• 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

Any reason why the Congressional Republicans won't do this now? I haven't looked at poll numbers, but I'd wager it's a pretty popular idea among Republican voters.
 
logger said:
Here's a great article explaining where we're at.

https://www.conservativereview.com/...s-with-sanctuary-cities-will-congress-respond
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks.

What an absolutely awful legal analysis, though. Unfortunately, I don't have time to address it at the moment, but the guy who wrote the article is just plain wrong. And it isn't really much of an analysis at all, given that it took a whole bunch of political stuff to get through before ever getting to the legal part, which was spotty at best.

The core of the problem appears to be (I'll look later to confirm, this is after a quick skim) that the order targets funding that has nothing to do with immigration enforcement. If a President can cut off highway funds because he doesn't like immigration, or any other, policy, he pretty much has dictatorial powers. Trump would probably like that, but it never ends well.
 
Spindrift said:
But the right has all the power now. How can this happen?
Click to expand...


An overriding and undying persecution complex.

Meadmaker said:
There's something I find irritating. I read a couple of articles about the ruling, and neither addressed the law at all. They talked about it in political terms. Trump wants this. Activists want that. This team won. That team lost.

Fine, fine, but.....what is the law?
Click to expand...


Isn't this a bit like reading an article about someone being arrested for murder and complaining that it doesn't say anything about laws concerning murder?
 
Meadmaker said:
There's something I find irritating. I read a couple of articles about the ruling, and neither addressed the law at all. They talked about it in political terms. Trump wants this. Activists want that. This team won. That team lost.

Fine, fine, but.....what is the law?


I'm guessing, from content in this thread, that the ruling was based on the idea that Congress passed a law that said, "The federal government will give cities/counties/local entities money" and Trump's executive order attached strings to that, "i.e. We won't give them any money unless they do what we want." If that's the case, then it's pretty clearly unconstitutional, but it would be nice if they actually covered that sort of thing in the articles.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. But I find that's the same for much reporting on legal cases. It's like when we hear "we will be appealing the judgement" but no mention what point of law is being appealed. Lots of people seem to think that if you get a judgement you don't like you can have another go at it!

So if the Trump administration is going to appeal this what is the point of law that they believe either hasn't been addressed or addressed incorrectly?
 
Last edited:
logger said:
They have recourse and are moving forward with that. This judge has thrown out years of precedent and the very same thing liberals have argued to keep the states from protecting their own borders. It will be reversed and quickly.
Click to expand...

I notice you didn't answer the question.

As usual.

logger said:
Now that is hilarious!
Click to expand...

Considering how much virtual ink you spent telling us how much you were winning, yes, you losing so much is very funny.
 
Trump is talking about breaking up the 9th Circuit Court after the judge dared resist the will of the all-mighty God-Emperor.

President Trump is considering breaking up the 9th Circuit Court after a federal district court judge in its jurisdiction blocked his order to withhold funding from "sanctuary cities."

In a Wednesday interview with the Washington Examiner, Trump said "there are many people who want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous."
Click to expand...


Yes, "many people", his most popular source of information.
 
logger said:
Here's a great article explaining where we're at.

https://www.conservativereview.com/...s-with-sanctuary-cities-will-congress-respond
Click to expand...

I've had a chance now to take a look at the article, but I've decided not to do a lengthy analysis of it, just because I doubt anyone, including you, is all that interested in it. If I'm wrong about that, I can comment more.

The article, for those who don't want to click the link, is basically a polemic against liberal judges. It doesn't quote from the ruling or even provide a link to it. It makes some vague references to it.

My favorite part was a set of enumerated points about the ruling. After some introductory paragraphs about how important this all is, the author provides this:

article said:
A number of observations are in order:

1. Judge Orrick is a liberal Obama donor who previously blocked the release of Planned Parenthood videos.
Click to expand...

Fantastic. If anyone is writing a textbook about logical fallacies, then can use this example in their chapter on "poisoning the well". It is rarely as blatant or obvious. It distills the essence of the fallacy to its pure form.

The rest of the analysis is of the same caliber. There are errors of fact, and errors of logic.

The one point that I think could possibly have been correct and worthy of comment would be an argument about whether or not there was a live case of controversy before the court, which would affect standing. On that point, perhaps a case could be made, but the article doesn't bother with any justification or reference to the ruling, but merely asserts that the judge erred, with no defense.


I still cannot say whether I agree with or disagree with the ruling, because I still haven't read the ruling or any description of it with enough content to understand the essence of the ruling. However, from little hints here and there, it seems to me that Trump was trying to say that we weren't going to spend money in the manner that the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, provides for. He can't do that, so the ruling is probably ok. I can't be sure, because news organizations don't see fit to cover the actual law when describing legal rulings, but that is not all that uncommon.
 
Meadmaker said:
I still cannot say whether I agree with or disagree with the ruling, because I still haven't read the ruling or any description of it with enough content to understand the essence of the ruling. However, from little hints here and there, it seems to me that Trump was trying to say that we weren't going to spend money in the manner that the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, provides for. He can't do that, so the ruling is probably ok. I can't be sure, because news organizations don't see fit to cover the actual law when describing legal rulings, but that is not all that uncommon.
Click to expand...

Here's Lawfare's analysis.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/case-su...wide-injunction-against-trumps-sanctuary-city
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom