[The judges said in the ruling that their role was not to “assess the optimal immigration policies for our country.” ]
But they will anyway.
[Instead, the panel said its ruling aims to protect “one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government—the separation of powers.”]
What a laugh. The Judiciary runs the country.
And who checks their power?
Corrupt libspeak:
Court denies Trump’s denial of law deniers!
But it was OK to withhold federal money for highways if the Federal speed limits were not implemented or school lunch money from schools that did not adopt Michele Obama’s menus. It is time for SCOTUS to put an end to these “Resistance” judges who ignore the law and legislate from the bench.
BS! BS! BS!
It is established that the executive office EXECUTES the law and its utter BS that this same judiciary had no problem when Obama used the same threats to cajole states into accepting Obamacare or enacting his disastrous school policies. Never mind the embezzlement of funds to his pet projects.
Now, suddenly, the executive office must spend the money in the most “liberal” interpretation of the law as defined by these political judges?!
BS!
States should now file a volley of lawsuits to demand federal funds without any riders - highway speed limits, gun control, etc.
Make the judiciary stand by their word
Its NOT a law so ignoring it is not breaking a law.
Judges love a little Dictatorship
A nationwide injunction issued by a district court judge.
If a lowly district judge can issue a ruling that pertains outside his jurisdiction, what exactly is the rationale for district courts and circuit courts?
The judge is wrong. Yes the power of the purse belongs to Congress to appropriate money. The president is not required to spend money they appropriate
Slow walk and audit the grants until they go away.
Prosecute every misdeed.
Just as the Founders envisioned...
This was actually the plan if Felonia von Pantsuit had been elected.
The little federal judge-presidents wouldn't have gainsaid Herself, of course - but "things" would have been happening in a packed Supreme Court, like overturning Heller and other unsavory stuff, and the lower courts would have been jamming all kinds of cr@p up our keesters, like wide-open borders.
It’s time to say no to judicial tyranny. It’s also time to impeach renegade judges who violate their oath.
These Justice Department grants to the states are to pay for state costs incurred in support of federal law enforcement.
If sanctuary states refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, then they should not receive the funds granted to the states for those costs, since they are not being incurred.
-PJ
Preposterous. As if Congress must approve how every Agency spends every penny it has budgeted.
No moneys can be allocated without Congressional action, but once the money is allocated, Agencies can use that money in any manner they see fit as long as it is not illegal, does not violate the conditions Congress imposed in allocating the money, or the specific requirements set down for the funding.
This ruling is absurd on the face of it. We have no Constitution left to defend.
Then conservative jurisdictions can declare themselves sanctuaries from any federal laws they don’t like, and the federal government can’t withhold funding from them.