Judge blocks Trump' 'sanctuary city' order

[Farmer77]

Judge blocks Trump 'sanctuary city' funding threat order 

A US judge in San Fancisco has placed a preliminary injunction on President Donald Trump's executive order vowing to restrict federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities that do not comply with immigration enforcement orders.

On Tuesday, San Franciso and Santa Clara County won a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the executive order signed January 25.

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

A little more in depth article:

JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ORDER ON SANCTUARY CITY FUNDING 

[Dark_Grey]

Interesting. The (San Fransico,) judge ruled that the federal funds in question were not clearly defined

Quote

“Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves,” Orrick wrote.

but

Quote

Justice Department lawyer Chad Readler told the judge that the executive order would only apply to three programs administered by the DOJ or the Department of Homeland Security, "a very narrow range of funding," Readler told the judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Readler reportedly said that San Francisco doesn't currently receive funds from those programs, but that Santa Clara County receives about $1 million.

It sounds like we are talking about a relatively small amount of funding...unless I missed something here

[Farmer77]

Just now, Dark_Grey said:

Interesting. The (San Fransico,) judge ruled that the federal funds in question were not clearly defined

but

It sounds like we are talking about a relatively small amount of funding...unless I missed something here

Yeah legally the administration can only withhold funding which has to do with programs directly related to whatever the city/state is refusing to do. I dont think Trump and co. knew that when they started waving that funding around as a big stick. His supporters certainly didnt as evidenced by this board. 

[Dark_Grey]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah legally the administration can only withhold funding which has to do with programs directly related to whatever the city/state is refusing to do. I dont think Trump and co. knew that when they started waving that funding around as a big stick. His supporters certainly didnt as evidenced by this board. 

I agree. Trump definitely "sues first and asks questions later". He's going to be bumping against legal walls on all sides like a pinball as he learns the limits of Presidential power.

[Keel M.]

I live in one of those sanctuary cities and our mayor has gone to talk with the president. We'll see how far he gets.... My guess is not far at all.

[PersonFromPorlock]

My suggestion all along has been that the feds should offer illegals a choice of being deported, or exiled to a sanctuary city.

The judge's reasoning doesn't seem too bad on a first reading, but I'm not sure it will create much trouble for Trump since he can ask Congress to change the law so that he can do the things he's now prohibited from doing.

[+and-then]

52 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Interesting. The (San Fransico,) judge ruled that the federal funds in question were not clearly defined

but

It sounds like we are talking about a relatively small amount of funding...unless I missed something here

 

That's not the point, old son.  The POINT is that the Left has decided, through their lawless judiciary appointments, to hamstring every executive action of this president.  This is a blatant violation of the Supremacy clause of the Constitution.  

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

As long as the president refuses to push back with vigor, they'll continue to get away with this.  Let's say that he allows each example of such violations to wend their way through the courts and everyone is set aside legally.  This still sets up a Constitutional crisis in the future because what is happening in Trump's presidency is the abolition, wholesale, of all customs of fair play and comity among the branches, executive, legislative and judicial.  Les say that (God forbid) Chuck Schumer is the next president.  The Dems regain the Senate but the "conservatives" (what a joke) retain the House.  So Chucky the elder has divided government to deal with and decides to go the route of his beloved predecessor, BH Obama.  He begins signing EO's with abandon and suddenly most of his directives, based solidly in law and tradition, are ambushed and set aside for judicial review in Deep Red states by simple appellate judges.  Unless I miss my guess, the Chuckmeister will have NONE of that and will override tradition, yet again, and simply demand enforcement through his executive power, making some high-sounding but an ultimately empty case for national security or some such.  (sound familiar?)  So we'd have a direct match-up between Judicial and Executive and it wouldn't be pretty.  See how that works?  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  But we both know that the screamers for justice on the Left will be in the streets over it.  And eventually, they gonna have compney.  

[toast]

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

He's going to be bumping against legal walls on all sides like a pinball as he learns the limits of Presidential power.

Because of his very own intellectual limit/s.

[+and-then]

27 minutes ago, PersonFromPorlock said:

My suggestion all along has been that the feds should offer illegals a choice of being deported, or exiled to a sanctuary city.

The judge's reasoning doesn't seem too bad on a first reading, but I'm not sure it will create much trouble for Trump since he can ask Congress to change the law so that he can do the things he's now prohibited from doing.

 

The reason that can't be allowed is that it is a blatant nullification of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  No different than a bunch of red states deciding that they'd ignore stricter gun laws that were passed by some future liberal president who had unified government, duly elected in the Electoral college.  It gets down to respect for the rule of our laws.  When one side chooses not to play nice, it all can go to hell (literally) pretty fast.  So when Trump has had enough of a minor judicial APPOINTMENT (no less) exercising veto power over his presidential orders, he can decide to ignore those appointees and demand his EO's be followed under threat of legal sanction.  Eventually, the USSC would decide the matter but until then, we'd have a damned mess on our hands and it could have lasting, negative repercussions.

[The Caspian Hare]

If it's grant money from DEpt of Justice then the DOJ (and hence their boss the president) can say what the money has to be used for. If it's federal money specifically allocated by Congress to the states then congress can put conditions on it and the president can't arbitrarily deny it but he can ask for certain conditions in the next budget.

[ellapenella]

2 hours ago, and then said:

That's not the point, old son.  The POINT is that the Left has decided, through their lawless judiciary appointments, to hamstring every executive action of this president.  This is a blatant violation of the Supremacy clause of the Constitution.  

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

As long as the president refuses to push back with vigor, they'll continue to get away with this.  Let's say that he allows each example of such violations to wend their way through the courts and everyone is set aside legally.  This still sets up a Constitutional crisis in the future because what is happening in Trump's presidency is the abolition, wholesale, of all customs of fair play and comity among the branches, executive, legislative and judicial.  Les say that (God forbid) Chuck Schumer is the next president.  The Dems regain the Senate but the "conservatives" (what a joke) retain the House.  So Chucky the elder has divided government to deal with and decides to go the route of his beloved predecessor, BH Obama.  He begins signing EO's with abandon and suddenly most of his directives, based solidly in law and tradition, are ambushed and set aside for judicial review in Deep Red states by simple appellate judges.  Unless I miss my guess, the Chuckmeister will have NONE of that and will override tradition, yet again, and simply demand enforcement through his executive power, making some high-sounding but an ultimately empty case for national security or some such.  (sound familiar?)  So we'd have a direct match-up between Judicial and Executive and it wouldn't be pretty.  See how that works?  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  But we both know that the screamers for justice on the Left will be in the streets over it.  And eventually, they gonna have compney.  

Do you think this will go  before a higher court ?

[ellapenella]

3 hours ago, Nonentity said:

I live in one of those sanctuary cities and our mayor has gone to talk with the president. We'll see how far he gets.... My guess is not far at all.

In the context of a city label, the term ‘sanctuary’ can be unnervingly misleading.

 

http://www.standunited.org/petition/stop-funding-sanctuary-cities

[Dark_Grey]

13 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

If it's grant money from DEpt of Justice then the DOJ (and hence their boss the president) can say what the money has to be used for. If it's federal money specifically allocated by Congress to the states then congress can put conditions on it and the president can't arbitrarily deny it but he can ask for certain conditions in the next budget.

If true, that's an important distinction.

15 hours ago, and then said:

That's not the point, old son.  The POINT is that the Left has decided, through their lawless judiciary appointments, to hamstring every executive action of this president.  This is a blatant violation of the Supremacy clause of the Constitution.  

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

As long as the president refuses to push back with vigor, they'll continue to get away with this.  Let's say that he allows each example of such violations to wend their way through the courts and everyone is set aside legally.  This still sets up a Constitutional crisis in the future because what is happening in Trump's presidency is the abolition, wholesale, of all customs of fair play and comity among the branches, executive, legislative and judicial.  Les say that (God forbid) Chuck Schumer is the next president.  The Dems regain the Senate but the "conservatives" (what a joke) retain the House.  So Chucky the elder has divided government to deal with and decides to go the route of his beloved predecessor, BH Obama.  He begins signing EO's with abandon and suddenly most of his directives, based solidly in law and tradition, are ambushed and set aside for judicial review in Deep Red states by simple appellate judges.  Unless I miss my guess, the Chuckmeister will have NONE of that and will override tradition, yet again, and simply demand enforcement through his executive power, making some high-sounding but an ultimately empty case for national security or some such.  (sound familiar?)  So we'd have a direct match-up between Judicial and Executive and it wouldn't be pretty.  See how that works?  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  But we both know that the screamers for justice on the Left will be in the streets over it.  And eventually, they gonna have compney.  

Crazy ol' Alex Jones alleges there is a major split happening in Government between "the patriots" and "the globalists". Within each branch and organization, the opinions of the employees vary as wildly as they do here at UM. Some intrepid employees at the NSA (allegedly) leaking the DNC emails lends credence to that theory. It's not reaching to suggest that there are old-school Americans high up in Government that may not agree with what their co-workers are going along with.

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, Dark_Grey said:

If true, that's an important distinction.

