Justice Dept Vows To Overturn Ca. Judge Rulings on Sanctuary Cities and States

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

freebeacon
: Susan Crabtree   
November 21, 2017 10:40 am

[excerpt]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/justice-department-vows-overturn-california-judges-ruling-sanctuary-cities-states/

Obama-appointed judge said admin cannot withhold funds

The Trump administration has vowed to overturn a federal judge's decision to block President Trump's executive order cutting off federal funds to sanctuary cities, counties, and states.

A federal judge in Northern California determined Monday that Trump cannot place new conditions on spending Congress has approved. The judge's ruling responded to lawsuits brought by two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara, taking exception to Trump's threat to cut off federal grants to localities that limit law enforcement's cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

The Justice Department late Monday countered that cities, counties, and states do not have the ability to flout federal law and continue receiving federal money without any repercussions.

[Free Vulcan]

I hate the ruling, but in some ways am glad it was filed. It's an issue that needs to be clarified.

[Bigun]

I hate the ruling, but in some ways am glad it was filed. It's an issue that needs to be clarified.

How so?  The money we are talking about is grant money and comes with strings attached that must be agreed to before you get it!  If you don't live up to the bargain the money comes back. It's not that difficult.

[RetBobbyMI]

Congress gave DOJ discretion in setting up rules for making the grants, so how can a judge say what he said?  It ought to be overturned.

[Free Vulcan]

How so?  The money we are talking about is grant money and comes with strings attached that must be agreed to before you get it!  If you don't live up to the bargain the money comes back. It's not that difficult.

In the sense that detailing what the law is exactly on what can and cannot be done, on both sides. Obama played very fast and loose with it, and I would like to know for sure where the line actually is. How much is codified and how much is up to discretion and all that.

[Bigun]

In the sense that detailing what the law is exactly on what can and cannot be done, on both sides. Obama played very fast and loose with it, and I would like to know for sure where the line actually is. How much is codified and how much is up to discretion and all that.

So how do you see the courts having ANY ability to do that?

[Free Vulcan]

So how do you see the courts having ANY ability to do that?

It would depend on how the law(s) are written. Did Congress actually codify specifics, or did they give the Executive discetionary power?

As if they will get it right? Who knows?

[Emjay]

I hate the ruling, but in some ways am glad it was filed. It's an issue that needs to be clarified.

We already discussed this at length but it seems to me that there have been instances where federal funds have been withheld, or at least the threat of withholding has been applied to make states conform to laws they don't approve of.

[truth_seeker]

It could and should take the GOP majority only a few days to craft legislation which restricts judges.

Yet little or no action a year after the election.

We know Obama would veto same, but we also know Trump would sign same.

[Free Vulcan]

It could and should take the GOP majority only a few days to craft legislation which restricts judges.

Yet little or no action a year after the election.

We know Obama would veto same, but we also know Trump would sign same.

At the very very least, make a ruling apply only to that jurisdiction. You should have to go thru the system by filing suit in your district to get something ruled upon, not get a freebie by some circuit judge leveraging the whole country.

[Bigun]

It could and should take the GOP majority only a few days to craft legislation which restricts judges.

Yet little or no action a year after the election.

We know Obama would veto same, but we also know Trump would sign same.

They do not need to craft anything!  It's in the Constitution and has been the entire time!

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Emphasis added.