Trump losing Sanctuary City battle?

These Federal judges keep on beating Trump up.

It looks like Trump trying to remove federal funding from sanctuary cities for non-compliance is unconstitutional.

www.buzzfeed.com...


I just don't see how trump is breaking a law for cities breaking the law.

Whole lot of law-breaking going on it seems.

So if he isn't allowed to pull federal funding, how else do you punish cities that refuse to obey immigration or other laws?

It seems that everyone can do whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

A federal judge has no authority to demand and require the federal government to disperse grant money to anyone, anywhere, any time. If a federal judge had that power the cities and states would constantly be in court demanding the federal treasury be emptied into their accounts.

Okay then, remove all stipulation wording and announce ALL grants to ALL cities and states are now stopped. Be sure to mention this judges ruling to all the non-sanctuary cities and states that just lost funding.

a reply to: Idreamofme

Amazing isn't it?

A Federal judge you who got his position after bundling over 200k to get Obama elected?


Nothing lawful about this decision at all, purely a rogue judge dishonoring his oath!


Do you want to live in a lawless society? Because this is what judges like this are promoting.....

a reply to: seeker1963

Yea that's what I mean. What else is there to do when cities or States go rogue?

Soon there won't be a United States of anything.

I gotta hand it to Trump haters.

Using the law to break the law, and keep money coming in when they intentionally disregard the law.

Tha'ts a special kind something.

But I guess it IS constitutional for these cities to just ignore federal law?

I don't know what to say anymore, I really don't.

originally posted by: vor78
But I guess it IS constitutional for these cities to just ignore federal law?

I don't know what to say anymore, I really don't.

According to them it is.

Which is a total bastardization of law.

If every city across the country declared themselves Gun Friendly Zones/Gun sanctuary Cities.

They would not stand for it for one second.

a reply to: neo96

If it stands up to further court scrutiny, sure, why not? If they can have their 'sanctuary cities', I guess conservatives can just ignore the law and do it, too, on social issues that we support. Fair is fair, right?

Of course, that's never going to happen, nor should it, at least if we're going to have a society of laws. The liberal judiciary is out of control and has completely thrown logic and reason out the window in the interest of partisanship.

a reply to: Idreamofme

This topic is really a moot point because Gorsuch's appointment to the SCOTUS means that Trump's travel ban and crackdown on sanctuary cities are inevitable.

A better, more relevant question would be:

How much longer until Trump succeeds in dismantling sanctuary cities?

so the judicial is going to tell the congress what their budget can and cannot do?

Rule Of Law

I'm by no means a fan of sanctuary cities or the unconscionable hypocrisy, crime, corruption and exploitation that characterizes illegal immigration in general, but Judge Orrick's injunction was issued in light of numerous key issues that do seem to put President Trump's executive order in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever one's opinion of sanctuary cities may be, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the executive order does not comply with it, then it is invalid.

If so, and that does appear to be the case, then the President is going to have to use a different approach, and when it comes to spending, that means Congress.

Given the utterly disgusting track record of Congressional Democrats and Republicans on illegal immigration, that's not encouraging, but if President Trump truly cares about this issue, it's incumbent upon him to find a legal and constitutional way to work things out.

The solution to lawlessness is not more lawlessness.

originally posted by: Majic
The solution to lawlessness is not more lawlessness.

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems to me that lawlessness is working out quite well for one side of the argument and apparently, the judiciary thinks that's a perfectly acceptable solution.

Where was this judge when the illegality of sanctuary cities was enacted?

Refusal of border recognition is a hostile act. sanctuary status is a claim that said geographic areas does not have a border. They are making a claim against the nation state that they are not within the borders of the nation state. A nation state has defined borders.

originally posted by: Majic
...but if President Trump truly cares about this issue, it's incumbent upon him to find a legal and constitutional way to work things out.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Trump is a CEO, and he acts like one. But the governmental equivalent of CEO is "dictator" or "absolute monarch." If he had put experienced advisers around him who knew how to run things through government and if he listened to them, he would have had far less trouble getting what he wants.

I never thought that the tactics he advocated in "Art of the Deal" were particularly good. They were workable if you were a trust fund baby and worth a lot of money, but for the rest of us, not so good.

He'll probably get a lot of today's Executive Orders rolled back, and the "tax plan" is probably going to be a mess (given that nobody seems to know they were supposed to have one to present tomorrow.)

a reply to: Idreamofme

All those Left Leaning Obstructionists Judges will be Out of a Job during this coming Year , Congress Will Make Sure of that , and President Trump Will Finally be able to Fix this Dysfunctional Country we All have been Living through for the Last 8 Years .

originally posted by: Idreamofme
These Federal judges keep on beating Trump up.

It looks like Trump trying to remove federal funding from sanctuary cities for non-compliance is unconstitutional.

www.buzzfeed.com...

This is a judge in name only (JINO?) In reality it's a political activist appointed by Obama. As planned.

I just don't see how trump is breaking a law for cities breaking the law.

He isn't.

Whole lot of law-breaking going on it seems.

Yes, from the left.

So if he isn't allowed to pull federal funding, how else do you punish cities that refuse to obey immigration or other laws?

Technically his job is not to punish. It is however the laws passed by Congress that the sanctuary cities are ignoring on one hand, but with the other are demanding Congressional dollars.

edit: removed discretionary and bureaucracy.

It seems that everyone can do whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

Like I said, activists appointed by Obama, as planned.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Bwhwhwaaaaa!

JINO's !!!!!!

Love it.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Majic
...but if President Trump truly cares about this issue, it's incumbent upon him to find a legal and constitutional way to work things out.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Trump is a CEO, and he acts like one. But the governmental equivalent of CEO is "dictator" or "absolute monarch."

Know much about corporate structure? A corporation's CEO is responsible to the corporation's stockholders. If enough of the stockholders are unhappy with the CEO's performance they can have him dismissed. Not really anything like an absolute monarch.

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: seeker1963

Yea that's what I mean. What else is there to do when cities or States go rogue?

Soon there won't be a United States of anything.

Empowering local government implicitly means giving them the ability to tell DC to go to hell.

I guess you're not a states rights fan?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Idreamofme

This topic is really a moot point because Gorsuch's appointment to the SCOTUS means that Trump's travel ban and crackdown on sanctuary cities are inevitable.

A better, more relevant question would be:

How much longer until Trump succeeds in dismantling sanctuary cities?

His travel ban no longer matters. It was a temporary ban to get other vetting measures in place. By the time the courts handle it, we'll be past the date where the ban would have expired anyways. We're really close to that date already.

Yet, Trump still doesn't have his followup in place.