Crazy ol' Alex Jones alleges there is a major split happening in Government between "the patriots" and "the globalists". Within each branch and organization, the opinions of the employees vary as wildly as they do here at UM. Some intrepid employees at the NSA (allegedly) leaking the DNC emails lends credence to that theory. It's not reaching to suggest that there are old-school Americans high up in Government that may not agree with what their co-workers are going along with.

 

This nation is moving on an unsustainable course toward anarchy or outright dissolution and I've come to believe that it is intentional on the part of the Leftist/Marxists in DC.  I don't pretend to know much about the plans of Globalists but no one could have written a better script for them than what is playing out here and now.  They don't have to do anything except stir feces and fan the fragrance by means of a traitorous media complex.  Eventually, the only shots that would be fired would be those we aim at each other.  If it does come to that, I really hope that said media purveyors at all levels will experience that story up close and personally.  They certainly have earned the thrill.

[Farmer77]

Just now, and then said:

This nation is moving on an unsustainable course toward anarchy or outright dissolution and I've come to believe that it is intentional on the part of the Leftist/Marxists in DC.  I don't pretend to know much about the plans of Globalists but no one could have written a better script for them than what is playing out here and now.  They don't have to do anything except stir feces and fan the fragrance by means of a traitorous media complex.  Eventually, the only shots that would be fired would be those we aim at each other.  If it does come to that, I really hope that said media purveyors at all levels will experience that story up close and personally.  They certainly have earned the thrill.

You're half right. Where you go wrong is laying the blame squarely on leftists its a bipartisan effort which knows no political boundaries. 

[Dark_Grey]

13 minutes ago, and then said:

This nation is moving on an unsustainable course toward anarchy or outright dissolution and I've come to believe that it is intentional on the part of the Leftist/Marxists in DC.  I don't pretend to know much about the plans of Globalists but no one could have written a better script for them than what is playing out here and now.  They don't have to do anything except stir feces and fan the fragrance by means of a traitorous media complex.  Eventually, the only shots that would be fired would be those we aim at each other.  If it does come to that, I really hope that said media purveyors at all levels will experience that story up close and personally.  They certainly have earned the thrill.

A reporter taking a brick to the head during the Ferguson riots will be peanuts in comparison.

Globalism is the intention to homogenize everything. One religion, one cinnamon colored race, maybe a handful of massive global corporations to sell us goods. Whenever Soros comes up in conversation and the eye-rolling begins, I encourage them to check out his website. His goals are clearly laid out there and in his biography. He's not trying to hide anything. For crying out loud, his organization is called the "Open Societies Foundations".

Quote

Open Society Foundations financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media.

ANTIFA, BLM...you know, "civil society groups".

Edited April 26, 2017 by Dark_Grey

[AnchorSteam]

18 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

I agree. Trump definitely "sues first and asks questions later". He's going to be bumping against legal walls on all sides like a pinball as he learns the limits of Presidential power.

Hold on there.

Trump is proclaiming that the existing Federal Law on immigration must be obeyed.

A crack-pot Judge is ruling that the Law does not have to be followed. He even omitted the phrase "To the extent consistent with the Law" from his ruling. 

Pretty bogus, if you ask me.

[Dark_Grey]

9 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

He even omitted the phrase "To the extent consistent with the Law" from his ruling.

Is that so? Is this an "obstruction of justice" or does that term not apply here?

[AnchorSteam]

6 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Is that so? Is this an "obstruction of justice" or does that term not apply here?

Those words were in Trump's executive order. The Judge is pretending they weren't in there to make his ruling look better. 

This Judge is a cheater and a Political hack that wants to make a name for himself.

Edited April 26, 2017 by AnchorSteam

[Farmer77]

Just now, AnchorSteam said:

Those words were in Trump's executive order. The Judge is pretending they weren't in there to make his ruling look better. 

This Judge is a cheater and a Political hack.

So if that truly is the case then the supreme court will side with trump. 

[AnchorSteam]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

So if that truly is the case then the supreme court will side with trump. 

They pretty much have to, but why should they have to?

I don't even think this ruling can actually do anything. Another tempest in a Teapot. 

[Dark_Grey]

5 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Those words were in Trump's executive order. The Judge is pretending they weren't in there to make his ruling look better. 

This Judge is a cheater and a Political hack that wants to make a name for himself.

Wow - good catch. I hope that gets more exposure

[Farmer77]

Just now, AnchorSteam said:

They pretty much have to, but why should they have to?

I don't even think this ruling can actually do anything. Another tempest in a Teapot. 

This from the ruling makes pretty good sense to me: 

The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” wrote Orrick, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves,” Orrick added.

Its just the courts doing their jobs and ensuring the precedent for dictatorship isnt set on their watch. 

[aztek]

he basically allowed CA to disobey federal law, regardless of the words he used. well if CA does not have to obey, why should trump obey someones ruling?