Trump slams federal court ruling on funding for 'sanctuary cities'

[webfact]

Trump slams federal court ruling on funding for 'sanctuary cities'

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the keynote address at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's "Days of Remembrance" ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington, U.S, April 25, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday attacked a federal judge's ruling that blocked his executive order seeking to withhold funds from "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants, vowing to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco was the latest blow to Trump's efforts to toughen immigration enforcement. Federal courts have also blocked his two travel bans on citizens of mostly Muslim nations.

 

"First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!" Trump said in a tweet on Wednesday, referring to the San Francisco-based federal appeals court and its judicial district.

 

The Trump administration has targeted sanctuary cities, which generally offer safe harbour to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

 

Later on Wednesday, Trump, asked in an interview with the Washington Examiner if he had considered proposals to break up the 9th Circuit Court, said: "Absolutely, I have."

 

"There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous," he told the newspaper.

 

The latest ruling did not come from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to which Trump was referring. It came from the federal district court in San Francisco.

 

Critics have said local authorities endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants arrested for crimes, while supporters argue that enlisting police cooperation to round up immigrants for removal undermines trust in local police, particularly among Latinos.

 

Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the "sanctuary" movement.

In his ruling, Orrick said Trump's Jan. 25 order targeted broad categories of federal funding for the sanctuary cities and that plaintiffs challenging it were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

 

'WILL CONTINUE TO LITIGATE'

 

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions blasted Orrick's ruling, saying Trump's executive order was "squarely within the powers of the President."

 

"The Department of Justice cannot accept such a result, and as the President has made clear, we will continue to litigate this case to vindicate the rule of law," Sessions said in a statement.

 

An appeal is likely to be heard by the 9th Circuit before it goes to the Supreme Court. Republicans view the appeals court as biased towards liberals, and Trump was quick to attack its reputation in his tweets.

 

It "has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this "judge shopping!" Messy system," Trump said.

 

The appeals court raised Trump's ire earlier this year when it upheld a Seattle judge's decision to block the Republican president's first travel ban on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations.

 

In May, the 9th Circuit will hear an appeal of a Hawaii judge's order blocking Trump's revised travel ban, which placed restrictions on citizens from six mostly Muslim countries. A Maryland judge also blocked portions of the second ban.

 

Trump has issued sweeping condemnations of courts and judges when they have ruled against him or his administration.

 

In February, he called the federal judge in Seattle who ruled against his first travel ban a "so-called judge." During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump accused an Indiana-born judge overseeing lawsuits against the defunct Trump University of bias based on his Mexican ancestry.

 

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Diane Craft and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-27

[darksidedog]

This man never learns. A judge will give his decision based upon the law as he reads it. It is not necessary for Donald to agree with that judgement and he has every right to take it higher up the legislative system. What is sad, is his public lambasting of so many judges now. I find it hard to believe they are all incompetent or giving rulings based on their political persuasions. Grow up Donald and respect the legal system.

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

This man never learns. A judge will give his decision based upon the law as he reads it. It is not necessary for Donald to agree with that judgement and he has every right to take it higher up the legislative system. What is sad, is his public lambasting of so many judges now. I find it hard to believe they are all incompetent or giving rulings based on their political persuasions. Grow up Donald and respect the legal system.

And on top of his senseless attack on the courts, he can't even get it right.  He's attacking the 9th Circuit Court again, but...

 

"The latest ruling did not come from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to which Trump was referring. It came from the federal district court in San Francisco."

[Dagnabbit]

9 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

This man never learns. A judge will give his decision based upon the law as he reads it. It is not necessary for Donald to agree with that judgement and he has every right to take it higher up the legislative system. What is sad, is his public lambasting of so many judges now. I find it hard to believe they are all incompetent or giving rulings based on their political persuasions. Grow up Donald and respect the legal system.

 

Not in this case.

 

The judge in question has a colorful history on the topic of recusal.

 

- He sat in judgement on planned parenthood cases while his wife is a pro-abortion activist

- He ruled that 2 other judges could judge on a case in which they were the defendants

- He is himself a pro immigration activist

 

Judges are bound not to make judgements on cases where they have a strong personal interest. This particualar judge was given his job by Obama after raising $200k for him and personally donating $30k.

 

He should have passed on this case. He will likely be disbarred.

[ilostmypassword]

54 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

Not in this case.

 

The judge in question has a colorful history on the topic of recusal.

 

- He sat in judgement on planned parenthood cases while his wife is a pro-abortion activist

- He ruled that 2 other judges could judge on a case in which they were the defendants

- He is himself a pro immigration activist

 

Judges are bound not to make judgements on cases where they have a strong personal interest. This particualar judge was given his job by Obama after raising $200k for him and personally donating $30k.

 

He should have passed on this case. He will likely be disbarred.

In that case and given their deep involvement with the Federalist Society,  Scalia, Thomas, and Alito should have recused themselves from a myriad of cases. You are confused by what is meant for a judge to have an interest in a case.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, darksidedog said:

This man never learns. A judge will give his decision based upon the law as he reads it. It is not necessary for Donald to agree with that judgement and he has every right to take it higher up the legislative system. What is sad, is his public lambasting of so many judges now. I find it hard to believe they are all incompetent or giving rulings based on their political persuasions. Grow up Donald and respect the legal system.

Judges are human and they of course have their preferences and can interpret laws differently especially when its a grey area. (not saying this is the case here). But certainly when cases are not clear cut different judges with different personal views will interpret things differently.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

In that case and given their deep involvement with the Federalist Society,  Scalia, Thomas, and Alito should have recused themselves from a myriad of cases. You are confused by what is meant for a judge to have an interest in a case.

 

So basically, you don't see anything wrong with a judge agreeing that cities can resist the deportation of illegal immigrants. Illegal because they entered the country illegally, thus becoming a criminal, and have no legal right to be there?

 

Are you in favor of elected politicians that run cities being allowed to over rule laws for political reasons as it suits them?

 

 

[55Jay]

Would be interesting if the Feds packed up and left California border crossings unmanned.  Shift personnel and assets to AZ, NM and Texas, and let California get on with it.   

[Berkshire]

31 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So basically, you don't see anything wrong with a judge agreeing that cities can resist the deportation of illegal immigrants. Illegal because they entered the country illegally, thus becoming a criminal, and have no legal right to be there?

 

Are you in favor of elected politicians that run cities being allowed to over rule laws for political reasons as it suits them?

 

 

It's not as simple and clear-cut as you make it out to be.  And it's certainly not political.  I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I was watching an interview with the mayor of LA the other day and he gave an insightful explanation.  For example, solving crimes is not like on TV where forensic experts sit in a room and go over DNA evidence.  It's more about cops getting involved in communities and gaining the trust of its citizens.  That's how they solve crimes and keep the communities safe.  Cops can't be trusted if they're doing the job of federal agents.  That's the point...partially.  I'm sure there are other reasons, but the people on the ground know best, not bureaucrats in DC. 

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Would be interesting if the Feds packed up and left California border crossings unmanned.  Shift personnel and assets to AZ, NM and Texas, and let California get on with it.   

And then would you station immigration personnel on the eastern California border? 

[55Jay]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

And then would you station immigration personnel on the eastern California border? 

I did think of that but no, I wouldn't.  If Nevada had any complaints, they would need to direct them to California.

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I did think of that but no, I wouldn't.  If Nevada had any complaints, they would need to direct them to California.

And if Idaho, Utah or Arizona had complaints they would then direct them to Nevada? And so forth and so on?

[55Jay]

29 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

It's not as simple and clear-cut as you make it out to be.  And it's certainly not political.  I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I was watching an interview with the mayor of LA the other day and he gave an insightful explanation.  For example, solving crimes is not like on TV where forensic experts sit in a room and go over DNA evidence.  It's more about cops getting involved in communities and gaining the trust of its citizens.  That's how they solve crimes and keep the communities safe.  Cops can't be trusted if they're doing the job of federal agents.  That's the point...partially.  I'm sure there are other reasons, but the people on the ground know best, not bureaucrats in DC. 

Well, it's not like the LAPD is bosom buddies with the population to begin with.  Certainly not the ones the LA Mayor had in mind when making those comments. 

 

It's not a stretch to expect local cops to check the status of people they arrest.  They do that anyway, and if they wind up being illegals and you're going to kick them loose on OR, you hand them off to the BP.  It's not difficult.  If they were wanted by Feds, you kick them loose to them, and they are transferred to MCC (Federal).

 

Border Patrol can't arrest you for DUI crossing the border.  But in the interest of public safety, they will detain and call the state or local authorities to come handle it. 

 

When I began as an MP in California, we would occasionally get illegals running through the base on their way North/toward Los Angeles.  We would detain, call the BP and they would come out and scoop them up. 

[55Jay]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

And if Idaho, Utah or Arizona had complaints they would then direct them to Nevada? And so forth and so on?

Nope. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So basically, you don't see anything wrong with a judge agreeing that cities can resist the deportation of illegal immigrants. Illegal because they entered the country illegally, thus becoming a criminal, and have no legal right to be there?

 

Are you in favor of elected politicians that run cities being allowed to over rule laws for political reasons as it suits them?

 

 

Judges are supposed to decide cases based on the laws governing the issue in question. The question isn't whether the  judge's decision is "wrong", but rather whether it's legally correct or incorrect. 

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

They used to call this "judge shopping!"

Orrick was selected at random.

Maybe Trump should just stay away from the 9th Circuit.

[ilostmypassword]

44 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Nope. 

Is that because the immigrants would enjoy Las Vegas so much that they would never leave the state?

[Linzz]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Judges are supposed to decide cases based on the laws governing the issue in question. The question isn't whether the  judge's decision is "wrong", but rather whether it's legally correct or incorrect. 

Supposed to.

 If  Judge Neil Gorsuch wants to pretend the “integrity” of judges should NEVER be questioned, he is not qualified for the Supreme Court.

 

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/why-trump-should-not-nominate-judge-gorsuch/

Feb 2017

 

[55Jay]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Is that because the immigrants would enjoy Las Vegas so much that they would never leave the state?

Reckon they do.  There are a lot of them there already. 

 

And to clarify your slippery, liberal terminology, we are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants,otherwise known as Illegals.  Illegal aliens.  Not legal immigrants.  The difference between the categories is the same now as it was 50 years ago.  You can make up new terms and soft sounding words all day long to obfuscate the point.  They still are......illegals.  Criminals.  Same as you would be here in Thailand if you swam the Meekong to enter the country. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by 55Jay

[joeyg]

23 hours ago, darksidedog said:

This man never learns. A judge will give his decision based upon the law as he reads it. It is not necessary for Donald to agree with that judgement and he has every right to take it higher up the legislative system. What is sad, is his public lambasting of so many judges now. I find it hard to believe they are all incompetent or giving rulings based on their political persuasions. Grow up Donald and respect the legal system.

 The US Congress currently has an approval rating of 17% which is up a bit at the moment. I don't imagine the judges have a much better approval rating. Actually they're all idiots.

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, 55Jay said:

we are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants

Aren't we talking about primarily UNDOCUMENTED immigrants (an immigrant without any legal immigration status)?

 

Whether they are in the US illegally is a legal determination as there are legal provisions by which they might become legal immigrants, ie., Asylum Status or U Visa for Victims of Crime.

https://citizenpath.com/paths-to-legal-status-undocumented/

 

Officials can grant legal status to children who are unauthorized if a state court finds that the child has been neglected, abused, or abandoned by a parent, and that it is not in the child’s best interest to return to his or her home country. Immigration officials also have the discretion to give an unauthorized immigrant permission to leave the United States briefly to apply for a visa and then to re-enter as a lawful permanent resident if a longer separation would cause the individual’s legally present spouse or parent “extreme hardship.”

