Posted on 04/14/2017 11:32:47 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A California federal judge on Friday strongly questioned the U.S. Justice Department over whether to suspend an order by President Donald Trump to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities for immigrants.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III questioned the purpose of the president's order as he heard arguments from two large California counties and the Justice Department in San Francisco federal court. Both counties have asked for a nationwide preliminary injunction to the order.
As part of a larger plan to transform how the United States deals with immigration and national security, Trump in January signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Remember when Arizona was under attack for wanting to call ICE when they picked up an illegal?
Fedgov is not required to give any money to states, most of these programs are not constitutional anyway.
And when the CITIZENS of California voted in 1994 to deny taxpayer funded services to illegal aliens, a “Federal Judge” nullified it and said only the Federal government has the ability to make a law respecting immigration.
How does that square with California municipalities and counties attempting to make their own immigration laws?
One would think the AZ ruling would have settled that immigration is Federal law. But in the upside down liberal logic, I guess that only applies to states that actually want to follow the federal law.
Send a dozen MS-13 gang members to his house promising them cash and drugs, and he will change his mind.
Ah, so podunk low-level NOT elected judge? We don’t need no stinkin’ low-level California judges. Is the whole stupid country the Supreme Court or something? So WHAT, buddy??
Doesn’t make sense. :(
IMO, it is proof that the courts are political.
Also, what are the chances that one of the hundreds of lower court liberal justices will disagree with a ruling. Especially if it is a ruling from a conservative.
And if it happens with the executive branch, it can happen with the legislative branch too.
Obviously the judge in question is basing his opinion on his political views as he should be well aware of our nation’s laws. If the moron doesn’t know we have laws addressing illegals then he doesn’t need to be a judge
Damned islamidemorepublicommucrat judges.
Judge, I have a question?
Did you swear to uphold the Constitution?
If you did and you don’t, expect a problem in your future.
California voted to not do business in North Carolina due to the, “bathroom bill”.
They essentially said that by virtue of this practice, no state funds would be spent as a direct result of the tar heel policies.
Gander, meet goose.
The State of Arizona couldn’t even enforce a law stating the same Federal immigration statutes per the USSC ruling that only the feds can enforce the immigration laws and now cities and counties say they no longer need to follow federal immigration laws because the lower bench judges say they can.
Uh, how do you ban a ban on money not voted for in the budget?
Hello? Hello?
The courts are political and you are correct. I’m frankly surprised that one judge in Hawaii or Maryland or San Francisco can dictate law for the entire country on what is clearly, or so I thought, the President’s right to enforce. The suits against the travel ban were frivolous in my opinion, especially the one by religious organizations claiming that limiting refugees would hurt them financially.
The Obama influence will be felt for a very long time in American politics.
All of it, bad.
And don’t forget the tourist industry will be hurt in Hawaii.
“Another ankle biter district judge looking for his fifteen minutes. Take this to the Supreme Court.”
Nope. Send out a spokesweasel and say POTUS doe not accept the Fedjudge’s jurisdiction in the case and the decision will be ignored. Anything else is sowing the seeds of paralysis and defeat.
Exactly.
I suppose it would evident that it was withheld from sanctuary cities when every other city gets aid that year.
The pattern would be pretty obvious.
But the point is they’re BREAKING the law!!
And no cities should get any money. Nor should any state.
Nor should the fed except for defense and a few other necessities.
The "purpose", your honor, is the hope that we will eventually have less ignoramus judges - like yourself...
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.