Judge blocks another Trump order

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a Trump administration order to withhold funding from communities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities, saying the president has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.

The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people's immigration status, he said.

The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.

In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order 'by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing.'

'The rest of the order is broader still, addressing all federal funding,' Orrick said. 'And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments.'

He said: '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.'

San Francisco and the county argued in court documents that the president did not have the authority to set conditions on the allocation of federal funds and could not force local officials to enforce federal immigration law.

They also said Trump's order applied to local governments that didn't detain immigrants for possible deportation in response to federal requests, not just those that refused to provide people's immigration status.

The Department of Justice responded that the city and county's lawsuits were premature because decisions about withholding funds and what local governments qualified as sanctuary cities had yet to be made.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-blocks-Trump-order-sanctuary-city-money.html
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Let me get this straight:

Basically, a federal judge just said it's a-ok for cities to break federal laws???

That's bull#### and that judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred. Of course it was some ####ing progbot San Francisco dope smoker appointed by Obama. Of course it was.

That judge needs to go back to McDonald's or wherever he came from.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Let me get this straight:

Basically, a federal judge just said it's a-ok for cities to break federal laws???

That's bull#### and that judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred. Of course it was some ####ing progbot San Francisco dope smoker appointed by Obama. Of course it was.

That judge needs to go back to McDonald's or wherever he came from.

It seems what was brought before the court was whether Trump had the authority to change federal spending. It would be up to the DoJ to prosecute violations of federal law. And I can't understand for the life of me why Sessions won't take action on that.
 

tommyjo

New Member
Let me get this straight:

Basically, a federal judge just said it's a-ok for cities to break federal laws???

That's bull#### and that judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred. Of course it was some ####ing progbot San Francisco dope smoker appointed by Obama. Of course it was.

That judge needs to go back to McDonald's or wherever he came from.

Jesus Christ...

1. learn to read English

2. take a freaking HS course on US govt...try to stay awake during the discussion of separations of powers...

or...

Please take your motorhome over the border and just keep on going...you obviously have no idea how our govt works nor are you bothering to make ANY EFFORT AT ALL TO LEARN!! (this is why you voted for Trump...the two of you have so much ignorance in common!)
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
It seems what was brought before the court was whether Trump had the authority to change federal spending. It would be up to the DoJ to prosecute violations of federal law. And I can't understand for the life of me why Sessions won't take action on that.

They need to throw all those traitors in prison for life. Strap them to the chair. Arrogant bastards.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Jesus Christ...

1. learn to read English

2. take a freaking HS course on US govt...try to stay awake during the discussion of separations of powers...

or...

Please take your motorhome over the border and just keep on going...you obviously have no idea how our govt works nor are you bothering to make ANY EFFORT AT ALL TO LEARN!! (this is why you voted for Trump...the two of you have so much ignorance in common!)

I don't think you're one to lecture someone on their ability to learn. You seem incapable of learning one of the basic tenets of a civil society - MANNERS!
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Are you talking about the judges or those running these cities?

There are other ways to punish Sanctuary cities.
Ways that it may take them a while to figure out why things are happening.
But eventually they will get the message.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
There are other ways to punish Sanctuary cities.
Ways that it may take them a while to figure out why things are happening.
But eventually they will get the message.

How in the heck did we get to the point in this country where people, that take an oath to uphold the law, blatantly disregard the law; and the people not only support it, but encourage it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Are you talking about the judges or those running these cities?

Those running the cities. Sanctuary cities are bull####. They are, by definition, against federal law and the mayors of these cities should be lined up in front of a firing squad. Hate.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Those running the cities. Sanctuary cities are bull####. They are, by definition, against federal law and the mayors of these cities should be lined up in front of a firing squad. Hate.

The libprog legacy lives on. Hopefully, Trump can stop it. Otherwise, we are dunskies. This bullcrap is why Trump won the election. God Bless America. :patriot: JMO, yo.
 
Last edited:

nutz

Well-Known Member
How in the heck did we get to the point in this country where people, that take an oath to uphold the law, blatantly disregard the law; and the people not only support it, but encourage it.

