• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge blocks trump order on sanctuary city funding

j-mac said:
Another Obama appointed Judge tampering with Trump administration moves....And surprise, he's within the 9th Circuit....:roll:
Click to expand...


To make a claim that a decision made by a Judge appointed by an opposite side's President makes for a moot argument.

And, surprise, the suits were brought by cities in the 9th Circuit. Do you expect a judge from the 3rd Circuit review the case?
 
j-mac said:
Another Obama appointed Judge tampering with Trump administration moves....And surprise, he's within the 9th Circuit....:roll:
Click to expand...

What the judge did in my opinion is give the okay to ignore and/or break federal law. It seems nullification is alive and well.
 
tres borrachos said:
I doubt he's any more tired of resisting than the citizens of Trump nation were between 2009 and 2017 when they resisted everything Obama did, and the disgruntled Gore voters were when they resisted everything Bush did between 2001 and 2009, and so on.

I doubt anyone is tired of resisting Trump. He's one President I wouldn't consider turning my back on.

As to the OP, I doubt this will stand up in court. The cities are free to do what they want with the illegals, but there is a price to pay for that.
Click to expand...

Actually, the law says they aren't free to do what they want with illegal aliens.
 
sanman said:
Winning? You mean playing with Obama's shadow-govt of flunky appointees? All he's done is destroy the credibility of 9th-circuit. The Supreme Court will put an end to their games.
Click to expand...

Calm yourself. No such shadow-gov't exists.
 
Perotista said:
What the judge did in my opinion is give the okay to ignore and/or break federal law. It seems nullification is alive and well.
Click to expand...
Just the opposite. The judge is saying that the President doesn't have unilateral authority to essentially rewrite law and withold funding that was legislated by Congress - he's saying it's NOT okay for (Trump) to ignore federal law.
 
j-mac said:
Another Obama appointed Judge tampering with Trump administration moves....And surprise, he's within the 9th Circuit....:roll:
Click to expand...
This crap is getting old but hey desperate people do desperate things. It will make its way to the Supreme Court along with the Travel ban. Neither rulings by the two jurists have Constitutional standing and will be overturned especially now that Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court. And if this runs into the Summer, Kennedy is retiring. Another jurist like Gorsuch could end up to be a real bummer for the left as they so much rely on the court system to push through what that can't get We the People to vote for.
 
vesper said:
This crap is getting old but hey desperate people do desperate things. It will make its way to the Supreme Court along with the Travel ban. Neither rulings by the two jurists have Constitutional standing and will be overturned especially now that Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court. And if this runs into the Summer, Kennedy is retiring. Another jurist like Gorsuch could end up to be a real bummer for the left as they so much rely on the court system to push through what that can't get We the People to vote for.
Click to expand...

Congress needs to grow some balls snd start impeaching these clowns.
 
j-mac said:
Another Obama appointed Judge tampering with Trump administration moves....And surprise, he's within the 9th Circuit....:roll:
Click to expand...

The judge got his reasoning backwards. Should read, "The judge has no authority on how the executive decides to hand out funding."
 
Explains a little........

Judge Who Blocked Trump Sanctuary City Order Bundled $200K for Obama

Judge Who Blocked Trump Sanctuary City Order Bundled $200K for Obama | Fox News Insider

The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.

At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That one will get overturned.

The Executive Branch has the power to determine the use of the funds in the Discretionary Spending category, and that's the money the Administration is talking about cutting. Also, regarding the other moneys that are earmarked for certain projects or are specifically appropriated for a specific type project (like highway funds, school funds, public safety funds, etc.), in every single law passed that gives funding to state or local governments, or to private entities, there is a mandatory clause inserted requiring that for the grantee to be eligible, they must be in compliance with all federal regulations and laws. States and or local governments knowingly and willingly giving aid and comfort to illegal aliens in contradiction to federal law, regulation, and lawfully issued detainers, are by that action made ineligible for federal funds. The argument being used, that state and local law enforcement cannot be forced to enforce federal law, is wrong on it's face because all that has to happen is for the feds to deputize the state or locals. Secondly, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution makes the actions of the state and local governments Un-Constitutional.

This will not survive a SCOTUS review.
Click to expand...

Imagine how the left will howl if this stands and states start ignoring the federal government in matters they agree with, like gun regulations for example.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You know when Bill Clinton was elected, he immediately fired all the federal judges except for I think 3 or 4 or so and replaced them all. I raised my eyebrows at that but offered no serious criticism because he was the duly elected President and that was completely within his legal prerogative to do.

Why hasn't Trump replaced the federal judges on the 9th Circuit?
Click to expand...

actually congress should break up the court system strucure and reorganize them.
 
jwzg said:
This stands about as much of a chance holding up in front a conservative supreme court as Hellen Keller finding Waldo .

Legitimate question: What are the consequences (other than a lot of wailing) of the president ignoring a court ruling?
Click to expand...

I'd love to see him just ignore it.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Cute post. Do you honestly believe this is the end and this judges ruling will stand? Seriously? Do you believe that?
Click to expand...

It will stand because the order is too broad and, once again, Trump can't keep his big fat mouth shut and his own words were used against him to support an argument of animus.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Imagine how the left will howl if this stands and states start ignoring the federal government in matters they agree with, like gun regulations for example.
Click to expand...

