9th circus dissmisses case agaisnt sanctuarys in Steinle family lawsuit

[bodecea]

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

It (sanctuary law) actually DOES violate federal law in that it is designed specifically to counteract federal immigration law and oppose it.

It is no more legal than when Jim Crow governors blocked black children from trying to enter segregated public schools and soldiers with fixed bayonets had to escort those children into the schools.

Surprise! The 9th Circuit court got something else wrong. And saying sanctuary policy isn't stopping federal agents from doing their jobs, it just isn't helping them is specious b.s.!

Sanctuary policy is meant to aid and assist people who violate federal law and therefore breaks the law itself.
The distinction between not helping ICE agents and actually hindering them from applying the law, by cutting off all
communications and assistance between sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, and immigration agents is
patently absurd on it's face and the end result is the same....federal law is thwarted by sanctuary policy.

If you aren't ready to discuss the issue don't bother with a reply.

That's nice...but that is NOT what the family sued over. Maybe they would have been better advised by their lawyer/lawyers if that had been what their filed.....but it isn't so they lose.

 

[bodecea]

there is no immigration clause in our Constitution; your right wing bigotry is what got her killed.

San Francisco's illegal sanctuary policy is what killed Katie Steinle and she's not the first person in SF to die due to shielding illegal felons from the law. So **** your idiocy and take your lame post and jam it!

But the family did not sue the city over their sanctuary policy did they?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

But the family did not sue the city over their sanctuary policy did they?

As a matter of fact they did, Perry Mason. San Francisco sanctuary policy is the reason why an illegal immigrant felon with a gun was free to roam the city and shoot the Steinle's daughter.
San Francisco is guilty of criminal negligence and their sanctuary policy is the reason why.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"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."

Any state or municipal policy that contradicts or usurps federal law and authority is, on it's face, a de facto illegal policy.
That's so obvious and manifestly true that a sixth grader could spot it a mile away.
Think of Jim Crow law and policies for instance as a clear historical reference.

That you believe the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal got things right just proves what a brainless fool you are, with all due respect.

 

[bodecea]

But the family did not sue the city over their sanctuary policy did they?

As a matter of fact they did, Perry Mason. San Francisco sanctuary policy is the reason why an illegal immigrant felon with a gun was free to roam the city and shoot the Steinle's daughter.
San Francisco is guilty of criminal negligence and their sanctuary policy is the reason why.

Nope...read the ruling which explains what they sued over. I've posted the ruling several times on this thread.

 

[bodecea]

"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."

Any state or municipal policy that contradicts or usurps federal law and authority is, on it's face, a de facto illegal policy.
That's so obvious and manifestly true that a sixth grader could spot it a mile away.
Think of Jim Crow law and policies for instance as a clear historical reference.

That you believe the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal got things right just proves what a brainless fool you are, with all due respect.

Where did you get your Constitutional Law Degree?

 

[DOTR]

They can appeal. The 9th circuit is often overturned.

 

[bodecea]

They can appeal. The 9th circuit is often overturned.

Not overturned as much as at least two other Circuit Courts.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nope...read the ruling which explains what they sued over. I've posted the ruling several times on this thread.

And I explained in rational constitutional terms why the 9th Circuit Court was wrong once again. And I note you haven't
disputed my post in any way at all. Suck on that!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not overturned as much as at least two other Circuit Courts.

But overturned 80% of the time, however. The ball is in your court.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Where did you get your Constitutional Law Degree?

Where did you get yours? Off the back of a cereal box?

If you want to dispute my reasoning be my guest. I've had legal training and I think I'm on pretty solid ground.

 

[bodecea]

Not overturned as much as at least two other Circuit Courts.

But overturned 80% of the time, however. The ball is in your court.

Trump: 9th Circuit Court has 80 percent overturn rate

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump: 9th Circuit Court has 80 percent overturn rate

Oh, okay.....
79% Because that one percent makes all the difference in the world.

I think the salient point is 79 times out of 100 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gets ***** slapped down.

 

[bodecea]

Where did you get your Constitutional Law Degree?

Where did you get yours? Off the back of a cereal box?

If you want to dispute my reasoning be my guest. I've had legal training and I think I'm on pretty solid ground.

I pointed out that the family didn't sue to overturn the sanctuary policy....do you disagree having read the 9th ruling?

 

[bodecea]

Trump: 9th Circuit Court has 80 percent overturn rate

Oh, okay.....
79% Because that one percent makes all the difference in the world.

DId you read the entire article? How that if you count ALL of the 9th's rulings, only about 1% are overturned.......

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I pointed out that the family didn't sue to overturn the sanctuary policy....do you disagree having read the 9th ruling?

I already commented on this. Maybe you should read that post.
San Francisco's illegal sanctuary policy constitutes criminal negligence because it allows illegal immigrant felons to
walk around San Francisco with impunity putting it's citizens in danger.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

DId you read the entire article? How that if you count ALL of the 9th's rulings, only about 1% are overturned.......

Trump tweeted, the 9th Circuit has an overturned record "close to 80%."

An overturned record can be calculated in at least two ways. By one measure, Trump’s tweet is correct if examining only cases reviewed by the Supreme Court."-------

The Supreme Court is the only measuring stick that matters.
Especially in this case where the supremacy of federal law over San Francisco city law will surely be upheld.

Don't go into the lawyering business yet. Or ever.

 

[danielpalos]

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

It (sanctuary law) actually DOES violate federal law in that it is designed specifically to counteract federal immigration law and oppose it.

It is no more legal than when Jim Crow governors blocked black children from trying to enter segregated public schools and soldiers with fixed bayonets had to escort those children into the schools.

Surprise! The 9th Circuit court got something else wrong. And saying sanctuary policy isn't stopping federal agents from doing their jobs, it just isn't helping them is specious b.s.!

Sanctuary policy is meant to aid and assist people who violate federal law and therefore breaks the law itself.
The distinction between not helping ICE agents and actually hindering them from applying the law, by cutting off all
communications and assistance between sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, and immigration agents is
patently absurd on it's face and the end result is the same....federal law is thwarted by sanctuary policy.

If you aren't ready to discuss the issue don't bother with a reply.

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no immigration clause in our Constitution; your right wing bigotry is what got her killed.

San Francisco's illegal sanctuary policy is what killed Katie Steinle and she's not the first person in SF to die due to shielding illegal felons from the law. So **** your idiocy and take your lame post and jam it!

Show me the express immigration clause for You and Your right wing bigots to be not Only Right, but also correct.

 

[danielpalos]

They can appeal. The 9th circuit is often overturned.

Show us the express immigration clause, frivolous right wingers.