Biden EPA gave a $20 million grant to his own "environmental justice" adviser WHILE SHE WAS STILL WORKING FOR HIM

[Delldude]

You just keep DODGING, and changing the subject, and you are BORING.

No no....it's DOGEING now................

 

[Marener]

You just keep DODGING, and changing the subject, and you are BORING.

Not at all. That's the point you're bringing up. If the federal government can't require you to cooperate with ICE, then the state can pass a law dictating to the people under their authority that they don't cooperate with ICE. They're the same.

A private citizen can cooperate with ICE. The police are not private citizens.

 

[Marener]

Because federal law says they can't. That's why, Duh!

The federal law says no such thing. Duh!

 

[protectionist]

Imagine being propagandized you believe everything that comes out of the admin's PR dept.

Last week, Elon Musk’s government cost-slashing initiative, dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency, posted an online “wall of receipts,” celebrating how much it had saved by canceling federal contracts.

Now the organization, which is also known as the U.S. DOGE Service, has deleted all of the five biggest “savings” on that original list, after The New York Times and other media outlets pointed out they were riddled with errors.

The last of the original top five disappeared from the site in the early hours of Tuesday, even as the group claimed in its latest update that its savings to date had increased to $65 billion. The website offered no explanation for why it removed some items or how it arrived at the higher total. Neither the U.S. DOGE Service nor the White House responded to questions Tuesday morning.

DOGE Quietly Deletes the 5 Biggest Spending Cuts It Celebrated Last Week

The cuts, highlighted on an earlier version of the “wall of receipts” posted by Elon Musk’s team, contained mistakes that vastly inflated the amount of money saved.

www.nytimes.com

Every painter artist makes some "errors" in the course of doing a painting. These get routinely fixed, and the painter moves on to the next part of the canvas. Ho hum. yawn****

 

[protectionist]

The federal law says no such thing. Duh!

Of course it does, and your laughable pretenses aren't going to change or accomplish anything. You are just trying to make yourself feel better.

When the sanctuary bums all get thrown in jail, you'll pretend you never said all this stuff.

 

[Marener]

Every painter artist makes some "errors" in the course of doing a painting. These get routinely fixed, and the painter moves on to the next part of the canvas. Ho hum. yawn****

It demonstrates lack of competency. They don’t know what they’re doing or saying.

 

[struth]

Except there is no conflict because that law does not and cannot require cooperation with ICE detainers and other non-judicial warrants.

A state can pass a law requiring cooperation with ICE detainers, They don't have to.

You are right that the Federal Govt can't require State officials to enforce federal law. However you are wrong to suggest they can pass state laws requring anyone to violate or ignore federal law.

 

[Marener]

Of course it does

It doesn't. That's because you can't be accused of illegally impeding ICE simply by not cooperating with them. In this instance, the state and local government is not cooperating with ICE, that extends to the police given they are a part of the state or local government.

No one seriously doubts the authority of a state and local government to dictate what their police can and can't do.

 

[protectionist]

It demonstrates lack of competency. They don’t know what they’re doing or saying.

Again, you are out of your league. You obviously also know nothing about painting.
I'm a professional painter artist, with a gallery of about 60 paintings. You are an airhead, with a big mouth.

 

[Marener]

A state can pass a law requiring cooperation with ICE detainers, They don't have to.

You are right that the Federal Govt can't require State officials to enforce federal law. However you are wrong to suggest they can pass state laws requring anyone to violate or ignore federal law.

Is there a state law requiring anyone to violate federal law?

 

[TimFitz]

My views are supported by a LAW PROFESSOR and probably the appeals courts. You support LAWFARE.

Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal

Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense te…

jonathanturley.org

"Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan"

MSN

"Reacting to Engoron's decision to reject a stay last week, Turley said, "That has a gross unfairness to it when you combine the use of the law and the size of his judgment and then this requirement for a deposit. But he just simply brushed those aside and his tone almost bordered on the mocking."

Pam Bondi needs to prosecute Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and the crooked judges.

