Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge

[Jazzhead]

    @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. 

 

Thanks, @corbe.   I appreciate you reading what I write, even all that stuff that bothers you and other Briefers.   Try to understand that a lot of the time (such as in today's round in one of the Roy Moore threads) folks like INVAR bring it up just to discredit me,  so naturally I tend to respond.   Try also to understand that, for me, that subject's personal  -  I have several close relatives and friends who've been with their partners for years,  are true-blue salt-of-the-earth types, and were just overjoyed when the law changed and allowed them to marry.   A brother will defend his brothers, you know, and that's where a lot of my "defense of homo thing" comes from. 

 

[corbe]

   I understand that @Jazzhead
   I use to have double the Brothers I have now and dead or alive they all have/had their particularly peculiarities that I would not discuss nor possibly defend in Myst's Conservative Forum. 
   Many of us feel that the advancement of the homosexual agenda has resulted in the unraveling of our society at a much faster rate, steeper cost and in our face.
   I know that I am just one voice of many here and have no sway. I respect your opinion and what you contribute here, other than the 'homo thing'.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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?   

Complete hypothetical non-starter.  We are dealing with a court ruling in hand, not something dreamed up.

Trump has the decided constitutional authority to implement what his executive order decrees, regardless of what some minor judge says.

To do otherwise is to make Judicial the ruler of this country and a mockery of what our Constitution says.

And 'overreach'?  Good grief, who is doing the over-reaching anyway?  Some single minor judge who assumes he can interpret the Constitution over the entire country or an Executive who is actually responsible for implementing the laws of this country?

And where did you read that Executive does not have the right to certify federal monies sent to cities?  Can you cite those specifics?

Almost any funding created by Congress gives responsibility to Executive to dispense federal monies properly.

And sending local law enforcement money when they refuse to enforce the law does seem to be a valid reason to not certify that entity for federal funds.

[edpc]

...enter Neil Gorsuch!

Not necessarily relevant.  Having him on the court wouldn't have changed the other surprises we've had, like Roberts on Obamacare.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

How is the judge exceeding his authority?

It is a district court.  Opinions he has are reserved to that district.

[Smokin Joe]

The problem is that the chaos this would create, and what would stop the liberals from doing the same thing once they're in power?

Just ignore a judges orders and then pardon them when they're found in contempt.

It would never end.

Maybe they've suffered enough already?

I agree with you, the toothless cog in this machine is Congress. Band aids can be pulled off any time some one is inclined. More lasting reform must come from the legislature.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

As I understand things, he cannot prevent a trial in the Senate once the House has Impeached.

But is there a specific time frame the trial must be scheduled in?  Or can he simply schedule it, say, for the day after full repeal of the ACA is passed?

[RetBobbyMI]

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?   

If I am not mistaken, the funding are GRANTS made from DOJ appropriations.  As such the GRANTS are at the discretion of the DOJ.  How anyone can consider GRANTS mandatory is beyond me.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If I am not mistaken, the funding are GRANTS made from DOJ appropriations.  As such the GRANTS are at the discretion of the DOJ.  How anyone can consider GRANTS mandatory is beyond me.

Yes, little things like facts do not make any difference to people who throw shit against the wall hoping something will stick.

[Emjay]

Thanks, @corbe.   I appreciate you reading what I write, even all that stuff that bothers you and other Briefers.   Try to understand that a lot of the time (such as in today's round in one of the Roy Moore threads) folks like INVAR bring it up just to discredit me,  so naturally I tend to respond.   Try also to understand that, for me, that subject's personal  -  I have several close relatives and friends who've been with their partners for years,  are true-blue salt-of-the-earth types, and were just overjoyed when the law changed and allowed them to marry.   A brother will defend his brothers, you know, and that's where a lot of my "defense of homo thing" comes from. 

 

@Jazzhead
I am probably one of the very few people here who agree with you on a lot of social issues.

It is incredibly tacky of posters to bring up that issue to discredit you on totally unrelated issues.

And, in fact, I agree with you that we shouldn't allow total power to a president.

Hillary came within a hair of winning ... just think of Hillary with total power.

