Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge

[Jazzhead]

This requires a legislative fix.   Not to impeach the judge - in another context you all would be applauding this judge for finding that, say, President Obama,  cannot affix additional conditions on money duly appropriated by Congress.  You all just don't like how this particular decision affects an issue - illegal immigration -  near and dear to you.

Judges are supposed to rule on the merits, regardless of the parties to the suit.   And they're not supposed to exceed their authority, to "create law".   The money that President Trump seeks to deny to "sanctuary cities" was not burdened with conditions when appropriated by Congress.   If such conditions are in order, the solution is to have Congress pass a modified law.

There used to be a time when conservatives correctly feared the arbitrary expansion of executive power.  Now we're demanding to remove judges that stand in Trump's way.

When are conservatives going to stop being hypocrites and get back to the values we've always said we espoused -  respect for the separation of powers and suspicion of executive overreach?   

 

[Bigun]

In either case, what the hell are they waiting for?

Damned if I know!     I've been howling about this stuff for years to no effect!

[Emjay]

This requires a legislative fix.   Not to impeach the judge - in another context you all would be applauding this judge for finding that the President cannot affix additional conditions on money duly appropriated by Congress.  You all just don't like how this particular decision affects an issue - illegal immigration -  near and dear to you.

Judges are supposed to rule on the merits, regardless of the parties to the suit.   And they're not supposed to exceed their authority, to "create law".   The money that President Trump seeks to deny to "sanctuary cities" was not burdened with conditions when appropriated by Congress.   If such conditions are in order, the solution is to have Congress pass a modified law.

There used to be a time when conservatives correctly feared the arbitrary expansion of executive power.  Now we're demanding to remove judges that stand in Trump's way.

You do have a point but the fact is, even if you are right, that the judge is exceeding authority just as you accuse the President of doing.

[Emjay]

And, by the way, @Jazzhead are we to assume that you don't give a flip about illegal immigration, since you made a disparaging remark about someone who does care?

[Jazzhead]

And, by the way, @Jazzhead are we to assume that you don't give a flip about illegal immigration, since you made a disparaging remark about someone who does care?

No, you may not assume I don't give a flip about illegal immigration.    I do, however, seek an actual solution, not just bloviation for its own sake.   

[Jazzhead]

You do have a point but the fact is, even if you are right, that the judge is exceeding authority just as you accuse the President of doing.

How is the judge exceeding his authority? 

[Chosen Daughter]

This requires a legislative fix.   Not to impeach the judge - in another context you all would be applauding this judge for finding that, say, President Obama,  cannot affix additional conditions on money duly appropriated by Congress.  You all just don't like how this particular decision affects an issue - illegal immigration -  near and dear to you.

Judges are supposed to rule on the merits, regardless of the parties to the suit.   And they're not supposed to exceed their authority, to "create law".   The money that President Trump seeks to deny to "sanctuary cities" was not burdened with conditions when appropriated by Congress.   If such conditions are in order, the solution is to have Congress pass a modified law.

There used to be a time when conservatives correctly feared the arbitrary expansion of executive power.  Now we're demanding to remove judges that stand in Trump's way.

When are conservatives going to stop being hypocrites and get back to the values we've always said we espoused -  respect for the separation of powers and suspicion of executive overreach?   

Wait a minute.  Did Congress give money specifically for sanctuary cities?  If they are using tax payer money illegally then I don't see how this is right.  What was the money allocated for?

This explains. 

http://www.subscriptlaw.com/sanctuary-cities/

If Federal cannot not be enforce then Congress should cut off funding.

[Jazzhead]

Wait a minute.  Did Congress give money specifically for sanctuary cities?  If they are using tax payer money illegally then I don't see how this is right.  What was the money allocated for?

How are they using taxpayer money illegally?    The Congress provides money to cities for specific purposes - say, to subsidize education.   There is no claim that these cities aren't using the money for purposes for which it was appropriated.   Now President Trump wants to attach an additional condition - the city must not only use the money to subsidize education, but must also turn over illegals to ICE when demanded.   

That may be desireable policy, but it is not a condition attached to this money.   Congress can and should attach any such condition.   The Congress appropriates money, the President executes the laws - FAITHFULLY.  The judge in this case is merely pointing out that the President can't on his own deny cities this money because of additional conditions he's decided on his own to attach.

Like I said, in any other context folks here would be applauding this judge for reining in a President's arbitrary power.   

[Bigun]

Wait a minute.  Did Congress give money specifically for sanctuary cities?  If they are using tax payer money illegally then I don't see how this is right.  What was the money allocated for?

Part of the problem with taking money from the federal government is that it comes with strings attached!  Strings like agreeing to comply with the laws for instance!

[Jazzhead]

Part of the problem with taking money from the federal government is that it comes with strings attached!  Strings like agreeing to comply with the laws for instance!

Yes, that's true - but the strings are those attached by Congress.   Do you seriously agree that a President can arbitrarily attach additional strings?    How does that fit in with your philosophy of conservatism?   

[Chosen Daughter]

How are they using taxpayer money illegally?    The Congress provides money to cities for specific purposes - say, to subsidize education.   There is no claim that these cities aren't using the money for purposes for which it was appropriated.   Now President Trump wants to attach an additional condition - the city must not only use the money to subsidize education, but must also turn over illegals to ICE when demanded.   

That may be desireable policy, but it is not a condition attached to this money.   Congress can and should attach any such condition.   The Congress appropriates money, the President executes the laws - FAITHFULLY.  The judge in this case is merely pointing out that the President can't on his own deny cities this money because of additional conditions he's decided on his own to attach.

Like I said, in any other context folks here would be applauding this judge for reining in a President's arbitrary power.   

