases reversed over cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, Hofer said.

 

[agent00f]

Heard on the radio and saw few articles on the internet. Trump is thinking about breaking up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals since they keep turning down his executive orders.

Everything Trump & pals do is so transparently selfish. Eg:

The 9th circuit does have I think the third largest overturn percentage by the SCOTUS. Nearly 80%, Seems like a pretty crappy record IMO.

---
It's only a mystery why so many liberals don't analyze trumpster behavior according that basic principle. Eg. someone said or did something good/bad regarding me, ergo they're the bestest/worstest person ever.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The messiah wanted to do the same but over a bathroom bill.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-bill-feds-thre/

I guess when you have raised $200k in support of Obama, you will make up some ruling against Trump.

Hey Brandon, sorry for the necro.
I’m wondering what are your thoughts regarding the President saying effectively “he is the messiah”

I am the chosen one’: Trump again plays on messianic claims as he embraces ‘King of Israel’ title

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...he-embraces-king-israel-title/?outputType=amp