"California judge" blocks President Trump order withholding funding to sanctuary cities

[usmbguest5318]

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

BULLSHIT!

That post wins the dumbest post of the year, hands down, and we're only in April!

I'm going to give it some time to see if anyone else is aware of just how dumb a remark it was not. If nobody does, I'll make it clear myself.

 

[usmbguest5318]

wins the dumbest post of the year

If you believe what you just posted, then YOU are that dumb!

For someone who is so free and quick to call others dumb, you sure don't present much that is credible to support that claim. That you don't, leaves no doubt that you truly are dumber than are the people whom you accuse of being dumb....but you just "keep on keepin' on" for you are entertaining.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

Simply impeach all these Obama judges that are destroying our way of life and replace them with constitutional mind who will not act like they are President. Then have GOP Congress change what federal judges can rule on. Do not let them decided whether a President is acting Constitutionally. Save that for the SCOTUS ecluksively. Problem solved

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Apparently you don't understand what juridical review means. Any federal court can overturn an executive order if the judge believes the order violates the constitution or any existing federal legislation. The judges ruling can only be overturned by a higher court.

The administration is trying to scare sanctuary cities into cooperating with ICE even thou the cities do not have any responsibility to enforce federal laws.

It appears that most sanctuary cities are willing to notify ICE of the release of convicted felons and hold them provided they have a federal warrant. However, that is about the extent of the cooperation.

What ICE wants and will not get is vigorous cooperation by these cities which means collecting citizenship data on everyone they arrest or stop and holding all suspected illegal immigrants for ICE detention.

 

[Correll]

Simply impeach all these Obama judges that are destroying our way of life and replace them with constitutional mind who will not act like they are President. Then have GOP Congress change what federal judges can rule on. Do not let them decided whether a President is acting Constitutionally. Save that for the SCOTUS ecluksively. Problem solved

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Apparently you don't understand what juridical review means. Any federal court can overturn an executive order if the judge believes the order violates the constitution or any existing federal legislation. The judges ruling can only be overturned by a higher court.

The administration is trying to scare sanctuary cities into cooperating with ICE even thou the cities do not have any responsibility to enforce federal laws.

It appears that most sanctuary cities are willing to notify ICE of the release of convicted felons and hold them provided they have a federal warrant. However, that is about the extent of the cooperation.

What ICE wants and will not get is vigorous cooperation by these cities which means collecting citizenship data on everyone they arrest or stop and holding all suspected illegal immigrants for ICE detention.

Purposefully hampering the Federal GOvernment in their attempt to enforce federal lawas, is an attack on this nation, as a whole, and needs to be stopped, and the political movement that supports that is traitorous and needs to be destroyed.

 

[WEATHER53]

People almost are saying that federal laws are not laws at a state county or city level
Arson is mostly federal statutes
You cannot burn property in San Francisco based on the city ordinances not specifically addressing the prohibition

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

wins the dumbest post of the year

If you believe what you just posted, then YOU are that dumb!

For someone who is so free and quick to call others dumb, you sure don't present much that is credible to support that claim. That you don't, leaves no doubt that you truly are dumber than are the people whom you accuse of being dumb....but you just "keep on keepin' on" for you are entertaining.

Read your constitution!

That is something that you should have done in middle school.

Did you know that even members of Congress are immune from arrest while traveling to or from when Congress is in session?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do.

...But a judge can find Donald Trump in contempt of court and issue a warrant for his arrest.

Want a genuine Constitutional crisis? There will be one if that happens and Trump does not present himself before the judge. I would love to see that happen. I am dying to know whether Trump would spout off before the judge in the judge's courtroom the way he does when Trump's not in court.

BULLSHIT!

That post wins the dumbest post of the year, hands down, and we're only in April!

I'm going to give it some time to see if anyone else is aware of just how dumb a remark it was not. If nobody does, I'll make it clear myself.

Everyone else probably has you on ignore in light of your inane comments.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Simply impeach all these Obama judges that are destroying our way of life and replace them with constitutional mind who will not act like they are President. Then have GOP Congress change what federal judges can rule on. Do not let them decided whether a President is acting Constitutionally. Save that for the SCOTUS ecluksively. Problem solved

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Apparently you don't understand what juridical review means. Any federal court can overturn an executive order if the judge believes the order violates the constitution or any existing federal legislation. The judges ruling can only be overturned by a higher court.

The administration is trying to scare sanctuary cities into cooperating with ICE even thou the cities do not have any responsibility to enforce federal laws.

It appears that most sanctuary cities are willing to notify ICE of the release of convicted felons and hold them provided they have a federal warrant. However, that is about the extent of the cooperation.

What ICE wants and will not get is vigorous cooperation by these cities which means collecting citizenship data on everyone they arrest or stop and holding all suspected illegal immigrants for ICE detention.

