Posted on 08/10/2017 4:26:06 PM PDT by antidemoncrat
A U.S. district judge in Austin has rejected an effort by Texas to have a law that would punish so-called sanctuary cities be declared constitutional ahead of the measure taking effect next month.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Well, this IS Austin, TX we’re talking about!
We have the same problem here with the cluster-fock of Socialists that live in, ‘The People’s Republik of Madistan’ that think they run our entire state.
Grrrr!
Filling federal bench vacancies should be one of the administration’s priorities. These judges will continue to thwart the will of the people and trash the constitution.
The judicial tyrant in question...
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks
Sparks, Sam
Born 1939 in Austin, TX
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on October 1, 1991, to a new seat authorized by 104 Stat. 5089. Confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1991, and received commission on November 25, 1991.
Education:
University of Texas, B.A., 1961
University of Texas School of Law, LL.B., 1963
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Homer Thornberry, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, 1964-1965
Private practice, El Paso, Texas, 1965-1991
Actually, the judge is right. This case was not “ripe” (or whatever the proper legal term is) for litigation as it has not even gone into effect yet.
It’s a constitutional law and will ultimately found to be so.
GOOD OL’ w.
This is how the left exercises power now, with lawsuits on the dockets of leftist judges.
Congress can de-fund the NGOs filing these suits and impose term limits on federal judges (or at least re-confirm them every few years).
we need term limits for these creeps
Sp-arks is a communist. He has been overturned more that a 2 bit prostitute. He will overruled with in days..
It was H.W., not W.
Bush coming back to bite us again!
Stopped reading right there. Austin is the Kalifornica of the Southwest.
Little W Big w.. You can tell the difference? One Worlders both. ;-)
This is poorly written. The State of Texas passed the law banning sanctuary cities. Austin then sued to have the Texas law declared unconstitutional.
Law is not active until Sept 1. Therefore it would be an advisory opinion which federal courts cannot issue. Right to dismiss
House Atreides wrote:
“Actually, the judge is right. This case was not “ripe” (or whatever the proper legal term is) for litigation as it has not even gone into effect yet.
It’s a constitutional law and will ultimately found to be so.
“
Then how did a judge get to rule on something not yet in effect?
He didn’t “rule” on it. He dismissed it WITHOUT PREJUDICE (so that the case can be refiled at a proper time).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.