- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Blocks Trump Santuary city order
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:32 pm to Sentrius
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:32 pm to Sentrius
quote:Submitting a brief isn't gonna do shite because briefs aren't legally binding. If they pass a bill that includes a sanctuary city provision? That would be fine. (Constitutionally fine, would still be bad policy IMO.) Then they'd be using the same basic method they did to get states on board the 21-year drinking age.
And what happens if Congress, well the GOP Congress that is, submits a brief or even passes a resolution saying that they have no problem with Trump using those funds as leverage against sanctuary cities?
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 3:34 pm
1
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:32 pm to roadGator
quote:
I respect a liberal that actually takes this stance and doesn't pretend that it's not activism
-I don't know the judge personally so I cant call it activism.
-I don't agree with sanctuary cities.
-But I'm not sure withholding funds is a legal way to fix the problem. Let the supreme court decide.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:32 pm to tigerinDC09
Obama took awhile this time judge shopping. He must have been busy on yachts and stuff.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
How many threads is that for this same gif? Really showing off your wit. Though, I guess for a gump, it's the best you can do.
First time I've seen it.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:34 pm to LSUcjb318
Why do you oppose the order? How do such cities benefit you?
Do you guys realize a supermajority of voters oppose such madness?
Do you guys realize a supermajority of voters oppose such madness?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:35 pm to tigerinDC09
How does a judge block the executive branch from NOT appropriating money? Is the judge now forcing the executive branch to hand out money? How does that work?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:37 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why do you oppose the order?
I never said I oppose it. I'm just not sure if its legal.
We should leave that to the supreme court and if they are good with it then I'm good.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:37 pm to GumboPot
Gifs from the same guy that does the stupid good HD Gifs of Horizon Zero Dawn.
I'm sorry the prez can't handle steps, or reasonable governmental issues.
I'm sorry the prez can't handle steps, or reasonable governmental issues.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:37 pm to Iosh
quote:
Submitting a brief isn't gonna do shite because briefs aren't legally binding. If they pass a bill that includes a sanctuary city provision? That would be fine. (Constitutionally fine, would still be bad policy IMO.) Then they'd be using the same basic method they did to get states on board the 21-year drinking age.
Then GOP Congress can kill this lawsuit by adding a sanctuary city provision to funding bills and authorize the President to do what he intended to do.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:37 pm to Screech
quote:
He should order ice to surround every police department and every court of law in sanctuary cities. Anyone entering or leaving should be required to show proof of legal status.
Jesus Christ. Do you even unreasonable search and seizure bro?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:37 pm to GumboPot
The executive branch has as much discretion over an appropriation as Congress dictates when it establishes it, no more. Some appropriations give the executive wide latitude, some don't. Separation of powers means that in the absence of such latitude being explicitly granted it is presumed to remain with Congress.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:38 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
BREAKING: US judge blocks Trump order to cut off funding to cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities.
Winning!!
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:38 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Then GOP Congress can kill this lawsuit by adding a sanctuary city provision to funding bills and authorize the President to do what he intended to do.
well yeah then it's a congressional act and not an executive act. that clears up any potential SOP issue
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:40 pm to LSUcjb318
quote:
-But I'm not sure withholding funds is a legal way to fix the problem.
The feds did it to force us raise the drinking age here in Louisiana.
It's the feds money and they should use it as they see fit.
Is there a constitutional right for local and state governments to get money from the feds?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:40 pm to Iosh
Hmmm. Ok. I don't want to look into Federal procedure. Did the city make the argument on behalf of congress or did the judge opine based upon on an argument that wasn't made? I know we are getting into the minutiae of procedure...but your post peaked my interest. I guess I should just go read the ruling.
I might have been wrong in my first post in this thread. First time ever in my whole life.
I might have been wrong in my first post in this thread. First time ever in my whole life.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
Judge William Orrick. NDCA.
Obama appointee (shocker).
Also ran blocker for Planned Parenthood on their baby part selling videos.
Obama appointee (shocker).
Also ran blocker for Planned Parenthood on their baby part selling videos.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:42 pm to Iosh
quote:
The executive branch has as much discretion over an appropriation as Congress dictates when it establishes it, no more. Some appropriations give the executive wide latitude, some don't. Separation of powers means that in the absence of such latitude being explicitly granted it is presumed to remain with Congress.
So the judge's bias in this decision is that the executive branch has no latitude in this case? If so then why would the executive branch even be involved with allocating dollars via the DOJ? Why not appropriate them directly from congress?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:42 pm to Sentrius
quote:Sure, that's theoretically possible. But it would require an actual budget bill; continuing resolutions are subject to a filibuster.
Then GOP Congress can kill this lawsuit by adding a sanctuary city provision to funding bills and authorize the President to do what he intended to do.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:42 pm to BBONDS25
Ah. Ok. Just looked it up. The judge didn't rule on the constitutionality. Judge ordered a TRO until the case could be heard. This is nothing. All of us were duped by the OP.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:44 pm to GumboPot
quote:I haven't read the decision, the executive order, or any of the legislative text, so I can't tell you whether the judge's interpretation is reasonable or unreasonable.
So the judge's bias in this decision is that the executive branch has no latitude in this case?
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News