lol Trump sanctuary city order blocked

[JSt0rm]

As much as I love seeing yet an other federal judge kick Trump in his tiny balls...on this one, I actually agree with him. (at least sort of)

Sanctuary cities who refuse to help enforce federal immigration law SHOULD lose any/all federal funding. Of course, as was mentioned above...that could open a can of worms on the marijuana issue in states that have legalized pot...BUT, in spite of the "sanctuary city/state" declaration from some cities/states, AFAIK, none of them have actually passed laws legalizing illegal immigration.

we have 1 million illegals in los angeles county. Exactly how much of the local budget do you expect us to pay to tickle trumps fetish?

 

[tweaker2]

IMO, Trump could care less about sanctuary cities and "criminal illegal immigrants" flooding across the border. He, being a big time businessman himself knows for a fact that these folks are good for those businesses that can exploit them.

All of this "Build a Wall and Make Mexico Pay For It" and "Stop the Muslims Terrorists from Immigrating" and "Sanctuary Cities are Illegal" is simply Trump sucking up to his base. Between that and his overly inflated ego, there's nothing in him that speaks to him being so passionate about these issues that he would stake his presidency on them.

He's throwing surplus veggie MRE's at his followers and calling it prime beef, classic Trump at his finest, and what's so amusing is that his followers are eating it all up and loving the taste, texture and aroma as if it really was what he says it is.

 

[1prophet]

I'm curious if any of these degenerates have ever been negatively affected in life by illegal aliens or muslims or other lower class browns they seek to lord it over.

Only thing negatively affected is old school Democrat inspired Labor Laws, Wages, and Unions so businesses can get their near slave labor, while useful idiots pretending to be liberal democrats who support such self defeating actions so they can put a check mark on their social justice warrior cards while pretending to care about middle class America and living wages like real Democrat Liberals in the past.

Just because Trump is going about this all wrong doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

 

[agent00f]

Only thing negatively affected is old school Democrat inspired Labor Laws, Wages, and Unions so businesses can get their near slave labor, while useful idiots pretending to be liberal democrats who support such self defeating actions so they can put a check mark on their social justice warrior cards while pretending to care about middle class America and living wages like real Democrat Liberals in the past.

Just because Trump is going about this all wrong doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

The curiosity seems sufficiently answered by such worthless talking points.

 

[Jaskalas]

So this Judge rules that a President has no authority to stipulate requirements for federal funding.
Wouldn't obeying the law, and not abetting criminal activity fall under existing stipulations?

It's a running joke that federal funding is such a tangled web that simply touching that money makes you a felon via contradictory rules and regulations. I'm really taken back by the notion that sanctuary cities are not already in violation of the law in some form or another.

 

[fskimospy]

“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” Orrick wrote.

Well maybe congress will act and place new conditions on federal funds.

That's probably unconstitutional too as seen in the original ACA ruling that said states could opt out of expanding Medicaid. The Feds can't retroactively put new conditions on funding already awarded.

 

[fskimospy]

So this Judge rules that a President has no authority to stipulate requirements for federal funding.
Wouldn't obeying the law, and not abetting criminal activity fall under existing stipulations?

It's a running joke that federal funding is such a tangled web that simply touching that money makes you a felon via contradictory rules and regulations. I'm really taken back by the notion that sanctuary cities are not already in violation of the law in some form or another.

What law do you think they are in violation of?

 

[pcgeek11]

Exactly. States are under no compulsion & have no jurisdiction to enforce federal law. If the Feds want to apprehend immigration violators in sanctuary cities they have to do it themselves.

I'm pretty sure they want

That's probably unconstitutional too as seen in the original ACA ruling that said states could opt out of expanding Medicaid. The Feds can't retroactively put new conditions on funding already awarded.

Not retroactively... Future grants. Just like what has been done in the past with highway funds during the 55 MPH speed limits years ago.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...vernment-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-29/news/mn-8085_1_speed-limit

What was stated as a basis for the withholding of DOJ Grants:

Sessions specifically said that as condition for receiving Justice Department grants, jurisdictions will be required to certify compliance with 8 U.S. Code Section 1373 – which says federal, state or local officials may not restrict the exchange with federal immigration officers of information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

"This policy is entirely consistent with the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration … It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants," Sessions said.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm pretty sure they want


Not retroactively... Future grants. Just like what has been done in the past with highway funds during the 55 MPH speed limits years ago.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...vernment-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-29/news/mn-8085_1_speed-limit

What was stated as a basis for the withholding of DOJ Grants:

Sessions specifically said that as condition for receiving Justice Department grants, jurisdictions will be required to certify compliance with 8 U.S. Code Section 1373 – which says federal, state or local officials may not restrict the exchange with federal immigration officers of information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

"This policy is entirely consistent with the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration … It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants," Sessions said.

Yep, and the Great White Conservative God, AKA Ronnie Rayguns, threatened to withhold federal highway money over the drinking age...

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/21/nyregion/reagan-calls-for-drinking-age-of-21.html

 

[fskimospy]

I'm pretty sure they want


Not retroactively... Future grants. Just like what has been done in the past with highway funds during the 55 MPH speed limits years ago.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...vernment-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-29/news/mn-8085_1_speed-limit

What was stated as a basis for the withholding of DOJ Grants:

Sessions specifically said that as condition for receiving Justice Department grants, jurisdictions will be required to certify compliance with 8 U.S. Code Section 1373 – which says federal, state or local officials may not restrict the exchange with federal immigration officers of information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

"This policy is entirely consistent with the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration … It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants," Sessions said.

Right, Sessions's order basically changed nothing from what was already going on. It was totally toothless.