Don't you ever get tired of posting crap that everyone knows is wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

Simply impeach all these Obama judges that are destroying our way of life and replace them with constitutional mind who will not act like they are President. Then have GOP Congress change what federal judges can rule on. Do not let them decided whether a President is acting Constitutionally. Save that for the SCOTUS ecluksively. Problem solved

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

That is for the judiciary to decide what is constitutional. Article III gives them original jurisdiction on all matters constitutional, not the legislative and not the executive. Read it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I suspect you haven't any idea of the problems your suggested "solution" creates. C'est la vie.

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Apparently you don't understand what juridical review means. Any federal court can overturn an executive order if the judge believes the order violates the constitution or any existing federal legislation. The judges ruling can only be overturned by a higher court.

The administration is trying to scare sanctuary cities into cooperating with ICE even thou the cities do not have any responsibility to enforce federal laws.

It appears that most sanctuary cities are willing to notify ICE of the release of convicted felons and hold them provided they have a federal warrant. However, that is about the extent of the cooperation.

What ICE wants and will not get is vigorous cooperation by these cities which means collecting citizenship data on everyone they arrest or stop and holding all suspected illegal immigrants for ICE detention.

Don't you ever get tired of posting crap that everyone knows is wrong?

Admiral, your boat sank; swim for shore.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Executive Branch can't run the Legislative, the legislative can't run the Executive so neither should the Judicial interfere with the Executive branch's constitutional responsibilities.

This faggot judge did not show reason why the government can't withhold Federal funds.

Do the words "judicial review" mean anything to you?

The judicial branch cannot assume the role of the Executive branch. That is what that SF faggot judge is trying to do.

Guess what? The judge can't stop the President from doing what the law allows him to do. Watch and learn when AG Sessions goes to SF and tells them they have 30 days to comply.

Apparently you don't understand what juridical review means. Any federal court can overturn an executive order if the judge believes the order violates the constitution or any existing federal legislation. The judges ruling can only be overturned by a higher court.

The administration is trying to scare sanctuary cities into cooperating with ICE even thou the cities do not have any responsibility to enforce federal laws.

It appears that most sanctuary cities are willing to notify ICE of the release of convicted felons and hold them provided they have a federal warrant. However, that is about the extent of the cooperation.

What ICE wants and will not get is vigorous cooperation by these cities which means collecting citizenship data on everyone they arrest or stop and holding all suspected illegal immigrants for ICE detention.

Don't you ever get tired of posting crap that everyone knows is wrong?

Admiral, your boat sank; swim for shore.

....Or don't.... LOL

 

[Flopper]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

To know they have an illegal immigrant, either the person has to volunteer that information or police have to investigate. Otherwise local police will be reporting people they suspect of being illegally in the country. Most local law enforcement have far more important duties than assisting ICE find people with immigration status violations which are mostly misdemeanors that carry no punishment.

If the person is a convicted felon and known to be illegally in the country, most sanctuary cities will report the person to ICE before release and will hold the person provided they received a federal warrant within the holding time limit of that state.

 

[Correll]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

To know they have an illegal immigrant, either the person has to volunteer that information or police have to investigate. Otherwise local police will be reporting people they suspect of being illegally in the country. Most local law enforcement have far more important duties than assisting ICE find people with immigration status violations which are mostly misdemeanors that carry no punishment.

If the person is a convicted felon and known to be illegally in the country, most sanctuary cities will report the person to ICE before release and will hold the person provided they received a federal warrant within the holding time limit of that state.

Cops ALWAYS try to identify anyone they run into.

A person that cannot show any American ID, could be not carrying id, because they have a warrant out for their arrest.


Identifying the person will NOT be additional work for the local police.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nope. Just pass an Act of Congress. Fast track it to High Court. In fact. Fast track all these obstructionist turd ruling by Democrats in a robe...and rule them unconstitutional.

Then after 2018 when the GOP has a filibuster proof majority, IMPEACH THESE JUDGES.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

To know they have an illegal immigrant, either the person has to volunteer that information or police have to investigate. Otherwise local police will be reporting people they suspect of being illegally in the country. Most local law enforcement have far more important duties than assisting ICE find people with immigration status violations which are mostly misdemeanors that carry no punishment.

If the person is a convicted felon and known to be illegally in the country, most sanctuary cities will report the person to ICE before release and will hold the person provided they received a federal warrant within the holding time limit of that state.

They dont have to investigate anything when ICE gives them a list of names and photos, dude.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. Just pass an Act of Congress. Fast track it to High Court. In fact. Fast track all these obstructionist turd ruling by Democrats in a robe...and rule them unconstitutional.

Then after 2018 when the GOP has a filibuster proof majority, IMPEACH THESE JUDGES.

