re: Federal Judge rules Sessions can't withhold funds from sanctuary cities

quote:

---

process

---

What's process got to do with it? Whether a judge makes an adverse ruling to something for a day or a year he still made an authoritative decision. You, I believe, made the statement earlier about authoritative rule.

The "process" has no bearing here. If you do want to bring up process, then here's a good example of authoritative rule by a judge. Happens all the time:

Voters in a state get a proposed amendment on the ballot. They go through the hoops to make sure it passes all legalese bs. It's okayed by the commission to put on the ballot. But wait, some a-hole judge who just happens to have some bias in him sees two words in the amendment that can be argued from daylight to dark.

Two days before the election, boom, judge says it must be stricken from the ballot.

Now how is that not authoritative administering of the law?

quote:

---

What's process got to do with it? Whether a judge makes an adverse ruling to something for a day or a year he still made an authoritative decision. You, I believe, made the statement earlier about authoritative rule.

The "process" has no bearing here. If you do want to bring up process, then here's a good example of authoritative rule by a judge. Happens all the time:

Voters in a state get a proposed amendment on the ballot. They go through the hoops to make sure it passes all legalese bs. It's okayed by the commission to put on the ballot. But wait, some a-hole judge who just happens to have some bias in him sees two words in the amendment that can be argued from daylight to dark.

Two days before the election, boom, judge says it must be stricken from the ballot.

Now how is that not authoritative administering of the law?

---

Because there are appeals/ checks and balances. You do know how our government works, correct?

Politicization of the Judicial Branch is an essential component of the Leftist Totalitarian Staat.

quote:

---

That's my point exactly. The two examples you mentioned, the legislation gave the President the power to act...Title IX and the Civil Rights act. This is how the sanctuary city or state issue should be addressed...make it law like the federal drinking age.

---

It's not required.

The Feds can compel localities to help with information regarding illegals. Reno v. Condon

Illegals increase crime.

The Feds can withhold funds related to the issue in which they are requesting information. South Dakota v. Dole

quote:

---

use there are appeals/ checks and balances. You do know how our government works, correct?

---

There are checks and balances, of course. There's not when the judiciary is making their own legislation and denying the executive of the capabilities they're entitled to, for example, the travel ban.

quote:

---

There are checks and balances, of course. There's not when the judiciary is making their own legislation and denying the executive of the capabilities they're entitled to, for example, the travel ban.

---

I don't know if you actually pay attention to the news or not but the travel ban has been upheld by the Supreme Court thusly there are checks and balances so there is no authoritative judge ruling.

There was a process in which they try to figure out what was legal or not and its happening.

See most of you ironically don't get that if Trump was able to just snap his fingers and do a travel ban that would be authoritative rule. Things take time to get through in the United States. It's actually better that way I know it's hard to see it but it's better that way


Supreme Court Travel Ban Ruling