9th circus dissmisses case agaisnt sanctuarys in Steinle family lawsuit

[miketx]

Damn liberals are SCUM!
This is a disgusting slap in the face to this family. Disgusting liberal scum need to be dealt with.


Ninth Circuit dismisses Steinle family lawsuit against sanctuary

Mark Wilson | Getty Images

In this country, the inmates literally run the asylum. Our court system is of, by, and for illegal aliens, while Americans, including those killed by illegal aliens, are left out in the cold. The upshot of the latest ruling from the Ninth Circuit is that while illegal aliens can now sue our country and win judgments against law enforcement for enforcing federal law, victims of illegal aliens cannot sue sanctuary cities for thwarting federal law and causing the deaths of their loved ones. Welcome to the new America.


The Ninth Circuit and many other liberal courts believe they are a super-legislature, holding the sole and final say over broad public policy issues. They believe they are not constrained by rules of standing and can grant standing to any foreign national to sue American officials and law enforcement for rights to enter, remain, steal citizenship, be counted in the census, obtain welfare, and never be deported. Yet Kate Steinle’s parents, who are not seeking a public policy edict from the courts but rather an individualized claim against the city of San Francisco, are deemed not to have an actionable claim because government officials have immunity.
Ninth Circuit dismisses Steinle family lawsuit against sanctuary

 

[bodecea]

What was the reasoning in their ruling?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

 

[bodecea]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Appeal the decision. Most of the 9th Circuit's decisions are over turned. Sanctuary policy is what got Kate Steinle murdered.
This particular illegal felon is just the instrument of San Francisco's illegal policies.

Is there immunity when sanctuary policies which are known to result in the murder of American citizens (like the Bologna family of San Francisco, for instance) are promoted by politicians there?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

How do we know the ski is blue? The empirical evidence is incredible.

 

[bodecea]

Appeal the decision. Most of the 9th Circuit's decisions are over turned. Sanctuary policy is what got Kate Steinle murdered.
This particular illegal felon is just the instrument of San Francisco's illegal policies.

Is there immunity when sanctuary policies which are known to result in the murder of American citizens (like the Bologna family of San Francisco, for instance) are promoted by politicians there?

What was the 9th's reasoning for their ruling?

 

[bodecea]

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

How do we know the ski is blue? The empirical evidence is incredible.

Then....present it for us. Why is the 9th incredibly biased?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

Lol !!!
You're kidding, right ?

 

[bodecea]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

Do go out of your way to prove what a blathering idiot you are? Or like most filthy trolls, do you just like to play games and spew BS?

I am asking what the ruling was based on....don't you think that would be a key point here? Or do you just like to foam at the mouth for no valid reason?

 

[bodecea]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

Lol !!!
You're kidding, right ?

Not at all....present your case. Why is the 9th "incredibly biased"? And if we are going to complain about the 9th making a bad ruling, wouldn't it make sense for us to KNOW that their ruling was based on?

 

[bodecea]

Since some people here are too lazy or are enjoying their baseless rant too much, here is WHY the 9th ruled as they did:

"A federal appeals court in California ruled that the parents of Kate Steinle, a woman fatally shot by an unauthorized immigrant in July 2015, cannot sue the city of San Francisco for failing to notify immigration officials of his release from a local jail weeks before the killing.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, ruled that San Francisco's then-sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, violated no federal, state or local laws when he released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez Garcia Zarate, on a minor marijuana charge without notifying Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

The ruling upholds a lower court in dismissing "a general negligence claim" against the city filed by Steinle's parents. Their suit alleged that Mirkarimi drew up a memorandum instructing city employees to limit the information shared with federal officials about the release of unauthorized immigrants from the San Francisco jail.

"Our holding today makes no judgment as to whether or not the policy established by the Memo was wise or prudent. That is not our job," the panel wrote.

The judges said city's policy did not violate federal law and that Mirkarimi had a right to enforce the memo."


Now...tell us how any of that was legally unsound.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Then....present it for us. Why is the 9th incredibly biased?

They are known to be a leftist court and their decisions are over turned upon appeal 80% of the time. Liberal Ninth Circuit Court Is Overturned in Recent Years 80% of Time

Every one knows. For you to make me demonstrate a universally accepted fact is a form of dishonesty and deceit.

 

[miketx]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

Do go out of your way to prove what a blathering idiot you are? Or like most filthy trolls, do you just like to play games and spew BS?

I am asking what the ruling was based on....don't you think that would be a key point here? Or do you just like to foam at the mouth for no valid reason?

Well, since it doesn't say so in the link HOW IN BLOODY HELL WOULD I KNOW? I don't make up CRAP like you idiots do!

 

[miketx]

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

How do we know the ski is blue? The empirical evidence is incredible.

Then....present it for us. Why is the 9th incredibly biased?

Because they are all liberal democrat America hating scum. Don't worry though, Trump has appointed a conservative to it, and so far ms C.B. Ford is not making statements about them.

 

[bodecea]

Then....present it for us. Why is the 9th incredibly biased?

They are known to be a leftist court and their decisions are over turned upon appeal 80% of the time. Liberal Ninth Circuit Court Is Overturned in Recent Years 80% of Time

Every one knows. For you to make me demonstrate a universally accepted fact is a form of dishonesty and deceit.