Nobody takes Turley seriously anymore, He is little more than a Trump stooge who sacrificed his integrity for a check from Fox noise.

 

[Marener]

Again, you are out of your league. You obviously also know nothing about painting.
I'm a professional painter artist, with a gallery of about 60 paintings. You are an airhead.

Okay. So pretend you're a doctor who misdiagnoses people with cancer. Still no big deal?

Not everyone is occupied in such low stakes endeavors.

 

[Delldude]

Nobody takes Turley seriously anymore, He is little more than a Trump stooge who sacrificed his integrity for a check from Fox noise.

Hillary supporter too.

 

[struth]

Not at all. That's the point you're bringing up. If the federal government can't require you to cooperate with ICE, then the state can pass a law dictating to the people under their authority that they don't cooperate with ICE. They're the same.

A private citizen can cooperate with ICE. The police are not private citizens.

Incorrect, they aren't the same thing.

A state can not pass a law that contridicts federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution says that Federal law takes precedent over state law, so a state can't pass a low that contridicts federal law.

This is not the same as State agents being required to enforce Federal law. They can't be required to do that. They however can't interfere or undermine a federal investigation or get in the way of federal agents doing their jobs.

Such as, for example, concealing or harboring illegal aliens in violation of 8 USC 13
24(A)

 

[Marener]

They however can't interfere or undermine a federal investigation or get in the way of federal agents doing their jobs.

They aren't doing that. ICE is perfectly able to do their jobs, just they don't get to comandeer others to do so.

 

[protectionist]

It doesn't. That's because you can't be accused of illegally impeding ICE simply by not cooperating with them. In this instance, the state and local government is not cooperating with ICE, that extends to the police given they are a part of the state or local government.

No one seriously doubts the authority of a state and local government to dictate what their police can and can't do.

You keep changing the subject and pretending that your point is the point of the discussion, It isn't.

Federal immigration law trumps (pardon the pun) state sanctuary law and policy, and the important difference between a state’s or city’s (a) decision not to help the feds (which it is allowed to do) and (b) positive obstruction or interference with the feds (which it is forbidden from doing).
Homan made clear that the feds would not attempt to commandeer state and city officials. He acknowledged that such officials have no duty to help federal immigration agents. But they may not interfere with the agents in the execution of their duties or take affirmative steps to conceal or shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.
Which is exactly what sanctuary cities are doing.
Enacting sanctuary laws = "take affirmative steps"

ANDREW McCARTHY: Trump's incoming border czar issues a warning sanctuary cities ignore at their own peril

We know from experience (in the last Trump administration) that open-borders advocate organizations will forum-shop cases to activist progressive judges who will rule in their favor.

www.foxnews.com

 

[TimFitz]

This is the type of blatant, in your face corruption communist and Democrat dictatorships are known for.

Thank you, DOGE, for uncovering the MASSIVE money-laundering and corruption we endured for the past 4 years (and beyond).

There isn’t any reason to believe this. Anymore than it here was ever any reason to believe the ridiculous claims made by DOGE.

The look for things they can exaggerate and twist to sell their Trump sheeple,

 

[otto105]

Calling Pam Bondi!! I need an arrest warrant ASAP.

Oh my fuckup jesus!

A plan to replace outdated alliances with better more energy efficient ones is a scandal???? Was the TWO BILLION DOLLARS SCHEDULES TO GO TO JARED KUSHENER?????? Do the murderous saudi's know??????


Linked to a black person no less!!!!!!


The horrors the horrors!!!!!


Where is that ***** bondi on this!!!!!!!

 

[TimFitz]

Arresting political enemies is pretty fascist. There’s nothing illegal here.

Especially as there are strong odds that the claim isn’t true. Which would not be a first ofr DOGE.

 

[marvin martian]

There isn’t any reason to believe this. Anymore than it here was ever any reason to believe the ridiculous claims made by DOGE.

The look for things they can exaggerate and twist to sell their Trump sheeple,

There's no reason for YOU to believe it, because your religion won't allow you to.