• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal judge blocks enforcing EO that threaten funding to sanctuary jurisdictions

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was blatantly unconstitutional. It's illegal to pressure or in this case black mail states to comply to enforce immigration laws. It's the federal government job to do that. Another thing I like to point is that this the reason why the federal government and state government boundaries should always be clear. I remember during Obama administration that some people supported the idea of striping state government some power. But we will quickly reminded why it was a terrible idea. I think that both sides should respect these boundaries. It can backfire years later.
 
2ALg3pB.gif
 

Crocodile

Member
Seriously. In my wildest dreams, I never predicted that lawyers would be saving America.

Lawyers and corporations. It's pressure from the later that helped oust people like Bill O'Reilly. Strange times we live in.

Anyway, get fucked Trump :p
 

Tovarisc

Member
AP's article up.

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.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the temporary ruling in a lawsuit against the executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities. The decision will stay in place while the lawsuit works its way through court.

....

Republican President Donald Trump was using a "bully pulpit" to "encourage communities and states to comply with the law," 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."

....

A federal appeals court blocked the travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.


and more at https://apnews.com/a0e35587fcfa42f6...-blocks-Trump-order-on-sanctuary-city-funding
 
Get fucked Trump. This would have had an impact on my city and is such a disgusting form of "black mail." Can't wait for his meltdown and crying. Such a thin skinned loser.
 

RoKKeR

Member
"And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments."
This will be true for literally every thing he tries to do... his dumb mouth can't help but spout idiotic shit that will be used against him in a court of law.
 

RPGCrazied

Member
This rally this weekend is going be something to watch. I'm hoping its not with teleprompters, gets extra crazy then.
 

Kaban

Member
Good. The only reason he wants to withhold funds from sanctuary cities is simply because he wants to punish areas that didn't vote for him.
 
Do can we get the drinking age back to 18?

They pulled the same bullshit there.

Nahh, 21 year olds are dumb as fuck as it is. And I'd rather not bars be filled with 18 year olds just living on their own for the first time and wildin' out. Actually I most definitely am glad I don't have to deal with that
 

devilhawk

Member
Precedent seems pretty clear in that Congress could pass a bill that does what Trump's order does as long as it pertains specifically to immigration funding and isn't greater than 20% the budget.

The 21 year old drinking age withholding funding was allowed while ACA's withholding Medicare funding was not because of these reasons.

Alternatively this could 5-4'd in the Supreme Court.
 
I needed a unbiased and fact based assessment of this news so i went to check out r/donald, strangely there's nothing about this on the front page. Weird.
 

Madness

Member
You guys thinking this is a win with a 5-4 Supreme Court in Trump's favor now... almost every single ruling and even appellate ruling will go the Supreme Court where he will get 5-4 victories in his favor. Hell if anything happens to any of the other liberal old judges, you could have a conservative Supreme Court majority for 30-40 years.
 

KHarvey16

Member
You guys thinking this is a win with a 5-4 Supreme Court in Trump's favor now... almost every single ruling and even appellate ruling will go the Supreme Court where he will get 5-4 victories in his favor. Hell if anything happens to any of the other liberal old judges, you could have a conservative Supreme Court majority for 30-40 years.

I wish people stopped just assuming "conservative" judges 100% always agree with the legislative output of "conservative" administrations.
 
From my local FB news site comments, Trump supporters did not study American government in high school or grade school. So much "ONLY THE SUPREME COURT CAN OVERRIDE THE PRESIDENT".
 

slit

Member
You guys thinking this is a win with a 5-4 Supreme Court in Trump's favor now... almost every single ruling and even appellate ruling will go the Supreme Court where he will get 5-4 victories in his favor. Hell if anything happens to any of the other liberal old judges, you could have a conservative Supreme Court majority for 30-40 years.

Did that happen when Scalia was still alive? The court is made up the same as then you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom