Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Apr 2017, 6:52 pm

Federal judge blocks denial of federal funds for cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Decision applies nationwide.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2017, 10:28 am

freeman3 wrote:Federal judge blocks denial of federal funds for cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Decision applies nationwide.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html


Meh.

Ultimately, cities, counties, and States will not get Federal money by disobeying Federal law.

Furthermore, I found Tucker Carlson's interview with Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese instructive. Cortese explained exactly what sanctuary cities/counties don't want to do: they don't want to notify ICE when criminals are being released. The video link is here: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/25/t ... er-blocked

Now, that's a far cry from "breaking up families." What this is actually about is protecting criminal illegal aliens (not illegal aliens in general) from being deported.

What a bizarre notion! What about protecting law-abiding residents--legal and illegal?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Apr 2017, 10:43 am

Local communities have every incentive to make wise decisions with regard to turning criminal aliens over to ICE and to prioritize law enforcement resources. Since they bear the risk of releasing dangerous people out into their city, they have every incentive to turn those dangerous criminal aliens over to ICE to take those problem off of their hands. Any defects in those policies are best resolved at the local political level--i.e., local voters can signal their dissatisfaction with the policies at election time. The real issue is taking that decision out of local police hands and forcing them to cooperate with ICE with what they perceive as immigrants who do not pose a danger. In that case, it becomes much more of immigration enforcement as opposed to criminal enforcement. The situation is best resolved by negotiated agreements with local cities as to which criminal aliens will be turned over.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2017, 11:06 am

freeman3 wrote:Local communities have every incentive to make wise decisions with regard to turning criminal aliens over to ICE and to prioritize law enforcement resources. Since they bear the risk of releasing dangerous people out into their city, they have every incentive to turn those dangerous criminal aliens over to ICE to take those problem off of their hands. Any defects in those policies are best resolved at the local political level--i.e., local voters can signal their dissatisfaction with the policies at election time. The real issue is taking that decision out of local police hands and forcing them to cooperate with ICE with what they perceive as immigrants who do not pose a danger. In that case, it becomes much more of immigration enforcement as opposed to criminal enforcement. The situation is best resolved by negotiated agreements with local cities as to which criminal aliens will be turned over.


So funny for LIBERALS to want government at local level as opposed to Federal dictates.

However, time after time sanctuary cities err on the side of criminals. Sorry, that's just reality. Ask the Steinle family--and many, many others who have lost family members to convicted illegal aliens.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Apr 2017, 11:42 am

If it's a local decision that causes local harm then the remedy should be...local.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2017, 12:08 pm

freeman3 wrote:If it's a local decision that causes local harm then the remedy should be...local.


All well and nice, except for the Federal law and Federal dollars.

I suspect this will be a short-lived victory for the Obama-bundling judge. Even if he's upheld at the Circuit level, and the USSC, all that would need to happen is some wording changes in the next year's funding legislation and there would be nothing he could do.

Y'all in California are nuts.

Higher gasoline and registration fees--and they're already bent on diverting the funds.

Let 50,000 gang members and felons out of prison. Crime rates increase.

And now, let's defend the right of convicted criminals who are illegal aliens to stay in the country.

Yup. Democrats--all about helping the working class . . . or eradicating it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Apr 2017, 2:11 pm

Liberal policies are just killing New York and California...they are only ranked #5 and #11in GDP in the world! If they only adopted conservative policies where would they be? Much lower...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2017, 3:50 pm

freeman3 wrote:Liberal policies are just killing New York and California...they are only ranked #5 and #11in GDP in the world! If they only adopted conservative policies where would they be? Much lower...

Oh sure. It's the policies that help them. It has nothing to do with geography or history.

:laugh:

The middle class is leaving CA. I just saw an article that if you make $100K in SF, you qualify for housing assistance and food stamps.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Apr 2017, 1:06 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
So funny for LIBERALS to want government at local level as opposed to Federal dictates.
Odd that the position of both sides flips after an election changes the dynamic. Almost as if partisanship is more power than principle. On both sides of the aisle.

However, time after time sanctuary cities err on the side of criminals. Sorry, that's just reality. Ask the Steinle family--and many, many others who have lost family members to convicted illegal aliens.[/quote]The Constitution errs on the side of criminals by insisting on standards of justice and law that mean the prosecution has to gather evidence in particular ways sufficient to prove guilt. This means that the truly guilty can get off on technicalities or just a lack of evidence. The alternative (given that omniscience is not a human trait) is to err on the side of punishment of the innocent.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Apr 2017, 1:41 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
So funny for LIBERALS to want government at local level as opposed to Federal dictates.
Odd that the position of both sides flips after an election changes the dynamic. Almost as if partisanship is more power than principle. On both sides of the aisle.


For some, not for me. I always want Federal law enforced. I always want limits on Federal power enforced.

However, time after time sanctuary cities err on the side of criminals. Sorry, that's just reality. Ask the Steinle family--and many, many others who have lost family members to convicted illegal aliens.(emphasis added)
The Constitution errs on the side of criminals by insisting on standards of justice and law that mean the prosecution has to gather evidence in particular ways sufficient to prove guilt. This means that the truly guilty can get off on technicalities or just a lack of evidence. The alternative (given that omniscience is not a human trait) is to err on the side of punishment of the innocent.


Not so. The Constitution does NOT err on the side of "convicted illegal aliens."

It's okay that you didn't catch that--I didn't say "convicted" both times, only the second. That clearly is my point. It is outrageous that convicted illegal aliens are being shielded by municipalities whose responsibility ought to be to the law-abiding citizens of their jurisdictions.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jun 2017, 11:47 am

Supreme Court upholds injunction on enforcement of Travel Ban only to those immigrants who can show a connection to the US by having a close family members that lives there; entities that have foreign students or have foreign workers on visa are also covered. Those without any such connection are covered by the ban. Three justices signed an opinion (Thomas, Alioto and...Gorsuch) that would have denied an injunction to even those who had a US connection. So (1) that's three justices in the upholding the ban camp, and (2) Gorsuch has aligned himself with the crazies...

Now Justice Thomas says "And I agree with the Court's implicit conclusion that that the Government has made a strong showing it is likely to prevail on the merits." A noted legal expert disagreed: "uh, everything that guy said is total bullshit "--Cousin Vinny.

To get an injunction in the district court the party seeking the injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits. Higher courts review that determination for abuse of discretion. But Justice Thomas cites to a case where stay of a judgment should only be granted when cert is probable, there is a significant possibility that the judgment will be overturned, and a likelihood of irreparable harm. (See Barnes v E-Systems, Inc. case.) Ok, so how does "significant possibility" turn into the government is likely to prevail on the merits? How could a Supreme Court Justice write something so...patently wrong?

The Supreme Court also wants to know why the Travel Ban is not moot given that it would have ended by now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Jun 2017, 1:51 pm

freeman3 wrote:Supreme Court upholds injunction on enforcement of Travel Ban only to those immigrants who can show a connection to the US by having a close family members that lives there; entities that have foreign students or have foreign workers on visa are also covered. Those without any such connection are covered by the ban. Three justices signed an opinion (Thomas, Alioto and...Gorsuch) that would have denied an injunction to even those who had a US connection. So (1) that's three justices in the upholding the ban camp, and (2) Gorsuch has aligned himself with the crazies...

Now Justice Thomas says "And I agree with the Court's implicit conclusion that that the Government has made a strong showing it is likely to prevail on the merits." A noted legal expert disagreed: "uh, everything that guy said is total bullshit "--Cousin Vinny.

To get an injunction in the district court the party seeking the injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits. Higher courts review that determination for abuse of discretion. But Justice Thomas cites to a case where stay of a judgment should only be granted when cert is probable, there is a significant possibility that the judgment will be overturned, and a likelihood of irreparable harm. (See Barnes v E-Systems, Inc. case.) Ok, so how does "significant possibility" turn into the government is likely to prevail on the merits? How could a Supreme Court Justice write something so...patently wrong?

The Supreme Court also wants to know why the Travel Ban is not moot given that it would have ended by now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf


Tough day for you, eh?http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/the-merits-and-me.php

The Court unanimously stayed most of the injunctive relief granted by the lower courts in the two cases.


And: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/26/s ... -lutheran/

In a surprising 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court and ruled that the state of Missouri has to allow religious schools to benefit from a schoolyard-safety program. Under current state law, Missouri argued that religious schools had no access to state funds for any purpose, an argument demolished by both the controlling opinion and two others in support of it.


Every once in a while, the Supreme Court actually upholds the Constitution.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jun 2017, 3:11 pm

A terrible decision in the Missouri case. The State of Missouri is now required to use $20,000 to subsidize a church playground even though its Constitution dictates that it is not to spend public funds to support religious institutions. The ostensible reason is that the State of Missouri gives out grants for improving playgrounds and that it violates the Free Exercise Clause to not allow this church to complete for said funds.

Sotomayor has a great dissent. At the end of the day allowing churches to compete for public funds risks entanglement between church and state and risks that more powerful and politically connected churches can gain better access to state funds. So you risk one church being favored by the state (Establishment Clause problem) and other churches having their ability to exercise their religion impeded by the favoritism shown towards a church (Free Exercise of Religion Problem). Allowing the State to pay funds to a church is a very, very bad idea. Sotomayot goes through the early history of the states and their experiments with funding religion and that each state found it was not wise.

So...now as long as you couch a government benefit as being equally available to everyone--secular and non--secular alike--you impinge on the Free Exercise of Religion if it is denied to a church, regardless of whether the ultimate impact is that a certain religion or religion in general gets favored by the government. The implications of the decision are staggering, though I suspect The Court will retreat when they realize how far reaching this could be.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Jun 2017, 3:55 pm

freeman3 wrote:A terrible decision in the Missouri case. The State of Missouri is now required to use $20,000 to subsidize a church playground even though its Constitution dictates that it is not to spend public funds to support religious institutions. The ostensible reason is that the State of Missouri gives out grants for improving playgrounds and that it violates the Free Exercise Clause to not allow this church to complete for said funds.

Sotomayor has a great dissent. At the end of the day allowing churches to compete for public funds risks entanglement between church and state and risks that more powerful and politically connected churches can gain better access to state funds. So you risk one church being favored by the state (Establishment Clause problem) and other churches having their ability to exercise their religion impeded by the favoritism shown towards a church (Free Exercise of Religion Problem). Allowing the State to pay funds to a church is a very, very bad idea. Sotomayot goes through the early history of the states and their experiments with funding religion and that each state found it was not wise.


She jumps to the "worst-case scenario" without establishing it. Nice try, Ms. Socialjusticemayor!

It was discrimination because of religion, not establishment of a religion.

So...now as long as you couch a government benefit as being equally available to everyone--secular and non--secular alike--you impinge on the Free Exercise of Religion if it is denied to a church, regardless of whether the ultimate impact is that a certain religion or religion in general gets favored by the government. The implications of the decision are staggering, though I suspect The Court will retreat when they realize how far reaching this could be.


Nope, they'll rule against a State trying to establish a religion. That a State like Missouri was trying to do that is pretty funny.

7-2.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jun 2017, 4:24 pm

Right...so instead of using scarce public money to build a playground in PUBLIC schools that are accessible to all...the State of Missouri is forced to subsidize a religious educational center available to the few. That makes perfect sense! In other words, taxes taken from everyone instead of going to public schools that are available to everyone...they should go to a Lutheran religious group. Yeah, let's take public tax dollars and favor private religious groups over public schools. Great decision, SCOTUS!