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

[JakeStarkey]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

It's unlawful as the law violators are being assisted and hidden
Jesus

There needs to be a law decided by the courts and appeal process stating sanctuary cities are illegal until then the president or anyone else cannot categorically declare it illegal.

It will drive illegals underground and create a much more dangerous situation without significantly changing how many illegals we have.

Such a law will land in the courts. So let's let the one now go forward.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

It's unlawful as the law violators are being assisted and hidden
Jesus

There needs to be a law decided by the courts and appeal process stating sanctuary cities are illegal until then the president or anyone else cannot categorically declare it illegal.

It will drive illegals underground and create a much more dangerous situation without significantly changing how many illegals we have.

Since when are laws "decided by the courts"? Laws are written by the legislative branch and signed into law and enforced by the executive branch. Courts do not create law, and the problem is that is what these judges are trying to do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

It's unlawful as the law violators are being assisted and hidden
Jesus

There needs to be a law decided by the courts and appeal process stating sanctuary cities are illegal until then the president or anyone else cannot categorically declare it illegal.

It will drive illegals underground and create a much more dangerous situation without significantly changing how many illegals we have.

Since when are laws "decided by the courts"? Laws are written by the legislative branch and signed into law and enforced by the executive branch. Courts do not create law, and the problem is that is what these judges are trying to do.

Federal courts do opine their constitutionality when called to do so, Admiral. Read Article III on original jurisdiction of matters constitutional.

 

[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.

The country is ran by the legislative branch; i.e: they make the laws and regulations, and then the executive branch signs them in. The executive branch appoints supreme court justices. The executive branch essentially runs the judicial branch. With the current legislative/executive group, the judicial branch can be ignored. What are they going to do? Arrest the president? Won't ever happen.

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

A federal injunction doesn't effect the president. Violating the constitution isn't a criminal offense. Also, who is going to impeach the president? His congressional republican buddies? Not a chance. Second stupidest thing I've read this year.

A federal court injunction does effect the president. No one can ignore an injunction without suffering the consequences. It doesn't matter whether you are the president or a garbage collector. If Trump ignored an injunction he would be guilty of criminal contempt. The courts take such actions seriously, particular if the person violating the injunction holds high public office.

The House would have no choice but to introduce a bill of impeachment regardless of which party controlled it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A president can't do something that a federal judge tells him he can't, unless it is a state of declared war and then he could shoot all of us.

 

[GoDemocratic]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

Bro, almost anybody thinks $T needs to be brought down a notch. He has his daughter buying up land in far east then he builds an army base there and she sells the land back to the govt.for nice profit. You wanted a Real Estate mogul for Pres, you got it. I'm waiting for the next swindle to surface and he's out of here.

 

[Flopper]

He won't lose on the Sanctuary Cities issue in withholding money.

I don't think so. The federal government is trying to punish sanctuary cities without proving in court that what they are doing is unlawful or unconstitutional.

He has every right to do, is the point, and SCOTUS likely will uphold Trump.

It is only creating a lot of conflict between governments, and as you see, this will be a major conflict further dividing our nation and over what?

They are here illegally. We have to live with that and have life go on as normally as possible.

Trump's battle against sanctuary cities is really dumb. His executive order is not specific as to what funds should be withheld. The cause for holding the funds is violation of Federal Code 8 Code 1373 which only forbids state and local government from prohibiting entities under them from communicating with ICE. This law does not require states are local governments to do anything, like law enforcement employees in sanctuary cities are going initiate communications with ICE without any direction from above. That seems highly unlikely.

I guess because Trump has issued a dumb executive order the court has decide to nullify it if even thou there has been no attempt to withhold any funds. So why should a higher court review the lower courts decision when there has been no attempt to withhold any funds.

It really looks like both Trump and the court jumped the gun.

 

[basquebromance]

ICE agent don't deport people....THE LAW deports them.

 

[Slashsnake]

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.

