Obama Donor Judge: No Sanctuary for American Victims

American Thinker.com ^ | November 22, 2017 | Daniel John Sobieski

[Kaslin]

The Constitution and the laws passed by Congress define one person who determines and executes U.S. immigration policy and U.S. District Judge William Orrick is not it. Yet Judge Orrick is once again opposing the expressed will of the American people through their elected representatives by issuing a permanent ban on President Trump’s executive order defunding sanctuary cities:

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.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling Monday in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. According to the judge, Trump can’t set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

But is he setting new conditions or enforcing existing conditions and existing law? Federal funds, particularly federal law enforcement grants, are given out on the assumption, if not the expressed intent, that recipients are going to use that money enforcing federal law. They are not provided out of the goodness of taxpayer hearts.

As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has observed, activist judges deeply involved in politics are likely more loyal to their ideology than to the Constitution, doing great harm to the country and the American people:

“Judges who take the law into their own hands, who make up constitutional 'rights' in order to strike down laws they oppose, undermine the people's right to have their values shape public policy and define the culture.”

Certainly, President Trump and his Department of Justice are well within their authority in directing executive branch departments to enforce federal laws and programs they administer:

[Mashood]

Do states still have to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[Jacquerie]

Fer sure.