Similarly, immigration judges can grant legal status to long-term, law-abiding unauthorized immigrants whose deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their legally present relatives.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-overlooked-pathways-to-legal-status/487682/

 

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Aren't we talking about primarily UNDOCUMENTED immigrants (an immigrant without any legal immigration status)?

 

Whether they are in the US illegally is a legal determination as there are legal provisions by which they might become legal immigrants, ie., Asylum Status or U Visa for Victims of Crime.

https://citizenpath.com/paths-to-legal-status-undocumented/

 

Officials can grant legal status to children who are unauthorized if a state court finds that the child has been neglected, abused, or abandoned by a parent, and that it is not in the child’s best interest to return to his or her home country. Immigration officials also have the discretion to give an unauthorized immigrant permission to leave the United States briefly to apply for a visa and then to re-enter as a lawful permanent resident if a longer separation would cause the individual’s legally present spouse or parent “extreme hardship.”

Similarly, immigration judges can grant legal status to long-term, law-abiding unauthorized immigrants whose deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their legally present relatives.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-overlooked-pathways-to-legal-status/487682/

 

It's also useful to point out that people who arrive on a valid visa and overstay have not committed a crime. And this is the case even if they are working.

[Berkshire]

If you're going to attack someone, you really should have a clue.  Otherwise you come across as painfully ignorant and stupid.  What I posted was a quote from the article.  Further evidence from another article:

 

[Never mind that the sanctuary city ruling came from a trial judge on the district court bench in San Francisco — not the 9th Circuit appellate court.]

[Trump tweeted: “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!”

The sanctuary ruling will not even get to the 9th Circuit until Trump appeals the lower court’s decision.]

[That the 9th Circuit received blame for a decision it didn’t make reflected its long-held status as a whipping boy for conservatives. Efforts to break it up stretch back decades.]

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-9th-circuit-20170427-htmlstory.html

 

Understand now?

 

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[ilostmypassword]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:23 AM, Berkshire said:

And on top of his senseless attack on the courts, he can't even get it right.  He's attacking the 9th Circuit Court again, but...

 

"The latest ruling did not come from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to which Trump was referring. It came from the federal district court in San Francisco."

And Apple has it headquarters in Cupertino and there is an Apple Store in Cupertino. But that doesn't mean that the Apple Store is the same thing as Apple HQ.  There's a corporate hierarchy. 

The court the decision came from is lower down in the hierarchy than the Court of Appeals.  The decision, if appealed will go to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Who's the halfwit here?

Anyway, now that your error has been pointed out I'm sure you'll do the honorable thing and apologize to Berkshire.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Scott

[55Jay]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's also useful to point out that people who arrive on a valid visa and overstay have not committed a crime. And this is the case even if they are working.

No, it's not useful at all.  It's meant to diminish and deflect from the topic at hand - illegal entry.

 

Illegal entry into the US is a crime.  Federal misdemeanor providing up to 6 months confinement followed by administrative deportation.  Subsequent re-entries become a felony.

 

Overstaying or otherwise violating conditions of a legal entry is not a crime, but that's being worked on now, making it a prima facia misdemeanor as well.  Same as Failing to Appear for an acknowledged traffic or misdemeanor citation results in a bench warrant for your arrest.  In the case of over stayers, followed by administrative deportation.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

No, it's not useful at all.  It's meant to diminish and deflect from the topic at hand - illegal entry.

 

Illegal entry into the US is a crime.  Federal misdemeanor providing up to 6 months confinement followed by administrative deportation.  Subsequent re-entries become a felony.

 

Overstaying or otherwise violating conditions of a legal entry is not a crime, but that's being worked on now, making it a prima facia misdemeanor as well.  Same as Failing to Appear for an acknowledged traffic or misdemeanor citation results in a bench warrant for your arrest.  In the case of over stayers, followed by administrative deportation.

