- 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 3:45 pm to tigerinDC09
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:45 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
Judge Blocks Trump Santuary city order
How is this a good thing?
Why would any American be supportive of cities who are ignoring our laws and catering to people who are here illegally?
0
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:45 pm to Iosh
quote:
continuing resolutions are subject to a filibuster.
No they are not. That's why they are CRS. CRs pass with a simple majority.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:45 pm to L.A.
quote:
How can a judge decide that it's okay for a city to violate federal immigration policy?
I'm sure that Dems have been researching and some found some obscure vague interpretation of the law/precedent to claim.
It's quite obvious that the district courts are all in for Obama
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Ah. Ok. Just looked it up. He 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.
Thank you.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:46 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
This will end up in the Supreme Court along with the immigration order that was blocked. Hopefully the SC overturns both of those rulings.
How long will it take for the cases to reach SCOTUS?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:46 pm to mmcgrath
Why do you favor sanctuary cities? What is the glory in having a city full of illegals?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:46 pm to GumboPot
quote:If CRs pass with a simple majority then why are the Republicans furiously negotiating with Democrats to prevent a government shutdown next week?
No they are not. That's why they are CRS. CRs pass with a simple majority.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:47 pm to tigerinDC09
Lol, is the judge going to write the check? This is retarded
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:49 pm to Iosh
So being held accountable for not enforcing the law is now "irreparable harm"?
This judge just took a big ol' shite on the whole "checks and balances" philosophy.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:49 pm to tigerinDC09
i'm amazed at the people that think this is awesome in that twitter feed.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:49 pm to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
BREAKING: US judge blocks Trump order to cut off funding to cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities.
quote:
Winning!!
Judge can't Block it.
"Judiciary doesn't control sword or purse" Alexander Hamilton.
If Congress or the President doesn't allow the States to receive the funding they won't.
It doesn't matter one frick what the Judiciary, a state or city in that State has to say about it.
Congress can even decide to fund it over the President, but the President is the one who ends up administering the funds. If he doesn't pass off on it, it doesn't happen.
The only recourse for Congress at that point would be to impeach him and then remove him from office.
IOW it doesn't matter if a Judge tries to block it.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:50 pm to tigerinDC09
This ruling isn't entitely base-less. The federal executive branch has limited power to compel state and local officials to do much of anything. This was a big issue back when the Clinton administration wanted to create a federal gun registry. The idea was to use state and local law enforcement to register guns used in crimes. SCOTUS ruled against the law. The federal government could create the registry, but it couldn't coerce state and local law enforcement to participate. Today, the registry exists, and many law enforcement agencies contribute to it, but they do so voluntarily.
Remember, immigration is federal law, not state. The state and local governments have no authority to enforce immigration laws even if they wanted to. The issue here is whether Trump's order calls for the sanctuary cities to enforce federal law or just stop aiding those who are fugitives of federal law. If it is the former, the order is unconstitutional because absent times of war, the federal government has no power to deputize and cooerce local law enforcement. If it is the latter, than it should be constitutional.
Remember, immigration is federal law, not state. The state and local governments have no authority to enforce immigration laws even if they wanted to. The issue here is whether Trump's order calls for the sanctuary cities to enforce federal law or just stop aiding those who are fugitives of federal law. If it is the former, the order is unconstitutional because absent times of war, the federal government has no power to deputize and cooerce local law enforcement. If it is the latter, than it should be constitutional.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:50 pm to Sentrius
quote:
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?
Once again I'm not the legal expert here but with withholding money is one thing but withholding money unless you do X and stating that in the edict might not be legal.
I'm not sure if the drinking age thing here was in writing or just an understanding.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:51 pm to Iosh
quote:
If CRs pass with a simple majority then why are the Republicans furiously negotiating with Democrats to prevent a government shutdown next week?
They are?
Seriously, I don't believe there is much if any negotiations with the Democrats unless there is some haggling to get some MIC funding in turn for more Obamacare funding. If this is the case then it would technically not be a CR and would require 60 votes for cloture in the senate.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:51 pm to Bard
That Order makes no fricking sense.
He exempts the President from the injunction, but prohibits the Executive Branch agencies that actually act for him from carrying out his Order?
What the ever loving frick?
He exempts the President from the injunction, but prohibits the Executive Branch agencies that actually act for him from carrying out his Order?
What the ever loving frick?
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:54 pm to udtiger
It's just a TRO. It is nothing. The language certainly isn't good if it's any indication of his future ruling. He is going to have to do some amazing writing to draft an opinion that sticks, though.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:54 pm to tigerinDC09
Trump sure got tired of winning quickly.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:54 pm to udtiger
San Fran judge...all I need to know.
Simple...take a page from Andrew Jackson's book..."the judge has made the "order" now lets see him enforce it." LOL Isn't worth the paper the order is written on. Watch and see....Congressional Law demands cities comply with FEDERAL law, so no funding, just wait. One Looney Toon California Judge doesn't replace the law...ROFL sorry libbies, enjoy the wet dreams while they last.
Simple...take a page from Andrew Jackson's book..."the judge has made the "order" now lets see him enforce it." LOL Isn't worth the paper the order is written on. Watch and see....Congressional Law demands cities comply with FEDERAL law, so no funding, just wait. One Looney Toon California Judge doesn't replace the law...ROFL sorry libbies, enjoy the wet dreams while they last.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:55 pm to LSUcjb318
quote:
I'm not sure if the drinking age thing here was in writing or just an understanding.
It was in writing. The difference is that was Congress saying I will give you funding under the following conditions.
In this case the stimulus was passed under certain conditions. Trump (without Congressional) action is now trying to change those conditions.
Congress could change the conditions, but the Executive cannot choose to enforce conditions that are not part of the law (as passed by Congress) or at least that is the argument.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:56 pm to kingbob
quote:
Remember, immigration is federal law, not state. The state and local governments have no authority to enforce immigration laws even if they wanted to. The issue here is whether Trump's order calls for the sanctuary cities to enforce federal law or just stop aiding those who are fugitives of federal law. If it is the former, the order is unconstitutional because absent times of war, the federal government has no power to deputize and cooerce local law enforcement. If it is the latter, than it should be constitutional.
The flip side would be, IF the President is willing to enforce and Congress is willing to fund then it will happen.
Obama sued Arizona for actually enforcing Federal Law in regards to immigration that he did not want to happen. He brought the power of the Fed against them and they capitulated.
The same in reverse will happen here with the removal of funds which the courts have ZERO say about.
Courts don't have power of the purse or enforcement power.
True the States and Cities do not have to co-operate but they can and will be unfunded regardless of what the courts have to say about it.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News