Easy, It's not little Johnny's fault that he doesn't know what he's doing vs. that boy needs a trip to the woodshed to learn a lesson. People seem to be more easily accepting of things as fact also. "Oh he's a judge so he knows what he's doing" vs. that guy is a frickin moron and needs to be removed.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Let me get this straight:

Basically, a federal judge just said it's a-ok for cities to break federal laws???



that is a different matter, Trump cannot order the withholding of funds from already approved budgets

[As I understand the AP Article I read - this may or may not have legal standing, but judges pretty much do what that want in Cali-FU anyway]
 

Toxick

Splat
Doesn't this mother ####er have someone who reads these before he signs them? Like an actual person who knows what the hell they're doing and can point out things like "You can't do this! You need to reword that - This won't fly. That could be seen as unconstitutional"


You'd think that an actual person educated in Law - maybe even multiple people - could probably go through some of these orders and determine if they're going to get slapped down.




And assuming that these judges are the ones in the wrong, why isn't a higher court slapping them down?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Doesn't this mother ####er have someone who reads these before he signs them? Like an actual person who knows what the hell they're doing and can point out things like "You can't do this! You need to reword that - This won't fly. That could be seen as unconstitutional"


You'd think that an actual person educated in Law - maybe even multiple people - could probably go through some of these orders and determine if they're going to get slapped down.




And assuming that these judges are the ones in the wrong, why isn't a higher court slapping them down?

No no no. You're wrong. Everyone is against Trump and these failed EOs are simply a result of the fake media and fake judges.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Doesn't this mother ####er have someone who reads these before he signs them? Like an actual person who knows what the hell they're doing and can point out things like "You can't do this! You need to reword that - This won't fly. That could be seen as unconstitutional"

That is a matter of OPINION ..... not LAW

when the Immigration EO was blocked, I posted a couple of follow up articles that laid out point by point how Trump was on the right side of the law
- the courts that made s h i t to disagree

highly liberal left coast courts - CaliFU and Oregon - then the 2nd EO MD and Hawaii among the states where injunctions were filled.



http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/10...about-trumps-new-immigration-executive-order/


and a Virginia Judge Agreed :

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in Alexandria on Friday denied a request to block Trump’s March 6 executive order, saying he’s not going to psychoanalyze the president for his motives in drafting the travel ban. That put Trenga at odds with other federal judges who have ruled the president’s past comments can be taken into account in determining whether he intended to discriminate against Muslims.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...pheld-but-previous-rulings-blocking-it-remain
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
A judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Orrick granted a request from the municipalities of Santa Clara and San Francisco for a preliminary injunction against Executive Order 13768, ruling that the municipalities’ constitutional challenges against the executive order are “likely to succeed” on their merits:

To succeed in their motions, the Counties must show that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm absent an injunction, that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighs in their favor. The Counties have met this burden.

Orrick essentially accepts the claims of Santa Clara and San Francisco, describing Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 as unconstitutional with respect to separation of powers (federal appropriations are said Orrick to be restricted to congressional purview and beyond the executive branch’s authority) and overly broad in its direction to withhold federal funding from “sanctuary jurisdictions.”


http://www.dailywire.com/news/15770/ridiculous-judge-who-blocked-trumps-sanctuary-robert-kraychik
 

Toxick

Splat
That is a matter of OPINION ..... not LAW

See this is what I'm finding extremely hard to believe.

How are you going to block an executive order based on an opinion without the law on your side? And if that does happen, why aren't those judges getting smacked down themselves?



This makes absolutely no sense to me.


when the Immigration EO was blocked, I posted a couple of follow up articles that laid out point by point how Trump was on the right side of the law
- the courts that made s h i t to disagree

highly liberal left coast courts - CaliFU and Oregon - then the 2nd EO MD and Hawaii among the states where injunctions were filled.



http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/10...about-trumps-new-immigration-executive-order/


and a Virginia Judge Agreed :



Then why are no higher courts - or at least courts of equal footing - stepping in and saying, "You're WRONG - Trump, go 'head an put your thing down"?

Because sitting here on the side-lines as a layman, it looks like Trump and maybe a couple golf-buddies are coming up with these Executive Orders over beers, and he's writing them down in a Composition Notebook, and then gathering around these cameras and signing them without any further research. It seems to me that probably isn't the case, but I can't for the life of me figure out how something gets as far as these orders are getting and nobody is poking holes in the orders to see if they hold water.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
How are you going to block an executive order based on an opinion without the law on your side? And if that does happen, why aren't those judges getting smacked down themselves?

.

Ninth Circuit holds the record for most decisions later reversed. It's a huge percentage of all of the decisions those boneheads make.
 
Top