• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sanctuary-Cities Executive Order Is Trump’s Next Legal Train Wreck

BobTheCoward said:
I really appreciate it because I actually didn't follow this injunction. Do we know if the city seeking the injunction brought up this point? Did the attorneys for the feds say anything on this point?
Click to expand...

Yes. It was a point argued by both sides and ruled on by the judge:

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court, wrote that the president had overstepped his powers with his January executive order on immigration by tying billions of dollars in federal funding to immigration enforcement. Judge Orrick said only Congress could place such conditions on spending.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/us/judge-blocks-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
 
logger said:
It's interesting that you post something like this, you really think I believe this don't you?
Click to expand...

Oh, no. I don't think you believe this. But that's what you'd get if US conservatives had their way. The GOP is just too far to the right.

Even though I have your whole rant in my family, blacks, gays and 1 Arab.
Click to expand...

Some of your best friends are black!

This is why you leftists aren't to be compromised with, worked with or admired. You're to be defeated, because no one can work with people who are this extreme.
Click to expand...

And now you're calling me extreme again. Based on nothing, mind you. Saying that the right in the US is extreme does not make me extreme.

In fact, moderates like me are the best thing that could happen to business owners like yourself. I mean, middle-class union workers like yourself. I mean... well, I can't keep track of your claims anymore.
 
TraneWreck said:
And look at what the dumbass in chief did today (at 5:20am, no less):



He called it a "ban" again. Hahaha.

I mean, he's so amazingly stupid. Anyone who even considered casting a vote for this monumentally inept boob....
Click to expand...
It's malice tempered by idiocy and incompetence.
 
TraneWreck said:
Yes. It was a point argued by both sides and ruled on by the judge:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/us/judge-blocks-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

But the article doesn't support that.

In San Francisco’s case, the city argued that the executive order violated the Constitution by essentially trying to commandeer state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law. In practical terms, San Francisco’s filing said, forcing the city to cooperate with federal immigration agents would threaten public safety by breaking trust between local authorities and immigrants, who the city argued would become less likely to report crimes or serve as witnesses.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address if the city objected because Congress didn't do it. Their argument seems to be Congress can't do it either.
 
TraneWreck said:
And look at what the dumbass in chief did today (at 5:20am, no less):



He called it a "ban" again. Hahaha.

I mean, he's so amazingly stupid. Anyone who even considered casting a vote for this monumentally inept boob....
Click to expand...

Oh bloody hell!

For some weird reason Trump keeps thinking that threatening to take judges to court will terribly intimidate them in the same way that Trump terribly intimidated other people when he took them to court.

I still do not think that Trump has realized that since federal judges are already in court day in and day out for the last several years, then taking these judges to court when the judges have the law on their side, will not actually intimidate these judges.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But the article doesn't support that.



That doesn't address if the city objected because Congress didn't do it. Their argument seems to be Congress can't do it either.
Click to expand...

Bob, you can google the transcripts and briefs and read them. The Complain from San Francisco is based on the notion that the Executive order is Unconstitutional in large part because it contradicts specific funding clauses approved by Congress:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2017cv00485/307351/1

Line 60 states it pretty clearly.

Why is this such a concern that you need to focus on it, but not enough of a concern to read the court documents? That ruling is not something a Circuit court would land on sua sponte and it's one of the more obvious issues with the Executive Order.
 
TraneWreck said:
Bob, you can google the transcripts and briefs and read them. The Complain from San Francisco is based on the notion that the Executive order is Unconstitutional in large part because it contradicts specific funding clauses approved by Congress:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2017cv00485/307351/1

Line 60 states it pretty clearly.

Why is this such a concern that you need to focus on it, but not enough of a concern to read the court documents? That ruling is not something a Circuit court would land on sua sponte and it's one of the more obvious issues with the Executive Order.
Click to expand...

You seemed like you were in a sharing mood so I thought I would just ask. It does seem weird the NYT article didn't actually address that the city made that argument, and what the Feds countered with.
 
Resume said:
From which country?
Click to expand...

He's a Lebanese Christian. Feel better?

Conservative but can't stand Trump or feels that he has to point out what Trump is wrong about. We've had some good conversation.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
He's a Lebanese Christian. Feel better?

Conservative but can't stand Trump or feels that he has to point out what Trump is wrong about. We've had some good conversation.
Click to expand...
Some Lebanese christians do not self-indentify as Arab. How about this fella?



ETA: Feel better than what?
 
The decision was panned by the White House, which released a statement from press secretary Sean Spicer’s office declaring that “today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation.”

“This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge,” the White House statement continued. “Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping."
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/trump-tweets-sanctuary-cities-237620

Actually it does the exact opposite because it shows that the American judiciary is capable of constraining the authority of this pathetic faux strongman and his actions through perfectly legal means, even if it's only temporarily.

If the judges were unable or simply unwilling to hold the President to account, and make sure they don't act in contravention of laws and regulations, that would signal a weak rule of law.

Other liberal democratic countries might be able to elected governments that are more powerful and suffer far less judicial scrutiny, including a very weak or non-existent forms of judicial review, but it's quite clear that Americans are intellectually and culturally not fit for such forms of government and it's only reasonable for their judges to save them from themselves.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom