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

[BasicHumanUnit]

"Activist judge" = rendered a decision I don't like, and nothing else.

False. Activist judge = judge that renders IDIOTIC decisions from the bench based on his or her AGENDA...not law....and certainly lacking in common sense.

 

[blastoff]

It's a federal judge. What's "California" got to do with anything?

Is California "an island in the Pacific"? Or is there some new geographical feature this week that magically nullifies the federal judiciary?

Maybe that he's a federal district judge in SAN FRANCISCO? You know, up there in Northern California.

 

[basquebromance]

Judge Orrick blocked the Sanctuary City Order and Planned Parenthood videos - and donated $250,000 to Obama to get his job

 

[Rambunctious]

This won't stand, one by one these liberal judges will be embarrassed in the end and Trump will get his way. California and other states will end up losing.

 

[Flash]

No more having to adhere to Federal immigration law. That means I can tell the Federal government to cram the 1964 Civil Rights Acts up their ass. Now I can discriminate against those idiots that voted 97% for Obama. I don't have to worry about federal enforcement.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Suppose we were under attack by North Korea and an ultra liberal judge blocked Trumps ability to wage war.

This is a MUCH more serious national problem than the just the irresponsible actions of a lone judge. They can and will put us ALL at risk over their agendas.

There needs to be some kind of judicial consensus requiring "X" number if judges from "X" number of various states to halt Executive orders that pose no threat to national security and are in fact necessary to ensure national security.

Allowing one idiot on the bench here and there is a serous risk to national security.

Perhaps a judge should have blocked our selling N Korea nuclear reactors a mere two years before we placed them on a sillyass "axis of evil" list. Perhaps a judge should have blocked this plan when it came up during the Clinton administration or when it was completed under the Bush administration. Perhaps a judge should have blocked Bush's provision of US taxpayer funding to assist N Korea in closing the deal.

Perhaps a judge should have blocked your participation in selling N Korea these reactors. You sure as hell didn't.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut instead of making racist remarks about Judge Curiel last year. He was too stupid and somebody should have told him about checks n' balances and separation of power! LOVE IT.
Trump is fucking IMPOTENT.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Looks like these political activist sensitive judges will soon feel the wrath of Neil Gorsuch and the Supreme Court.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Just do it, Trump. These 'judges' have no say.

You have no say, obviously shoog, but whine on, by all means.

This faggot judge will be overruled. Like all 9th jerkit faggot rulings.

OH, the judge is gay? Why, I did not know that.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Another activist judge. No surprise condidering where the piece of shit is from.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Looks like these political activist sensitive judges will soon feel the wrath of Neil Gorsuch and the Supreme Court.

And truck drivers who won't freeze to death with their loads.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Another activist judge. No surprise condidering where the piece of shit is from.

Now illegal aliens are judges?!?!?!? This has gone too far!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

And notice the leftist pukes here, once again show who really is pro-illegal alien.

 

[Fenton Lum]

"Activist judge" = rendered a decision I don't like, and nothing else.

False. Activist judge = judge that renders IDIOTIC decisions from the bench based on his or her AGENDA...not law....and certainly lacking in common sense.

It's always partisanshit hon, nothing more.

 

[Pogo]

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 country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

The judicial branch is there as a check on that executive branch. That's kind of the whole point.

Do you think that was an abuse of power or something?
Because, otherwise, I don't even see the point in you saying that. The last travel ban was within his authority. Pretty sure holding municipalities and states accountable for doing illegal acts and helping criminals is within his administrations authority as well.

Oh I didn't even address the content. I addressed the use of the adjective "California" firstly, and the wish of the other poster to dispense with the intentionally-designed system of checks and balances secondly.


Any minute now we'll hear from AG Gump: "I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an estuary in the most populous state can issue an order that stops the President of the United States in what appears to be clearly his statutory constitutional duty". I wonder if Gump voted to put this judge in place too...

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut instead of making racist remarks about Judge Curiel last year. He was too stupid and somebody should have told him about checks n' balances and separation of power! LOVE IT.
Trump is fucking IMPOTENT.

so you are saying this is all a personal vendetta? Interesting


































Idiot.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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 country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

The judicial branch is there as a check on that executive branch. That's kind of the whole point.

It is, but only when executives and legislators fail to exercise good judgement in taking the actions they do. Even though those elected individuals are members of one party or another, they are nonetheless the representatives of all the citizens of the U.S. When one's favorability is as low as Trump's and the Congress', good judgment, in part, includes making and enforcing policy in a win-win way, not an "I say this is best; therefore it is" way.

It all comes down to selecting the right leadership style for the situation at hand. That's what good leaders do. They don't stick to just one and apply it, come hell or high water. Given the factually fractious nature of the citizenry in the U.S. these days, a genuinely collaborative approach is what will work best.

Now, in all honesty, I don't expect too many lawyers to be savvy about the ways and means of good operations management, but I do expect a former CEO who's staffed his administration with other former CEOs to know those principles inside out and apply them to their fullest effect. As I've said before, they "play chess."

 

[DarkFury]

Scotus will soon be informing those judges that what they are doing is illegal. And the revenge that follows will be epic!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump = not winning

Appeal it, Trump and go to the Court. You will win there.

 

[TNHarley]

did he say how it violates the constitution?