I am not a lawyer but when Congress gives money I would think that it is given for purposes only under Federal Law.  I don't see how they could give Federal Funds for "illegal" immigration.  Why should they have to spell out that you cannot fund illegal activity?  These are American funds not California funds.

8 U.S.C. Section 1373

[Bigun]

It is perfectly lawful for the federal government to withhold federal money from anyone who is not in compliance with what they agreed to in order to get that money in the first place!

[Chosen Daughter]

It is perfectly lawful for the federal government to withhold federal money from anyone who is not in compliance with what they agreed to in order to get that money in the first place!

Now that sounds correct.  No more funds.

[truth_seeker]

One might expect our Congress would jump right on this, insofar as it is NOT a brand new topic.

Yet years later, the GOP majority Congresss heads home for Thanksgiving break, to be followed by regular and long breaks, between which they grope the broads, arrange campaign contributions, take junkets overseas with their wives or mistresses (and their staffs), leaving scant time for actual needed legislation.

Originate a bill in Ryan's House, pass i, next the Senate and President Trum's certain signature.

Again, Trump is NOT the problem, Congress IS the problem.

[Free Vulcan]

This seems an easy one for the President to simply ignore.

What is the judge going to do?

I would ignore it for anywhere outside that courts jurisdiction and dare lawsuits to be filed, while at the same time appealing it.

[Jazzhead]

It is perfectly lawful for the federal government to withhold federal money from anyone who is not in compliance with what they agreed to in order to get that money in the first place!

That's correct - but that's not the point of the lawsuit.   The lawsuit concerns additional conditions imposed by the President that were not contemplated by Congress. 

I think both liberals and conservatives have become drunk on the power of the imperial Presidency - it helps detract from the reality that we're so damn polarized that Congress can't get its act together on anything.   

For conservatives, I'd suggest the Obama principle - is a Republican President's exercise of executive authority something you'd be comfortable with if the President were Barack Obama? 

For liberals,  I'd suggest the Trump principle - is a Democratic President's exercise of executive authority something you'd be comfortable if the President were Donald Trump?       

[Emjay]

How is the judge exceeding his authority?

Because he does not have the authority to block a Presidential order.  And because, as an obviously biased Obama appointee, he should not be on the court at all.

[Emjay]

No, you may not assume I don't give a flip about illegal immigration.    I do, however, seek an actual solution, not just bloviation for its own sake.   

That's just hyperbole.  Making an executive order, and a good one, is not bloviating. 

There seems to be only one way to stop these cities and states from violating federal law by creating sanctuary cities and that's Stop the Federal Money Flow.

It would work and fast if Trump could be allowed to do it.

[Emjay]

I am not a lawyer but when Congress gives money I would think that it is given for purposes only under Federal Law.  I don't see how they could give Federal Funds for "illegal" immigration.  Why should they have to spell out that you cannot fund illegal activity?  These are American funds not California funds.

8 U.S.C. Section 1373

Right on.  If California wants to act as a separate country, then let them fund their own country.

But wait, California is so well run, it's in the hole financially and it's a deep hole.

[Jazzhead]

Because he does not have the authority to block a Presidential order.  And because, as an obviously biased Obama appointee, he should not be on the court at all.

He most certainly does have the authority - indeed he has the obligation - to block a Presidential order that exceeds the President's lawful authority.  We cursed Obama's imperial Presidency - where are our principles now?   

And you seriously suggesting that the judge be removed merely because he's an Obama appointee?   What happens when that standard gets applied to Gorsuch? 

The problem can and must be addressed by Congress.     

[Emjay]

He most certainly does have the authority - indeed he has the obligation - to block a Presidential order that exceeds the President's lawful authority.  We cursed Obama's imperial Presidency - where are our principles now?   

And you seriously suggesting that the judge be removed merely because he's an Obama appointee?   What happens when that standard gets applied to Gorsuch? 

The problem can and must be addressed by Congress.     

Well, go tell them so and stop making long-winded, mildly entertaining but futile arguments.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Impeaching a judge isn't the same as removing a judge. Even if a judge is impeached, you'd still need 66 senators to vote to convict. No way are that many Democrats going to vote to convict.

[Jazzhead]

Well, go tell them so and stop making long-winded, mildly entertaining but futile arguments.

Believe me, Emjay, I understand the frustration.  Congress is getting absolutely nothing done, and the temptation is high to excuse the President acting like a dictator.   We need to demand that Congress remember that politics is not bloodsport, but the means to an end - the crafting of effective policy.   

[Emjay]

He most certainly does have the authority - indeed he has the obligation - to block a Presidential order that exceeds the President's lawful authority.  We cursed Obama's imperial Presidency - where are our principles now?   

And you seriously suggesting that the judge be removed merely because he's an Obama appointee?   What happens when that standard gets applied to Gorsuch? 

The problem can and must be addressed by Congress.     

Okay, since Congress is too divided and lame-brained to do anything about it in the near future, why don't you put that extraordinary brain of yours to work and try to find a solution.

We are talking about illegal aliens here.  And the word illegal implies 'felon' does it not?

So, it should be against federal law to harbor felons.  I'm sure it is.

So, since these cities and states are harboring felons, they are breaking federal laws.

For example, Texas did not want to abide by the abysmal decision of the Supreme Court about abortion.  What would have happened if Texas had refused to abide and ignored the law?

Were not federal sanctions either threatened or applied?

Go look that up and come back to us.

[corbe]

    @Jazzhead

   Thanks for not injecting the defense of homo thing into this particular Thread, in most instances I think you can make your point without it, that particular aspect of your logic really bothers me and I would suspect other Briefers as well.