They could certainly make future grants contingent on some sort of greater cooperation, although they would have to be very careful not to run afoul of the anti-commandeering principle.

 

[Vic]

So this Judge rules that a President has no authority to stipulate requirements for federal funding.
Wouldn't obeying the law, and not abetting criminal activity fall under existing stipulations?

It's a running joke that federal funding is such a tangled web that simply touching that money makes you a felon via contradictory rules and regulations. I'm really taken back by the notion that sanctuary cities are not already in violation of the law in some form or another.

It's all in the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land. Only Congress has powers over appropriations. While the sanctuary cities are just exercising their semi-sovereignty derived from the 10th amendment.
Congress does have the ability to act here. I doubt that they will.

 

[brandonbull]

Yep, and the Great White Conservative God, AKA Ronnie Rayguns, threatened to withhold federal highway money over the drinking age...

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/21/nyregion/reagan-calls-for-drinking-age-of-21.html

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.

 

[brycejones]

Lol at the 'conservatives' in this thread.

 

[Pens1566]

So, to round up:

1) He rants in a tweet against the wrong court
2) He again questions the judicial branch and it's legitimacy
3) He doesn't understand that a different branch controls funding
4) He was for the 10th before he was against it

I'm sure I missed some.

 

[fskimospy]

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/

Because North Carolina was in violation of federal law. If you can point to what federal law sanctuary cities are in violation of then you will have a strong case for pulling funding there. See this is the difference between Obama and Trump. Because Obama was actually competent his administration came prepared with a solid legal rationale behind their threat while Trump just rants incoherently.

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

Do you guys really not get how damaging it is to our country when you try to declare the judiciary illegitimate every time it rules in a way you don't like? Science says things you don't like so science is biased against conservatives. The news reports things you don't like so the news is biased against conservatives. BLS reports numbers you don't like so now the BLS is biased against conservatives. Judges make rulings you don't like so now judges are biased against conservatives.

Where does it end? Why can't the answer just be that conservatives are wrong sometimes and not the victim of an endless conspiracy?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Actively denying people their civil rights is entirely different than passive non-cooperation with ICE. Sanctuary cities simply don't require that local LEO cooperate so they don't bother.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because North Carolina was in violation of federal law. If you can point to what federal law sanctuary cities are in violation of then you will have a strong case for pulling funding there. See this is the difference between Obama and Trump. Because Obama was actually competent his administration came prepared with a solid legal rationale behind their threat while Trump just rants incoherently.



Do you guys really not get how damaging it is to our country when you try to declare the judiciary illegitimate every time it rules in a way you don't like? Science says things you don't like so science is biased against conservatives. The news reports things you don't like so the news is biased against conservatives. BLS reports numbers you don't like so now the BLS is biased against conservatives. Judges make rulings you don't like so now judges are biased against conservatives.

Where does it end? Why can't the answer just be that conservatives are wrong sometimes and not the victim of an endless conspiracy?

But they're so persecuted!

 

[Pens1566]

If you really think about it, it's quite impressive that he keeps stepping on his own dick every (other?) day. It says something about how flexible he is, if you believe first hand descriptions of lil' Trump.

 

[Genx87]

“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” Orrick wrote.

Well maybe congress will act and place new conditions on federal funds.

We get to see how vindictive the GOP and Drumpf can be.

 

[fskimospy]

We get to see how vindictive the GOP and Drumpf can be.

Again it probably won't matter how vindictive the GOP and Trump want to be, even if Congress acts it's probably unconstitutional to strip funding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.9564e88fa140

It is worth noting that if Congress were to pass a law stripping sanctuary cities of all their federal funding unless they help facilitate federal deportation efforts, it would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), which forbids funding conditions so coercive that they amount to a “gun to the head” of a state or local government. While the exact limits of this principle are debatable, denying a state all federal grants for the purpose of compelling cooperation with federal deportation policy surely qualifies, if anything does.

 

[Commodus]

The hilarious irony in this thread: the conservatives crying about law and order... with the Trump administration.

I mean, they don't understand how the law works in this case to start with, but if they were actually consistent about insisting that politicians honor the law, they should be demanding that Trump be impeached. Guess breaking the law only matters when it's the "other side" doing it, huh?

 

[hal2kilo]

Only thing negatively affected is old school Democrat inspired Labor Laws, Wages, and Unions so businesses can get their near slave labor, while useful idiots pretending to be liberal democrats who support such self defeating actions so they can put a check mark on their social justice warrior cards while pretending to care about middle class America and living wages like real Democrat Liberals in the past.

Just because Trump is going about this all wrong doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

So we will be seeing a lot of white people out in the fields soon?

 

[dainthomas]

So this Judge rules that a President has no authority to stipulate requirements for federal funding.
Wouldn't obeying the law, and not abetting criminal activity fall under existing stipulations?

It's a running joke that federal funding is such a tangled web that simply touching that money makes you a felon via contradictory rules and regulations. I'm really taken back by the notion that sanctuary cities are not already in violation of the law in some form or another.

What's funny is that sanctuary cities (well, most cities likely) are a net gain to the treasury. It's the vast swaths of sagebrush, corn fields, and rolling hills that Trump supporters inhabit that are a net drain. So basically, Trump supports giving citizens even less of their own money back if they don't pay to do the federal governments' job for them.

Supporting this position should preclude someone from using the words "states rights" or "small government" ever again.

 

[brycejones]

Supporting this position should preclude someone from using the words "states rights" or "small government" ever again.

Very few conservatives are actually for small government or states rights. Those are just used as code words for "impose the things I think are important on everyone else".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.