That doesn't even put them in 2nd place for the most overturned decisions, didn't you know that? But show us what part of this ruling will be overturned:

A federal appeals court in California ruled that the parents of Kate Steinle, a woman fatally shot by an unauthorized immigrant in July 2015, cannot sue the city of San Francisco for failing to notify immigration officials of his release from a local jail weeks before the killing.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, ruled that San Francisco's then-sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, violated no federal, state or local laws when he released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez Garcia Zarate, on a minor marijuana charge without notifying Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

The ruling upholds a lower court in dismissing "a general negligence claim" against the city filed by Steinle's parents. Their suit alleged that Mirkarimi drew up a memorandum instructing city employees to limit the information shared with federal officials about the release of unauthorized immigrants from the San Francisco jail.

"Our holding today makes no judgment as to whether or not the policy established by the Memo was wise or prudent. That is not our job," the panel wrote.

The judges said city's policy did not violate federal law and that Mirkarimi had a right to enforce the memo.

 

[bodecea]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

Do go out of your way to prove what a blathering idiot you are? Or like most filthy trolls, do you just like to play games and spew BS?

I am asking what the ruling was based on....don't you think that would be a key point here? Or do you just like to foam at the mouth for no valid reason?

Well, since it doesn't say so in the link HOW IN BLOODY HELL WOULD I KNOW? I don't make up CRAP like you idiots do!

So you have NO IDEA why you are ranting?

Here, explain what is legally incorrect in their ruling.

A federal appeals court in California ruled that the parents of Kate Steinle, a woman fatally shot by an unauthorized immigrant in July 2015, cannot sue the city of San Francisco for failing to notify immigration officials of his release from a local jail weeks before the killing.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, ruled that San Francisco's then-sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, violated no federal, state or local laws when he released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez Garcia Zarate, on a minor marijuana charge without notifying Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

The ruling upholds a lower court in dismissing "a general negligence claim" against the city filed by Steinle's parents. Their suit alleged that Mirkarimi drew up a memorandum instructing city employees to limit the information shared with federal officials about the release of unauthorized immigrants from the San Francisco jail.

"Our holding today makes no judgment as to whether or not the policy established by the Memo was wise or prudent. That is not our job," the panel wrote.

The judges said city's policy did not violate federal law and that Mirkarimi had a right to enforce the memo.

 

[miketx]

Then....present it for us. Why is the 9th incredibly biased?

They are known to be a leftist court and their decisions are over turned upon appeal 80% of the time. Liberal Ninth Circuit Court Is Overturned in Recent Years 80% of Time

Every one knows. For you to make me demonstrate a universally accepted fact is a form of dishonesty and deceit.

That doesn't even put them in 2nd place for the most overturned decisions, didn't you know that? But show us what part of this ruling will be overturned:

A federal appeals court in California ruled that the parents of Kate Steinle, a woman fatally shot by an unauthorized immigrant in July 2015, cannot sue the city of San Francisco for failing to notify immigration officials of his release from a local jail weeks before the killing.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, ruled that San Francisco's then-sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, violated no federal, state or local laws when he released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez Garcia Zarate, on a minor marijuana charge without notifying Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

The ruling upholds a lower court in dismissing "a general negligence claim" against the city filed by Steinle's parents. Their suit alleged that Mirkarimi drew up a memorandum instructing city employees to limit the information shared with federal officials about the release of unauthorized immigrants from the San Francisco jail.

"Our holding today makes no judgment as to whether or not the policy established by the Memo was wise or prudent. That is not our job," the panel wrote.

The judges said city's policy did not violate federal law and that Mirkarimi had a right to enforce the memo.

Crooked politicians and judges rulings mean nothing. They need to pay.

 

[miketx]

You knew as soon as the case got moved to the incredibly biased 9th circuit, there was little hope justice would be carried out.

How do you claim that the 9th is "incredibly biased"? And what was the court's determination for making the ruling they made?

Do go out of your way to prove what a blathering idiot you are? Or like most filthy trolls, do you just like to play games and spew BS?

I am asking what the ruling was based on....don't you think that would be a key point here? Or do you just like to foam at the mouth for no valid reason?

Well, since it doesn't say so in the link HOW IN BLOODY HELL WOULD I KNOW? I don't make up CRAP like you idiots do!

So you have NO IDEA why you are ranting?

Here, explain what is legally incorrect in their ruling.

A federal appeals court in California ruled that the parents of Kate Steinle, a woman fatally shot by an unauthorized immigrant in July 2015, cannot sue the city of San Francisco for failing to notify immigration officials of his release from a local jail weeks before the killing.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, ruled that San Francisco's then-sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, violated no federal, state or local laws when he released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez Garcia Zarate, on a minor marijuana charge without notifying Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

The ruling upholds a lower court in dismissing "a general negligence claim" against the city filed by Steinle's parents. Their suit alleged that Mirkarimi drew up a memorandum instructing city employees to limit the information shared with federal officials about the release of unauthorized immigrants from the San Francisco jail.

"Our holding today makes no judgment as to whether or not the policy established by the Memo was wise or prudent. That is not our job," the panel wrote.

The judges said city's policy did not violate federal law and that Mirkarimi had a right to enforce the memo.

I have no idea why you are treasonous skank.

 

[bodecea]

Anyone else as amused as I am that we have this thread ranting about the 9th Circuit decision and no one was willing to talk about the actual ruling? They just wanted to rant about the 9th Circuit....probably spoon fed the talking point.