You got it. There are always unforeseen and unintended consequences. Both sides are guilty of putting their butts in motion before they minds in gear, but this one is so hypocritical its funny. Obama threatened the state of NC with school funds and public safety funds and FhWA grant money for roads and highways because the state passed HB2 restricting public bathrooms to the gender on your birth certificate. No Democrats that I heard had any problem with that, at all. Some on here were even cheering it on. Now it's supposedly UnConstitutional because it's being done to them? ...RIGHT... Obama had that power, and so does Trump.

For all those that thought it was okay for Obama to do the same, but not for Trump, well, here's a little advice: Be careful that the toes you stomp on today are not attached to the ass you need to kiss tomorrow to get your funding.
 
Napoleon said:
It will stand because the order is too broad and, once again, Trump can't keep his big fat mouth shut and his own words were used against him.
Click to expand...

A broad order is not a real problem. The Constitution doesn't limit the POTUS to only issuing narrow orders. As long as the items listed in the EO are within the scope of authority the POTUS is granted by in Article II or by laws passed by the Congress, then they can be a broad as they want to be.

Also, the court is not empowered to use ESP as precedent or foundation for a ruling - to rule in the negative because the court "thinks" the POTUS may do something UnConstitutional is not within the power of the court, and the SCOTUS will overturn that. Any ruling has to be based on real facts in evidence, not perceived future facts that may not even occur. Political rhetoric is not evidence the court can use to issue a punitive order or even a TRO, because if political rhetoric was, then almost all politicians would be in jail. The court can extrapolate based on the facts in the record that surround an actual action, but they cannot say "He may break the law if we don't stop him" and leave it at that. If he breaks the law, then the court can act.

The US is not the government in the movie "Minority Report" where the government can intervene via the courts when someone MAY break a law but hasn't yet.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
A broad order is not a real problem. The Constitution doesn't limit the POTUS to only issuing narrow orders. As long as the items listed in the EO are within the scope of authority the POTUS is granted by in Article II or by laws passed by the Congress, then they can be a broad as they want to be.

Also, the court is not empowered to use ESP as precedent or foundation for a ruling - to rule in the negative because the court "thinks" the POTUS may do something UnConstitutional is not within the power of the court, and the SCOTUS will overturn that. Any ruling has to be based on real facts in evidence, not perceived future facts that may not even occur. The court can extrapolate based on the facts in the record that surround an actual action, but they cannot say "He may break the law if we don't stop him" and leave it at that. If he breaks the law, then the court can act.

The US is not the government in the movie "Minority Report" where the government can intervene via the courts when someone MAY break a law but hasn't yet.
Click to expand...

This isn't a matter of "the court thinks" or "he may break the law." This is a matter of the court noting that the President himself publicly stated his intent to withhold federal funding as a "weapon" against those who disagree with his politics. The action is illegitimate when the intent is based on animus and thats easy to prove when it comes straight from the President's mouth.
 
Napoleon said:
This isn't a matter of "the court thinks" or "he may break the law." This is a matter of the court noting that the President himself publicly stated his intent to withhold federal funding as a "weapon" against those who disagree with his politics. The action is illegitimate when the intent is based on animus and thats easy to prove when it comes straight from the President's mouth.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. All that matters, legally, is what's within the four corners of the EO.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That doesn't matter. All that matters, legally, is what's within the four corners of the EO.
Click to expand...

That is never the only thing that legally matters. The manner in which it is applied matters as does the motivation behind that application.
 
Taylor said:
The federal government does have that power, but it's Congress has that ability, not the President.
Click to expand...

But we are talking about funds already under control of the Executive. Congress doesn't get that into the weeds except in exceptional circumstances. Congress will appropriate funds to particular funding categories. The Executive can't move money between the categories but within the categories the Executive chooses how to allot the funds. For example, Congress will allocate $X for embassy security. The Executive decides which embassies get what. Congress will allocate $X for local government counter-terrorism training. The Executive decides which cities get what.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You know when Bill Clinton was elected, he immediately fired all the federal judges except for I think 3 or 4 or so and replaced them all. I raised my eyebrows at that but offered no serious criticism because he was the duly elected President and that was completely within his legal prerogative to do. Why hasn't Trump replaced the federal judges on the 9th Circuit?
Click to expand...

Ummm you DO know Federal Judges don't serve at the whim of our President. Federal ATTORNEYS do. The Senate approves the nomination. Trump can't fire the 9th Circuit Court.

Might want to fact check before posting stuff like that, only Spicer gets to claim unchecked BS... :peace
 
Skeptic Bob said:
But we are talking about funds already under control of the Executive. Congress doesn't get that into the weeds except in exceptional circumstances. Congress will appropriate funds to particular funding categories. The Executive can't move money between the categories but within the categories the Executive chooses how to allot the funds. For example, Congress will allocate $X for embassy security. The Executive decides which embassies get what. Congress will allocate $X for local government counter-terrorism training. The Executive decides which cities get what.
Click to expand...

Executive control of discretionary funds is not a license to leverage authority over taxpayer dollars as a cudgel to settle political scores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom