Judge blocks part of Trump's sanctuary cities executive order

[CaliCat 3,957]

Let the winning go on...

 

Fortunately, this judge lives on the continent... 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/index.html

 

 

Washington (CNN)A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities -- the latest blow from the federal judiciary to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda.

In a ruling delivered Thursday, Judge William H. Orrick sided with Santa Clara, the city of San San Francisco and other cities, who argued that a threat to take away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with some federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.

In granting a nationwide injunction, Orrick blocked the government from enforcing a key portion of Trump's January executive order on immigration, which ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department to block cities who do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement from receiving federal funds.

He did leave the government some wiggle room, saying that his order does not block the government from enforcing conditions on federal grants nor does it block the government from creating a definition of sanctuary jurisdictions -- but the government will not be able to block federal funds from going to those cities as Trump ordered.

"The Counties have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to Section 9(a) of the Executive Order, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of harms and public interest weigh in their favor," Orrick wrote.

Threats to defund sanctuary cities have been a key piece of Trump's immigration agenda in the beginning of his administration, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent letters last week to nine cities requiring them to verify they are compliant with a piece of US law mentioned in the executive order as a pre-condition of their receiving law enforcement grants they applied for.

That pre-condition was actually put in place by the Obama administration, and mayors have said that piece of law is something they actually comply with that law, which requires communication of citizenship status of individuals, even if they don't cooperate with other requests from federal immigration law enforcement.

Edited April 25, 2017 by CaliCat

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

Oh look another judge appointed by Obama.

 

Country wide tour coming soon, how many more judges did he appoint? 

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Oh look another judge appointed by Obama.

 

Country wide tour coming soon, how many more judges did he appoint? 

 

The judge may have been appointed by Obama, but the failure is all Trump's. 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

The judge may have been appointed by Obama, but the failure is all Trump's. 

But if they had got a republican judge to do it then it would not have been so predictable.

 

It could get quite tiresome of 4 years of Trump trying new laws and democrats running to judges to get it quashed. The positive side I suppose you could do away with the opposition party after each election and just use the court system to correct any future president. 

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

12 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Oh look another judge appointed by Obama.

 

Country wide tour coming soon, how many more judges did he appoint? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

 

how dare a president appoint judges? how dare a judge check a poor e.o.?

 

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

But if they had got a republican judge to do it then it would not have been so predictable.

 

It could get quite tiresome of 4 years of Trump trying new laws and democrats running to judges to get it quashed. The positive side I suppose you could do away with the opposition party after each election and just use the court system to correct any future president. 

 

 

yeah, that's not how it works.

[CaliCat 3,957]

Just now, Mr&Mrs G. said:

But if they had got a republican judge to do it then it would not have been so predictable.

 

It could get quite tiresome of 4 years of Trump trying new laws and democrats running to judges to get it quashed. The positive side I suppose you could do away with the opposition party after each election and just use the court system to correct any future president. 

 

 

 

Except that the judges are not partisan in their rulings. Their allegiance is not to the president or party, but to the constitution. That is why they're appointed for life. The argument that many here in the US make about their partisanship is unfounded.

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

Except that the judges are not partisan in their rulings. Their allegiance is not to the president or party, but to the constitution. That is why they're appointed for life. The argument that many here in the US make about their partisanship is unfounded.

 

obama judges are partisan. thanks obama.

 

(don't forget about that rebel bush appointed judge that went rogue)

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

Except that the judges are not partisan in their rulings. Their allegiance is not to the president or party, but to the constitution. That is why they're appointed for life. The argument that many here in the US make about their partisanship is unfounded.

 

In an ideal world that what you would hope for but it can't be a coincidence that each judge so far was appointed by a democrat. And of course if the shoe was on the other foot republicans would be doing similar. Sure that's why there is such fuss each time a judge is to be appointed to the supreme court, each party trying to influence any future judgements.

[8bit_Theatre 64]

Did that judge just put the National Minimum Drinking Act on shaky ground? Very similar to what Trump is doing.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

1 hour ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

But if they had got a republican judge to do it then it would not have been so predictable.

 

It could get quite tiresome of 4 years of Trump trying new laws and democrats running to judges to get it quashed. The positive side I suppose you could do away with the opposition party after each election and just use the court system to correct any future president. 

 

 

Again,  the Republicans control all branches of the government, yet the whining continues. Perhaps a dictatorship would be more to your liking? Just a thought. 

[OriZ 3,157]

Checks and balances are important, but at this point it's starting to feel more like an irrational gang up than the judges just doing their job. I would advise them to be careful because nothing good ever comes out of backing someone into a corner, they might achieve the opposite of what they're attempting to do.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

2 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Checks and balances are important, but at this point it's starting to feel more like an irrational gang up than the judges just doing their job. I would advise them to be careful because nothing good ever comes out of backing someone into a corner, they might achieve the opposite of what they're attempting to do.

Perhaps an irrational gang up to an irrational gang up? 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Oh look another judge appointed by Obama.

 

Country wide tour coming soon, how many more judges did he appoint? 

9th circuit again 

 

This is merely a stay meaning no actual ruling but I would fully expect the 9th to rule against Trump in an actual case, and if he cares enough to appeal to SCOTUS there's no doubt he would be vindicated. The 9th often needs reminders that their role as a judge is to uphold the law rather than create policy, especially modifying existing Constitutional authority which is supposed to be beyond their control. Hence why they're so often overturned. 

[OriZ 3,157]

4 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Perhaps an irrational gang up to an irrational gang up? 

You could argue that. I'm not a supporter of most aspects of sanctuary cities so by and large I have no problem with whatever methods need to be used to get them to comply so long as it's constitutional. At this point, I'm not buying that it's not, although I haven't had a chance to look into all the specifics of the EO yet. The first judge that ruled on the travel ban, I had no problem with because that was a badly thought out EO and I think most of us here admitted it. The second time, I thought they made many positive changes and it seemed a little petty but whatever. This one is really starting to just feel like a gang up. We'll see how it all works out I guess, but if I were them I'd keep my powder dry for a while.