 

 

Actually, the topic at hand is the threat of withdrawing federal funding for states and municipalities that don't comply with Federal requests pertaining to undocumented aliens.  And has been shown repeatedly, unless the Feds issue a warrant, states and other lesser jurisdictions are under no legal obligation to comply. All this other stuff is about whether or not it's a Federal crime to be undocumented in the USA is irrelevant.  But a nice byway to wander around in.

[Srikcir]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:05 AM, webfact said:

"There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous

Because he sees the 9th circuit as practicing liberal politics.

If it is, the notion that the 9th Circuit is liberal “dated.”

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/how-liberal-reputation-of-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-is-overblown-scholars-say/

And as to the 9th Circuit being the most reversed, it's not. The 6th Circuit now has that "achievement" using traditional standards and places a close second using nontraditional standards.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal/

 

 

[55Jay]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, the topic at hand is the threat of withdrawing federal funding for states and municipalities that don't comply with Federal requests pertaining to undocumented aliens.  And has been shown repeatedly, unless the Feds issue a warrant, states and other lesser jurisdictions are under no legal obligation to comply. All this other stuff is about whether or not it's a Federal crime to be undocumented in the USA is irrelevant.  But a nice byway to wander around in.

My original comment was closer to the subject matter in handling willfully rebellious members of the Union, in comparison to your comment about legal entries, which you characterized as "useful to note".  I was just correcting and clarifying your off topic deflection, and now you're moderating me back on topic?  LOL      I am smiling now BTW, not annoyed or trying to start a food fight, it's all good fun.   

 

I agree though, legal/illegal entry is an extremely relevant sidebar to explore.  When done with a clear head, absent political flatulence, it ain't rocket surgery or brain science.  I'm amused by the Lib/Dems when they toss out this worn out 40-60% overstay talking point.  They mean to deflect and diminish the illegal entry issue by........ highlighting a different, even larger aspect of the broad immigration problem.  Interesting debate tactic.   Like providing ammunition to the firing squad!   

 

At any rate, all this nonsense is just another disingenuous, political obstruction by the self-styled granola eaters in La Résistance. 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

My original comment was closer to the subject matter in handling willfully rebellious members of the Union, in comparison to your comment about legal entries, which you characterized as "useful to note".  I was just correcting and clarifying your off topic deflection, and now you're moderating me back on topic?  LOL      I am smiling now BTW, not annoyed or trying to start a food fight, it's all good fun.   

 

I agree though, legal/illegal entry is an extremely relevant sidebar to explore.  When done with a clear head, absent political flatulence, it ain't rocket surgery or brain science.  I'm amused by the Lib/Dems when they toss out this worn out 40-60% overstay talking point.  They mean to deflect and diminish the illegal entry issue by........ highlighting a different, even larger aspect of the broad immigration problem.  Interesting debate tactic.   Like providing ammunition to the firing squad!   

 

At any rate, all this nonsense is just another disingenuous, political obstruction by the self-styled granola eaters in La Résistance. 

 

 

And yet the supreme court has considered it to be a grave constitutional issue concerning Federalism. It was conservative justices who decided that the Feds can't treat non-Fed governmental workers as employees.  Most likely, this is at least something to be grateful for in the case of Gorsuch. He is a committed Federalist.

[55Jay]

36 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And yet the supreme court has considered it to be a grave constitutional issue concerning Federalism. It was conservative justices who decided that the Feds can't treat non-Fed governmental workers as employees.  Most likely, this is at least something to be grateful for in the case of Gorsuch. He is a committed Federalist.

I was reading an interesting summary yesterday, South Dakota vs. Dole.  About Feds wanting to effectively coerce SD into adjusting their state alcohol laws by withholding some federal highway funds.  Ultimately upheld 7-2 and SD got in line with federal law.   Federal grants  (DHS) and funding for local law enforcement programs in "sanctuary cities" would be an obvious target, but not sure if there are conditions in place already wrt cooperation on immigration enforcement. 

 

  http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/the-federal-legislative-power/south-dakota-v-dole/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

 

Obama Admin reportedly used the power of the purse in the past WRT local jurisdictions sharing immigration related data with the Feds.

Edited April 28, 2017 by 55Jay