We are supposed to have checks and balances with 3 independent powers.  The problem is too many judges used political advantage to get their positions and rule based on bias and not on strict interpretation of the law.

We also have a totally ineffective congress right now and I don't know what to do about that if people keep elected total failures to the Senate.

So, yeah, I went a little overboard in our argument but I just really wish something could be done and nothing is.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Jazzhead
And, in fact, I agree with you that we shouldn't allow total power to a president.

Know anybody who believes that should occur?

[Emjay]

Know anybody who believes that should occur?

Not in theory, of course.

But when a President tries to get something done that is in our interest and is frustrated by both judges and congress, we kinda wish there was some way he could bypass those biased and inaffective bodies.

[RetBobbyMI]

Not in theory, of course.

But when a President tries to get something done that is in our interest and is frustrated by both judges and congress, we kinda wish there was some way he could bypass those biased and inaffective bodies.

There ARE constitutional ways a President can act, but even those are being blocked by political activism of a select number of leftist Obama/Clinton hind end sucking judges.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
I am probably one of the very few people here who agree with you on a lot of social issues.

It is incredibly tacky of posters to bring up that issue to discredit you on totally unrelated issues.

And, in fact, I agree with you that we shouldn't allow total power to a president.

Hillary came within a hair of winning ... just think of Hillary with total power.

We are supposed to have checks and balances with 3 independent powers.  The problem is too many judges used political advantage to get their positions and rule based on bias and not on strict interpretation of the law.

We also have a totally ineffective congress right now and I don't know what to do about that if people keep elected total failures to the Senate.

So, yeah, I went a little overboard in our argument but I just really wish something could be done and nothing is.

Thanks for your response, Emjay.   The Congress is ineffective because it has ceased to be a deliberate body in favor of a forum for partisan grandstanding.   The illegal immigration problem is one that cries out for a comprehensive solution that gives both the right and the left some of what they want.   Such solutions - compromises, if I may utter a dirty word - have been proposed in the past,  but in the current climate there is no appetite for addressing problems if the other side is to share the credit. 

[truth_seeker]

If I am not mistaken, the funding are GRANTS made from DOJ appropriations.  As such the GRANTS are at the discretion of the DOJ.  How anyone can consider GRANTS mandatory is beyond me.

Grants from HUD form major funding sources for cities, counties and states.

They call them CDBG for "Community Development Block Grants," and they come with all sorts of SJW strings attached.

Lawsuits about CDBGs:

https://www.google.com/search?q=community+development+block+gran+lawsuits&ie=&oe=

[RetBobbyMI]

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program https://www.bja.gov/jag/
Authorized under 42 U.S.C. §3751(a).
From amounts made available to carry out this part, the Attorney General may, in accordance with the formula established under section 10156 of this title, make grants to States and units of local government, for use by the State or unit of local government to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice, including for any one or more of the following programs:
(A) Law enforcement programs.
(B) Prosecution and court programs.
(C) Prevention and education programs.
(D) Corrections and community corrections programs.
(E) Drug treatment and enforcement programs.
(F) Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs.
(G) Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation).
(H) Mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs, including behavioral programs and crisis intervention teams.

§10155. Rules
The Attorney General shall issue rules to carry out this part. The first such rules shall be issued not later than one year after the date on which amounts are first made available to carry out this part.

What part of this did Orrick not get?  Congress made these rules back in 2006.
 

[Chosen Daughter]

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program https://www.bja.gov/jag/
Authorized under 42 U.S.C. §3751(a).
From amounts made available to carry out this part, the Attorney General may, in accordance with the formula established under section 10156 of this title, make grants to States and units of local government, for use by the State or unit of local government to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice, including for any one or more of the following programs:
(A) Law enforcement programs.
(B) Prosecution and court programs.
(C) Prevention and education programs.
(D) Corrections and community corrections programs.
(E) Drug treatment and enforcement programs.
(F) Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs.
(G) Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation).
(H) Mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs, including behavioral programs and crisis intervention teams.

§10155. Rules
The Attorney General shall issue rules to carry out this part. The first such rules shall be issued not later than one year after the date on which amounts are first made available to carry out this part.

What part of this did Orrick not get?  Congress made these rules back in 2006.

