Posted on 03/07/2019 8:27:07 AM PST by SleeperCatcher
The Trump administration lost another “sanctuary city” funding case following a ruling by another Obama-appointed liberal activist federal judge in the 9th Circuit on Wednesday, bringing the total number of cases lost to 10. But before the Left celebrates, they should take stock of the conservative monster they’re creating.
As The Daily Caller reports, the case involved a lawsuit filed against the administration by — who else? — California, which claimed that the State Department did not have the authority to cut off funds to self-proclaimed sanctuary jurisdictions because Congress never gave the agency that kind of broad discretionary authority:
Judge William Orrick III — an Obama-appointed judge serving on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — ruled Monday that the Department of State cannot withhold federal law enforcement grants from “sanctuary” jurisdictions without an act of Congress.
The case was brought forward by the state of California and the county and city of San Francisco, all of which stood to lose over $30 million in funding from the federal government, according to The Washington Post.
“Congress knows how to grant broad discretionary authority but did not do so here,” Orrick stated in his ruling, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, adding that neither the president nor the Department of Justice can mandate state and local governments to reform their policies to qualify for federal funding.
Orrick’s ruling comes after the Trump administration has lost additional sanctuary funding cases at U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 9th, 7th and 3rd circuits.
Federal law and regulations governing the disbursement of taxpayer funds for law enforcement purposes as they relate to immigration enforcement seem clear enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
Conservative monster? Pfffft.
Most Americans under 40 are indoctrinated imbeciles.
Anything that conservatives try to do at the ballot box, or legislatively is derailed by the left, the media, and Republicans who are simply rebranded Democrats.
I’m incredibly frustrated by all this.
“...the State Department did not have the authority to cut off funds to self-proclaimed sanctuary jurisdictions because Congress never gave the agency that kind of broad discretionary authority.”
Conversely, “Sanctuary Jurisdiction” needs to be on the list of approved recipients to get (Federal) our money.
If Congress didn’t specifically provide authority to fund self-proclaimed sanctuary jurisdictions, then those shouldn’t get any money, either.
And WTH is the gov’t giving any of our money to cities?
I do not like the IMPACT of the ruling but I do agree with the logic. If Congress wanted to make funding of XYZ program dependent on the presence or absence of a particular law or action, they can. In fact, they have. Witness the federal involvement of the drive 55 efforts.
Congress has the constitutional power to make the disbursement of funds dependent on the full cooperation with all federal laws.
The president has been in need of better lawyers throughout his first term. In today’s environment, it’s apparently difficult for most top lawyers to consider working for him. The Bitter Hillary Voters will work to make like miserable for any such applicant. From social media slander to restaurant confrontations, they have become thugs and bullies.
‘Full cooperation with all laws’ - I thought that was a given. Silly me.
You know, I don’t like shooting people either. Let’s make sure only the Democrats get to do it...
And THIS is why it’s important to name and confirm DISTRICT judges (which the Republican Senate is pathetic at) in addition to Court of Appeals judges (which they have been very good at).
Yep. The problem is we no longer have anyone representing us in Washington. We have Trump and then this Rat/RINO Uniparty of treason. 70,500 criminal foreign invaders broke into this country in February alone and incredibly, incredibly we have asswipes in Washington FIGHTING to see it continues!
My eldest is 20.
I have tried to teach him - and his siblings - the truth. And the courage to stand up for it.
It seems to have worked.
Likewise, I am of the opinion that the Constitution is incorporated against the states and that the enumerated authority for Congress to create a uniform rule of naturalization, would force the states to comply with federal law regarding immigration. However, until the DOJ or Congress files suit against (and makes an example of) these sanctuary states / cities, NO ONE is going to listen.
“My eldest is 20.
I have tried to teach him - and his siblings - the truth. And the courage to stand up for it.
It seems to have worked.”
Your kids, and my kids are in the minority. It’s going to be very bad for them.
If we had more fighters like Trump in the Republican party instead of politicians who “take a dive” like bought off corrupt boxers this wouldn’t be happening to us. We have to start looking for trustworthy Republicans in our states and we have to start giving money to groups other than the Chamber of Commerce owned NRC. We have to start doing this now.
I am with you.
Will there be blowback? Yeah, and so far as 2020 is concerned it will probably play to our benefit.
But the long-term outlook is grim indeed. You are
completely right about younger people. As more turn 18
and we slowly die off we’ll hit a tipping point and AOC
will become POTUS.
“As more turn 18
and we slowly die off we’ll hit a tipping point and AOC
will become POTUS.”
I hope I’m dead before that happens.
Americans will get what they want, but they’ll be quite unhappy to find out what they want isn’t what they thought it was.
“adding that neither the president nor the Department of Justice can mandate state and local governments to reform their policies to qualify for federal funding”
Hmm, so the federal government can’t withhold highway funding contingent on changing the drinking age to 21?
” . . .neither the president nor the Department of Justice can mandate state and local governments to reform their policies to qualify for federal funding . . .”
This is the heart of the Judge’s decision. He says clearly that no public official or municipality need obey any law with which it disagrees. As I recall from history, this thinking presaged the Civil War. I hope that is not where we are heading.
I guess I don’t completely understand all this, but I sure don’t see how cities can get away with what they need for “sanctuary cities” while saying the feds have no right to deny funds for this......this really doesn’t add up in my mind. It was always my understanding that, technically speaking, illegals have no rights in our country.
Huge conservative backlash?
Someone’s in for a disappointment.
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.