Posted on 04/26/2017 5:14:47 AM PDT by davikkm
Life continues to prove that so called authority figures are not always as intelligent and wise as people would like to believe. This unfortunate truth reared its ugly head once again when a California judge made the foolish decision to block President Trump’s movements and withhold funds from cities that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officers. William Orrick, thought it wise to issue an injunction that would halt the President’s administration from eliminating financial aid to sanctuary cities that are aiding and abetting criminals, therefore hindering federal immigration enforcement from doing their jobs. Such an act is disgraceful and unpatriotic.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Sanctuary cities are an abomination to this country. They are cesspools areas which wrongfully harbor illegal aliens and derail law enforcement officers. Illegals are innately parasitic, costing taxpayers billions of dollars on an annual basis. Imagine the good use those funds could be put to, if not for illegal immigrants. Those billions of dollars could be used to lower America’s national debt, fix our inner cities, etc. Cities that intentionally harbor and enable criminals, while contributing to the detriment of this country should not receive any funding from the government whatsoever.
Further research into Judge Orrick reveals his ties to former President Obama and his massive donations of $30,000 to groups that supported him. This detail explains Orrick’s decision to block the movements of the current President. It is a shame that Orrick lacked the decency to put the best interests of the country ahead of his own political agenda. However, elitists don’t care about the damage that illegal immigrants afflict on this nation because they are not affected by it. Hard working Americans are deeply plighted by illegal immigrants and as long as judges like Orrick are in power, everyone, especially the middle class, will continue to suffer.
An unelected lower court judge should not have authority to issue a national ruling without SCOTUS en banc approval.
Time to make the radical judges pay a price for their ignorance of the Constitution and rabid disregard for the law.
:: William Orrick, thought it wise to issue an injunction that would halt the President’s administration from eliminating financial aid to sanctuary cities ::
I may assume that Orrick has determined that the existing LAW is unconstitutional?
This “judge” is attempting to usurp the lawful powers of the executive branch and rule by “divine right”. That is treason by it’s proper definition; the attempted overthrow of the lawful federal government. This “judge” should be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, publicly executed.
So I am going to repeat...
Libs and conservatives have flipped positions.
Libs will be advocating for States Rights using decisions by Scalia and Roberts.
You will need to rely on the lib Judges who advocate Federal powers
This is not a slam dunk case. I think it is possible to win it using dollar amounts that dont amount to a coercive “gun to the head”. What that amount is depends on SCOTUS.
I am just curious..have you ever heard of the anti coercion and anti commandering doctrines used in States Rights cases??
“That is treason by it’s proper definition; the attempted overthrow of the lawful federal government. This “judge” should be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, publicly executed.”
+1000
There might be other avenues to achieve same goal. They definitely need to look at that because this case has merit based on doctrines espoused by our side of Scotus.
That doesnt mean trump wont win it. ...it is a gamble. I would try to find alternatives.
President Trump needs to announce that he is going to pattern his Presidency after Obama’s and simply ignore judges when the mood strikes him.
Make it all about Obama citing specific instances where the previous administration ignored the law and move on.
It is States rights issue.
You can call me names all you like..but you will be seeing the libs using roberts and scalia to make their point.
Anti coercion is a constitutional doctrine. ASK A LAWYER.
I say it again and again and again. If Trump were serious about getting things through, he’d have someone take everything he does to court with friendly judges before the enemy picks their judge. It’s a very simple gameplay so why isn’t he doing it?
Ask a lawyer...the first mistake. You’re dead wrong with pretty much every post you make. Congrats.
Btw...there are several lawyers on this site versed in Con. Law. Watch for the arguments..not your nonsense name calling.
Tell me me all about anti coercion and anti commandering law as it pertains to States rights
Yeah...didnt think so.
No. He simply said that the EO isn't necessary to apply the law, and that if the government lawyers' argument (in defense of the EO) is accepted, the EO isn't necessary in order to accomplish the defunding that the government lawyers argued was enabled by the EO.
This is one of those issues where the details really matter, but the public is not informed of the details.
Tangentially related, years ago there was a minor kerfuffle in the Senate over an amendment that would make English the official language of the US, and cut out the "requirement" for multi-lingual assistance, forms, etc. for routine business (translators are of course prudent when things get serious, arrest, criminal charges, and so on). Watching the Senate, one would get the impression that the multi-lingual costs are attached due to legislation, that is, there is a law somewhere that mandates it.
Turns out the mandate originates from a GWB era EO.
Similar here, but different villain. The problem is Congress, but the news is making it look like the problem is a dispute between the President and the Court. However, in this instance, if we take the government lawyers at their word, they don't need the EO to "defund" the sanctuary cities, and the judge has not stripped from them any power they claim the EO gives them.
Sanctuary Cities Cases - ND California Court Webpage
Order Re: Motions To Enjoin Section 9(A) Of Executive Order 13768 : Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO
How much of total federal funding can be withheld ..in your opinion..and pass constitutional muster if challenged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.