Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on April 25, 2017, 11:44:27 PM
-
I do not understand the legality behind this block. If a city defies Federal law, how is it illegal to cut Federal funding? Especially since the targeted funding is tied to specific federal grants that require complying with federal law. The Judge appears to have been a big money raiser for the dems.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/25/california-judge-blocks-trump-order-on-sanctuary-city-money.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/25/trump-sanctuary-city-law-blocked-judge-san-francisco-obama-donor-william-orrick
-
And how are they going to forcing the government to give them money?
-
I do not understand the legality behind this block. If a city defies Federal law, how is it illegal to cut Federal funding? Especially since the targeted funding is tied to specific federal grants that require complying with federal law. The Judge appears to have been a big money raiser for the dems.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/25/california-judge-blocks-trump-order-on-sanctuary-city-money.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/25/trump-sanctuary-city-law-blocked-judge-san-francisco-obama-donor-william-orrick
Ding! Ding! We have a winnah!
Liberals love to accuse judges who try to follow the law and the Constitution of being "activists," but the harsh reality is that liberal judges just make it up on the fly. It will be interesting to see if the administration appeals.
I wasn't impressed by the description of how the AG;s office defended the block. I suspect there are still some Obama sycophants in the Department of Justice, and Mr. Sessions is going to have to do some weeding out -- or assign a few people to routine clerical work where they can't do too much harm.
-
Since it has so far only been a threat who the hell had standing to get such an order in the first place?
How do you get an injunction against something that hasn't actually even been attempted?
-
I think it's called something like a "Declaratory Judgment" by a court...?
Anyhow, don't try to understand left wing pretzel logic without some aspirin around.
I agree about Sessions needing to do a little review of some of his subordinates.
-
Is there no way to stop these judges? Should Trump just ignore their rulings and go ahead with his immigration order and his sanctuary city order?
If these rulings can stand, then there's nothing to stop these judges from issuing injunctions for every action a president takes. They could put a restraining order on Trump's order to cut regulations. His order to send a carrier group to North Korea. His order to cut the number of federal employees.
And why stop at the president? If judges can do this, why can't they issue injunctions and restraining orders against acts of congress?
-
A California judge declares California should get money it is not entitled to. Color me shocked, shocked I tell you.
Reminds me of the time Chicago passed a tax on areas outside of Chicago. And a Chicago judge declared it perfectly legal.
-
How about a different approach? File criminal charges against the city. :police: (not sure how that would work)
-
A California judge declares California should get money it is not entitled to. Color me shocked, shocked I tell you.
Reminds me of the time Chicago passed a tax on areas outside of Chicago. And a Chicago judge declared it perfectly legal.
I remember that - and that businesses outside the Chicago city limits simply ignored the Chicago municipal judge's order.
-
To succeed in their motions, the Counties must show that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm absent an injunction, that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighs in their favor. The Counties have met this burden. They have demonstrated that they have standing to challenge the Order and are currently suffering irreparable harm, not only because the Order has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights, but also because the Order has caused budget uncertainty by threatening to deprive the Counties of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants that support core services in their jurisdictions. They have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that the balance of harms and public interest decisively weigh in favor of an injunction. The Counties’ motions for preliminary injunction against Section 9(a) of the Executive Order are GRANTED as further described below
Rush was talking about this today. The justification for this order was extremely thin at best. It appears the FedGov cannot threaten to withhold funding because budget uncertainty harms them.
-
Rush was talking about this today. The justification for this order was extremely thin at best. It appears the FedGov cannot threaten to withhold funding because budget uncertainty harms them.
Easy solution; stop threatening and just do it.