Righto, beanie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

To know they have an illegal immigrant, either the person has to volunteer that information or police have to investigate. Otherwise local police will be reporting people they suspect of being illegally in the country. Most local law enforcement have far more important duties than assisting ICE find people with immigration status violations which are mostly misdemeanors that carry no punishment.

If the person is a convicted felon and known to be illegally in the country, most sanctuary cities will report the person to ICE before release and will hold the person provided they received a federal warrant within the holding time limit of that state.

They dont have to investigate anything when ICE gives them a list of names and photos, dude.

Dude, we are not going allow the federal police to federalize the duties of local police: won't happen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually the feds do want the locals to get into "arrest the illegal" business and hold them until ICE shows up.

Locals do not have the $$$ for the extra load.

Although there would be extra cost for local police to investigate and arrest undocumented immigrants, that is not the problem. First off, local police departments can detain undocumented immigrants only the time limit specified in habeas corpus legislation, usually 24 or 48 hours. They either have to charge them, which they can't do or release them. Secondly, they do not have the tools they need in the form of state statues and resources needed to do immigration investigations. Also, in many of these communities, the local police would have no community support if they started arresting people for immigration violations. They would loose the trust of the community that they depend on everyday to arrest, charge, and convict those committing really serious crimes, not federal misdemeanors.

Asking the local police to enforce immigration laws makes about as much sense as asking them to enforce Internal Revenue Code.

For about the tenth time, they don't have to investigate. All they have to do is pick up the damn phone and let the feds know they have an illegal.

To know they have an illegal immigrant, either the person has to volunteer that information or police have to investigate. Otherwise local police will be reporting people they suspect of being illegally in the country. Most local law enforcement have far more important duties than assisting ICE find people with immigration status violations which are mostly misdemeanors that carry no punishment.

If the person is a convicted felon and known to be illegally in the country, most sanctuary cities will report the person to ICE before release and will hold the person provided they received a federal warrant within the holding time limit of that state.

Just stop with the bullshit!

You can't even get one fact correct.

Shut up! The ignorance you are spewing is contagious!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flopper is right and Admiral is wrong.

Study the objective, factual evidence.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If a local government and their law enforcement, who were hired to keep their citizens safe, believe it is in their citizens best interest to not fill up their jail cells with illegal immigrants, and safer for their citizens to use their Police who they pay, to protect their neighborhoods instead of stopping people on the streets asking for ID, or their Police department, based on the neighborhood watch groups and calls they have received from those who are undocumented on illegal doings in their neighborhoods or even harm done to them.... and how those calls have helped them capture more perps and keep their neighborhoods safer and believe using their jail cells and their money and their time to do the job that ICE and the federal govt is suppose to do would harm their citizens more by making it less safe for them, then I think there could be some merit to that argument.

I do NOT believe that if a citizen commits a crime and is jailed for that crime that a non citizen should simply be let loose for committing the same crime....they should be jailed also.

I just don't think the Police should be forced by the Federal govt to take the time and ask every person they stop for a minor traffic violation if they are a citizen or not and spend the time arresting them and putting them in their jails until someone from ICE decides to mosey on down there and retrieve them.

Even in the most conservative communities in the country, I doubt the locals would really want their local police enforcing immigration law. They would have to allocate significant portions of their time and local tax dollars chasing down people that are at most guilty of a just a misdemeanor instead of going after thieves, murders, and rapists.

The people being deported today are mostly convicted criminals whose nationality and location is know to law enforcement. So picking these people up and deporting them is relatively easy. However, they are in the minority. Most undocumented immigrants are not known to the police and have not been convicted of any serious crime. These people will not be easy to apprehend or deport. To find these people ICE will need significant help from local law enforcement and other agencies and they are not likely to get it.

No one is asking or requiring them to do that. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Just what is it the Trumpbots want the locals to do?

Stop hindering ICE from doing their job.

No one is doing that. BTW you don't seem to be aware of the Supreme Court has rendered a decision limiting local authorities' involvement with immigration law.
Please familiarize yourself with the following
Iink detailing that decision and take your broadened knowlege to the next level.
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Parts of ALEC Immigration Law

Oh yes I'm QUITE aware with Obama running to the Supremes the moment Arizona, which was tired of inaction by the Feds, tried to do something about the lawlessness of illegals running around everywhere.
As usual, any time something comes along to try and do something, smelly Dims come to the rescue of illegals.

Well now that the Supremes have agreed the Feds are in charge of enforcing immigration laws, now suddenly Dims are all for states rights, and their right to harbor as many illegals as they wish in sanctuary cities, and in some cases they've ordered their law enforcement to not cooperate with the Feds.

Your side of the aisle has no respect for already existing immigration laws, and if it was up to you assholes we wouldn't even have a border.