• 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!

Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,292
Reaction score
81,299
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]


09/15/2017

DFruss2XsAAqIwr.jpg

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions

The city of Chicago has scored an initial legal victory in court Friday as a federal judge granted most of its requests to freeze what it called U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ “unprecedented seizure of power” as he tries to deny federal law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities like Chicago — a victory that will apply for now to sanctuary cities nationwide fighting the Trump administration effort. Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Friday afternoon said the city “will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.” “This victory today is not just about Chicago,” Emanuel said at City Hall press conference. “From coast to coast no one will be forced to make a false choice.” Chicago sued Sessions last month over new conditions tied to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. One would require the city to give the feds, when requested, a 48-hour heads up of the scheduled release date and time “of an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody.” Another requires federal access to “any correctional or detention facility in order to meet with an alien . . . and inquire as to his or her right to be or remain in the United States.” U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber granted the city’s request for a preliminary injunction to prevent those first two conditions from going into effect.

The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.
 
That's a shame. Guess we'll have to see how this fight progresses.
 
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]




The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.
Judges who kiss the asses of illegals sided with pro-illegal scum, say it ain't so.
 
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]




The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.

I'm guessing the court recognizes the importance of the case. Not that surprised.
 
Judges who kiss the asses of illegals sided with pro-illegal scum, say it ain't so.

So you are saying judges should base their rulings on what you want, and not what the law is. Somehow that does not surprise me.
 
Looks like the racist Sessions lost this one, good !!
 
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]



The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.

There are always judges who let their partisan beliefs affect their rulings.

Federal funds may be withheld when recipients violate federal law.

If the 7th Circuit doesn't overrule it, it's likely the SCOTUS will.
 
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]




The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.
I disagree with these cities refusing to cooperate with the Fed's but this was a victory for people who believe in states rights.

I disagree that the federal gov is obligated to give these cities federal funding.

How is what sessions doing anny different than when the feds use federal highway funding to coerse states into lowering the speed limits?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
This is great new for the alt right conservatives, they are in total favor of less government and local control right?
 
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]




The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.

Pity, the Federal Judge should be removed from the bench, what an idiot.
 
So you are saying judges should base their rulings on what you want, and not what the law is. Somehow that does not surprise me.

Hmm... is that the case for "good" extra legal executive actions like DACA/DAPA too?
 
Since no one here has actually addressed what the judge said, here, for all to peruse, is the actual ruling. I suggest people actually read before making snap judgements: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015e-878c-d7ac-a3fe-f7af7c550001

What it is about is the conditions for continued federal grants to state/local LEO agencies. The choice is simple - each such LEO agency can do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the cost of meeting the conditions equal or exceed the grant's value then decide whether to take it or leave it.
 
Hmm... is that the case for "good" extra legal executive actions like DACA/DAPA too?

I do not believe any EO or EA should violate the law. If they do, they are inherently not good. Care to try another failure of an argument?
 
What it is about is the conditions for continued federal grants to state/local LEO agencies. The choice is simple - each such LEO agency can do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the cost of meeting the conditions equal or exceed the grant's value then decide whether to take it or leave it.

I am not following what you are trying to say here. May be my fault. Can you explain more please.
 
[url="http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-scores-legal-victory-in-sanctuary-city-battle-with-sessions/]Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions[/url]




The battle is far from over, but Jeffrey 'The Gnome' Sessions loses the initial sanctuary-city round in federal court.

The federal government has always had the power to freeze or deny grants to states based on criteria. The 55 mph speed limit for instance. 21 year old drinking age. And certainly if a city is NOT enforcing the law and cooperating with federal law enforcement federal funds to do so can be withheld.

Explain the case otherwise.
 
The Trump admin is certainly going about this foolishly. They need to simply deny funding to sanctuary cities where applicable. The Republicans need to get off their asses and do their part because the purse strings are under the control of Congress for most things.

Well I think that is what they are doing and Chicago is suing.
 
I disagree with these cities refusing to cooperate with the Fed's but this was a victory for people who believe in states rights.

I disagree that the federal gov is obligated to give these cities federal funding.

How is what sessions doing anny different than when the feds use federal highway funding to coerse states into lowering the speed limits?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

This is not a states rights issue it is a federal rights issue. The federal government has sovereign of immigration not the states.
 
AS I am (slowly, oh lord this is painful reading) making my way through the ruling, one important thing to note. According to the judge(who I note is a Reagan appointee), there are 3 primary questions in looking at the likelyhood of success on the merits(ie, whether Chicago is likely to win the case when it actually is heard):

  1. Did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose substantive conditions on the Byrne JAG grant?
  2. If so, did Congress have the power to authorize those conditions under the Spending Clause?
  3. And finally, does Section 1373 violate the Tenth Amendment?

So realize, to make any comment on whether the Judge ruled properly, those are the questions you should be able to answer.
 
This is not a states rights issue it is a federal rights issue. The federal government has sovereign of immigration not the states.

And the Feds cant hold $ back from a city, another defeat for Trumps rascist policies.
 
And the Feds cant hold $ back from a city, another defeat for Trumps rascist policies.

From and city and from a state. Lower the drinking age in your state and see highway funds get cut.

"The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds."
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the_1984_national_minimum_drinking_age_act_2.html
 
Back
Top Bottom