Judge Blocks Trumps EO

[Bonzi]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

 

[theHawk]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

It’s typical MSM reporting. Make a judge who disregards the rule of law a hero for temporarily stopping President Trump, and ignore the mayors that are breaking the law.

 

[Bonzi]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

It’s typical MSM reporting. Make a judge who disregards the rule of law a hero for temporarily stopping President Trump, and ignore the mayors that are breaking the law.

It's actually permanent, however, Trump is appealing it....

 

[jillian]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

an order being found unconstitutional does not mean the "person" is unconstitutional. this has always been a problem with the right.

why does the difference in the choice of the word "authorities" or "officials" have any meaning to you at all?

and no executive order blocking an illegal order is not "blocking progress".

your analysis seems to focus on word choice and not the executive order that was found unconstitutional.

curious.

 

[jillian]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

It’s typical MSM reporting. Make a judge who disregards the rule of law a hero for temporarily stopping President Trump, and ignore the mayors that are breaking the law.

you mean they told the truth about the ruling?

oh nooooooooooooooo

see this is why rightqwingnuts can't have nice things.

 

[theHawk]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

It’s typical MSM reporting. Make a judge who disregards the rule of law a hero for temporarily stopping President Trump, and ignore the mayors that are breaking the law.

It's actually permanent, however, Trump is appealing it....

It’s not permanent until the SCOTUS says so.

 

[Bonzi]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

an order being found unconstitutional does not mean the "person" is unconstitutional. this has always been a problem with the right.

why does the difference in the choice of the word "authorities" or "officials" have any meaning to you at all?

and no executive order blocking an illegal order is not "blocking progress".

your analysis seems to focus on word choice and not the executive order that was found unconstitutional.

curious.

It's subtle and word choice from both news sources are carefully chosen.
Everyone knows that. Except you apparently

 

[Bonzi]

I see nothing wrong with an EO that requires that Immigration laws be followed.
Perhaps the original bill passed by congress was what was unconstitutional?

Either way, he IS being blocked by trying to change things so that rules are followed.
Without rules, chaos

 

[ChrisL]

I just wonder how is enforcing the law unconstitutional?

 

[TNHarley]

I just wonder how is enforcing the law unconstitutional?

It can be considered unconstitutional because the EO put money aside for enforcement. The President does not have that power. Which he doesnt but i havent read the EO so idk for sure.
Wonder where this guy was during obamas term? He got appointed in 2013.. Obama didnt direct funds with EOs(LOL)? OR is he just a political activist like so many other judges?
EDIT : The justice said it didnt allocate a significant amount of $$

 

[ChrisL]

I just wonder how is enforcing the law unconstitutional?

It can be considered unconstitutional because the EO put money aside for enforcement. The President does not have that power. Which he doesnt but i havent read the EO so idk for sure.
Wonder where this guy was during obamas term? He got appointed in 2013.. Obama didnt direct funds with EOs(LOL)? OR is he just a political activist like so many other judges?

Political activist, I am sure. This is one reason why I voted for Trump. The libs are filling the judicial branch of the government with a bunch of social justice warrior ninnies.

 

[TNHarley]

Cities are screaming for federal funds (some equaling up to a third of TOTAL income) while saying fuck you to the federal govt.
Entitled much? Deer geebuz

 

[jon_berzerk]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

It’s typical MSM reporting. Make a judge who disregards the rule of law a hero for temporarily stopping President Trump, and ignore the mayors that are breaking the law.

It's actually permanent, however, Trump is appealing it....

sorry but no

it could move on to appeals court then on to the SC

however the real fix is to pass the law in the senate

and sign into law

 

[jillian]

Interesting how this is reported -

CNN: Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional (Read: Trump is Unconstitutional)

FOX: Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge (Read: Judge is Blocking Progress)

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Some more tidbits from both sides....

FOX: A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

CNN: A federal judge has permanently blocked US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with US immigration authorities.

Interesting. At what point do they NOT cooperate with US Immigration? About what specific things? I also like the difference between "officials" and "authorities"....

an order being found unconstitutional does not mean the "person" is unconstitutional. this has always been a problem with the right.

why does the difference in the choice of the word "authorities" or "officials" have any meaning to you at all?

and no executive order blocking an illegal order is not "blocking progress".

your analysis seems to focus on word choice and not the executive order that was found unconstitutional.

curious.

It's subtle and word choice from both news sources are carefully chosen.
Everyone knows that. Except you apparently

distinction without a difference

your "analysis" is shallow and ignorant

does that make you feel better, loony toon.

so glad I gave you the opportunity to back up your lunatic assertions.

this is why I treat you freaks the way you deserve to be treated.;

 

[jillian]

Cities are screaming for federal funds (some equaling up to a third of TOTAL income) while saying fuck you to the federal govt.
Entitled much? Deer geebuz

red states get more federal funds than blue states. blue states pay more in to the federal government than red states.

try to concentrate, dear.

 

[TNHarley]

Cities are screaming for federal funds (some equaling up to a third of TOTAL income) while saying fuck you to the federal govt.
Entitled much? Deer geebuz

red states get more federal funds than blue states. blue states pay more in to the federal government than red states.

try to concentrate, dear.

thanks for skipping my entire point

 

[easyt65]

The story is not that 'A JUDGE' has blocked the President & DOJ's move to withhold FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS from 'Sanctuary Cities.

The REAL story is how a LIBERAL CALIFORNIA Judge in a state that is the RECIPIENT of those FEDERAL TAC DOLLARS has blocked the President & DOJ's move to withhold FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS from 'Sanctuary Cities.

In essence, 1 state that receives those dollars, that depends on those dollars to help fund their criminal activity - violating federal law, is holding the rest of the country 'hostage', continuing to 'steal' tax dollars to support their crimes.

The Supreme Court should step in and rule that any city / state that is found to be in direct violation of US Federal Law can NOT successfully take any action to FORCE the FEDERAL government to hand over FEDERAL funds to them as long as they are violating FEDERAL LAW.

Violation of Federal Law SHOULD result in the potential loss of FEDERAL Funds.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The story is not that 'A JUDGE' has blocked the President & DOJ's move to withhold FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS from 'Sanctuary Cities.

The REAL story is how a LIBERAL CALIFORNIA Judge in a state that is the RECIPIENT of those FEDERAL TAC DOLLARS has blocked the President & DOJ's move to withhold FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS from 'Sanctuary Cities.

In essence, 1 state that receives those dollars, that depends on those dollars to help fund their criminal activity - violating federal law, is holding the rest of the country 'hostage', continuing to 'steal' tax dollars to support their crimes.

The Supreme Court should step in and rule that any city / state that is found to be in direct violation of US Federal Law can NOT successfully take any action to FORCE the FEDERAL government to hand over FEDERAL funds to them as long as they are violating FEDERAL LAW.

Violation of Federal Law SHOULD result in the potential loss of FEDERAL Funds.

that is why trump is planning on breaking that circuit into two

 

[jillian]

Cities are screaming for federal funds (some equaling up to a third of TOTAL income) while saying fuck you to the federal govt.
Entitled much? Deer geebuz

red states get more federal funds than blue states. blue states pay more in to the federal government than red states.

try to concentrate, dear.

thanks for skipping my entire point

your "point" was fallacious. just wanted to help.

 

[ChrisL]

The story is not that 'A JUDGE' has blocked the President & DOJ's move to withhold FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS from 'Sanctuary Cities.

The REAL story is how a LIBERAL CALIFORNIA Judge in a state that is the RECIPIENT of those FEDERAL TAC DOLLARS has blocked the President & DOJ's move to withhold FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS from 'Sanctuary Cities.

In essence, 1 state that receives those dollars, that depends on those dollars to help fund their criminal activity - violating federal law, is holding the rest of the country 'hostage', continuing to 'steal' tax dollars to support their crimes.

The Supreme Court should step in and rule that any city / state that is found to be in direct violation of US Federal Law can NOT successfully take any action to FORCE the FEDERAL government to hand over FEDERAL funds to them as long as they are violating FEDERAL LAW.

Violation of Federal Law SHOULD result in the potential loss of FEDERAL Funds.

And clearly the feds are the ones who are supposed to be in control of immigration. This whole situation is just bogus and maddening.