It will be interesting to see what Trump does with this.

[Smokin Joe]

It will be interesting to see what Trump does with this.

How about: Instruct the folks at the DOJ only to award limited Subsection H funds to Sanctuary Cities, until those crazy people quit running around defying the law?

[RetBobbyMI]

How about: Instruct the folks at the DOJ only to award limited Subsection H funds to Sanctuary Cities, until those crazy people quit running around defying the law?

Most of my career involved the federal budgeting process. I would almost bet that in neither the appropriations nor the authorizations bills, nor any of the committee markups (which most of the “earmarks” or pork comes from), that there is no direct congressional language that the funding must or shall have a certain percentage going to sanctuary cities. So that leaves it purely up to the Attorney General’s discretion as to the rules for the awarding the funds. Since the CEO of the state or entity has to certify that they meet the criteria established, the criteria could say that the entity would agree to cooperate with DHS agencies or repay the funds back to DOJ. Nothing the Judicial Branch can do about it, unless it is political.

[Smokin Joe]

Most of my career involved the federal budgeting process. I would almost bet that in neither the appropriations nor the authorizations bills, nor any of the committee markups (which most of the “earmarks” or pork comes from), that there is no direct congressional language that the funding must or shall have a certain percentage going to sanctuary cities. So that leaves it purely up to the Attorney General’s discretion as to the rules for the awarding the funds. Since the CEO of the state or entity has to certify that they meet the criteria established, the criteria could say that the entity would agree to cooperate with DHS agencies or repay the funds back to DOJ. Nothing the Judicial Branch can do about it, unless it is political.

Then that may well be the appropriate course of action.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Most of my career involved the federal budgeting process. I would almost bet that in neither the appropriations nor the authorizations bills, nor any of the committee markups (which most of the “earmarks” or pork comes from), that there is no direct congressional language that the funding must or shall have a certain percentage going to sanctuary cities. So that leaves it purely up to the Attorney General’s discretion as to the rules for the awarding the funds. Since the CEO of the state or entity has to certify that they meet the criteria established, the criteria could say that the entity would agree to cooperate with DHS agencies or repay the funds back to DOJ. Nothing the Judicial Branch can do about it, unless it is political.

Thanks @RetBobbyMI .

Your actual facts fly right into the face of what another poster on this thread says is "The lawsuit concerns additional conditions imposed by the President that were not contemplated by Congress. "

Congress indeed contemplated that the Executive can use discretion to decide who gets those grants. so the poster who made the statement is lying.

[truth_seeker]

Congress passed the current law, and can/should do whatever is needed, to bring desired changes.

One idea would be to funnel the money down through the states, so that there would not be ANY money for the state, unless ALL cities followed the law.

 

[RetBobbyMI]

Thanks @RetBobbyMI .

Your actual facts fly right into the face of what another poster on this thread says is "The lawsuit concerns additional conditions imposed by the President that were not contemplated by Congress. "

Congress indeed contemplated that the Executive can use discretion to decide who gets those grants. so the poster who made the statement is lying.

It’s actually more than discretion, it’s authority to determine the rules by which the funding is awarded. The discretion is in the application of those rules, which could be subject to judicial review.

[RetBobbyMI]

Congress passed the current law, and can/should do whatever is needed, to bring desired changes.

One idea would be to funnel the money down through the states, so that there would not be ANY money for the state, unless ALL cities followed the law.

The Congress has already decided that the Attorney General shall establish the rules. Why would they need to do anything else?

[Emjay]

Most of my career involved the federal budgeting process. I would almost bet that in neither the appropriations nor the authorizations bills, nor any of the committee markups (which most of the “earmarks” or pork comes from), that there is no direct congressional language that the funding must or shall have a certain percentage going to sanctuary cities. So that leaves it purely up to the Attorney General’s discretion as to the rules for the awarding the funds. Since the CEO of the state or entity has to certify that they meet the criteria established, the criteria could say that the entity would agree to cooperate with DHS agencies or repay the funds back to DOJ. Nothing the Judicial Branch can do about it, unless it is political.

That sounds simple and reasonable.  Why can't it happen?