The country is ran by the legislative branch; i.e: they make the laws and regulations, and then the executive branch signs them in. The executive branch appoints supreme court justices. The executive branch essentially runs the judicial branch. With the current legislative/executive group, the judicial branch can be ignored. What are they going to do? Arrest the president? Won't ever happen.

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

A federal injunction doesn't effect the president. Violating the constitution isn't a criminal offense. Also, who is going to impeach the president? His congressional republican buddies? Not a chance. Second stupidest thing I've read this year.

A federal court injunction does effect the president. No one can ignore an injunction without suffering the consequences. It doesn't matter whether you are the president or a garbage collector. If Trump ignored an injunction he would be guilty of criminal contempt. The courts take such actions seriously, particular if the person violating the injunction holds high public office.

The House would have no choice but to introduce a bill of impeachment regardless of which party controlled it.

Oh yeah? Please explain to everyone how the president will be arrested if they decide to ignore a federal injunction? The executive branch breaks laws all the time without consequence. The only people who can find a president guilty of anything is congress, which then has to go through both chambers before he's impeached, and then that's the only time he can be charged with a crime. The only person who can arrest the president is the sergeant at arms, who comes from the legislative branch.

What are you even talking about? The House has no choice? They don't have to do a ******* thing the courts tell them to do... The judicial branch checks the legislative branch by voiding any unconstitutional action taken by them and that's it.

Read up a little bit... The courts are powerless to do anything.

 

[charwin95]

I say withhold the funds anyway, screw the psycho libtard judge.

We donate $360 billions to federal tax. We only get a little portion of that--------- Maybe we should withhold that also------- see what's going to happen.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Where was this idiot judge when obuthole withheld federal funds over the bathroom issue in NC? Typical dimwit hypocrisy.

 

[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.

The country is ran by the legislative branch; i.e: they make the laws and regulations, and then the executive branch signs them in. The executive branch appoints supreme court justices. The executive branch essentially runs the judicial branch. With the current legislative/executive group, the judicial branch can be ignored. What are they going to do? Arrest the president? Won't ever happen.

That piss ant judge can issue a federal injunction. If the president violates the injunction, he will be guilty of criminal intent. The next step would be impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Trump is not that dumb.

A federal injunction doesn't effect the president. Violating the constitution isn't a criminal offense. Also, who is going to impeach the president? His congressional republican buddies? Not a chance. Second stupidest thing I've read this year.

A federal court injunction does effect the president. No one can ignore an injunction without suffering the consequences. It doesn't matter whether you are the president or a garbage collector. If Trump ignored an injunction he would be guilty of criminal contempt. The courts take such actions seriously, particular if the person violating the injunction holds high public office.

The House would have no choice but to introduce a bill of impeachment regardless of which party controlled it.

Oh yeah? Please explain to everyone how the president will be arrested if they decide to ignore a federal injunction? The executive branch breaks laws all the time without consequence. The only people who can find a president guilty of anything is congress, which then has to go through both chambers before he's impeached, and then that's the only time he can be charged with a crime. The only person who can arrest the president is the sergeant at arms, who comes from the legislative branch.

What are you even talking about? The House has no choice? They don't have to do a ******* thing the courts tell them to do... The judicial branch checks the legislative branch by voiding any unconstitutional action taken by them and that's it.

Read up a little bit... The courts are powerless to do anything.

When presidents commit a crime such as ignoring a federal court injunction, it is the House's duty to investigate and pass a bill of impeachment. It is the Senate's duty to conduct the impeachment trial.

The president would be subpoenaed to testify before the House as would all of his advisers. It would create an environment in the White House that would make it impossible to govern similar to what we saw in the months running up to Nixon impeachment. In a case of ignoring a federal injunction, the president's guilt would be so obvious that even the president's supporters in congress would be far more concerned with keeping their seat in congress than supporting the president who is obviously guilty of violating the law that he is sworn to protect.