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

[ilostmypassword]

And now the Supreme Court is getting into the act. Conservative and liberal justices like seemed to have a lot of fun batting Robert Parker, the Trump administration's attorney over the Trump administration claims that any misstatement of fact in the application for citizen ship, no matter how trivial or relevant, could result in a naturalized citizen being stripped of his or her U.S. citizenship.  From the examples the justices posed, you can see that they must have been having a lot of fun. Unfortunately not one of them asked what would be the case for a Slovenian-born naturalized citizen who lied about earning money in the USA on a tourist visa. Pity.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/26/lose-citizenship-fibbing-supreme-court-justices-fume/100935202/

[ilostmypassword]

...So off he [Trump] went on a boilerplate Twitter rant in which he wrongly blamed the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for his loss at the trial court level; wrongly characterized that appellate court’s reversal record; and wrongly faulted a city and county in California for “judge shopping” (not an actual legal term) for opting to file in the jurisdiction in which they exist, as opposed to filing in, say, Texas or Georgia, where they do not exist.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/04/trump_always_forgets_words_matter_to_judges.html

[Dagnabbit]

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.

I am in absolutely no way confused about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilostmypassword]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:30 AM, 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.

You actually believe someone like Greg Jarrett at fox news. That is the only place on the internet I could find this. To show how dishonest that "journalist" is, let start with this particularlly outlandish claim::

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

Did it occur to you to maybe question that just a little bit?

Here's a piece of the official summary of the case:

"Following his conviction in 2005, plaintiff alleged a vast governmental conspiracy to persecute him and violate his constitutional rights. In the present action, plaintiff alleged eight causes of action against 19 defendants, including the United States District Court for the District of Montana, which included every judge in the District of Montana. The panel held that the rule of necessity permits a district judge to hear a case in which he is named as a defendant where a litigant sues all the judges of the district."

You can read the rest of it and weep here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/10/07/13-35230.pdf

I will say that it's a pity this plaintiff lost his case. Imagine if he had succeeded. All any convicted party would have to do is sue every judge in The United States. No conviction could ever stand. Brilliant!.

Edited April 28, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[mrwebb8825]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:18 AM, darksidedog said:

I find it hard to believe they are all incompetent or giving rulings based on their political persuasions.

You mean much like every democrat politician in DC?

[mrwebb8825]

On 4/27/2017 at 4:25 PM, Berkshire said:

Cops can't be trusted if they're doing the job of federal agents.

Cops can't be trusted if they're enforcing ALL the laws.

 

There, fixed that for you.

[ilostmypassword]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:18 AM, darksidedog said:

 I find it hard to believe they are all incompetent or giving rulings based on their political persuasions. 

 

23 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You mean much like every democrat politician in DC?

 So you are finding fault with democrats legislating and governing based on their political persuasion? Do you mean that Republicans base their legislating and governing based on bribery? Or, according to your thinking, do they flip coins to decide? You gotta make an attempt to be a little less Pavlovian in your responses.

[Berkshire]

56 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Cops can't be trusted if they're enforcing ALL the laws.

 

There, fixed that for you.

Sigh.  More simplistic comments to complicated issues.  As I stated previously, I leave it to the experts to decide how best to conduct law enforcement.  The Mayor of Los Angeles knows best how to govern his city, more than I and certainly more than you. 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Cops can't be trusted if they're enforcing ALL the laws.

 

There, fixed that for you.

And that applies to the Feds too. Time for massive arrests and imprisonment of all those citizens selling marijuana in states that authorized it contrary to federal law. And better lock up those users, too.  Time to build some really large prison camps. Joe Arpaio is currently unemployed. He'd make the perfect warden-in-chief.

[mrwebb8825]

20 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Time for massive arrests and imprisonment of all those citizens selling marijuana in states that authorized it contrary to federal law. And better lock up those users, too.

But, marijuana played a bigger role in founding America than immigrants did:

In 1619, King James I decreed that the American colonists of Jamestown would need to step up efforts to do their fair share towards supporting England. The Virginia Company enacted the decree, asking Jamestown's land owners to grow and export 100 hemp plants to help support England's cause. Later the colonists would grow it to support its expansion in the Americas. George Washington grew hemp at Mount Vernon as one of his three primary crops. The use of hemp for rope and fabric later became ubiquitous throughout the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States. Medicinal preparations of cannabis became available in American pharmacies in the 1850s following an introduction to its use in Western medicine by William O'Shaughnessy a decade earlier in 1839.

[mrwebb8825]

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 So you are finding fault with democrats legislating and governing based on their political persuasion? Do you mean that Republicans base their legislating and governing based on bribery? Or, according to your thinking, do they flip coins to decide? You gotta make an attempt to be a little less Pavlovian in your responses.

No, I'm saying that to stand united against every idea that isn't theirs just for the sake of butthurt arrogance and to the detriment of the people who elected them is wrong.

You will note that not a single "red" state has involved themselves.

 

I like being Pavlovian. It's fun to watch people drool. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

No, I'm saying that to stand united against every idea that isn't theirs just for the sake of butthurt arrogance and to the detriment of the people who elected them is wrong.

You will note that not a single "red" state has involved themselves.

 

I like being Pavlovian. It's fun to watch people drool. 

First off, that's not what you wrote originally. It may have been what you meant to say, but not what you did say. Let me remind you that you criticized judges for making decisions based on their ideological beliefs rather than on the law. Then you wrote that Democrats did the same thing.  Now you're saying that's not the case but rather that they are doing it "just for the sake of butthurt arrogance." That's opposite to your original assertion. Next you'll be saying that when you write black you really mean white. You really shouldn't count on telepathy to try and get your points across.    

 

To make it worse, it isn't progressives who's positions have massively changed.  It's Trump.

 

I don't want to be entirely negative so congratulations on your use of an emoji. You definitely do better with pictures than you do with words. 

[Srikcir]

While President Donald Trump attacked a federal judge's ruling that blocked his executive order seeking to withhold funds from "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants, his Attorney General Sessions has been fairly silent. And rightly so.

 

The states for the so-called "sanctuary cities" have until June 30th to show they are in compliance with federal Statute 1373 that prohibits local and state governments and agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection about "information regarding the immigration or citizenship status" of individuals. Otherwise, Sessions has no legal grounds to take federal retaliatory action.

 

The irony is that if the state and city law enforcement don't ask about a person's immigration status, they have nothing to tell the federal government. Thus, complying with the statute. Sessions will have to prevail in court that such law enforcement authorities are compelled by federal law to ask. Or face arrest? That may result in a messy legal issue before the US Supreme Court as it will involve states rights vs. federal rights.

 

And in another irony, Sessions recently said he will no longer sign consent decrees — i.e. court binding agreements for police reform — because state and local law enforcement does not need to be interfered with by the federal government (sic). That would seem to be a position the Supreme Court might readily agree.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jeff-sessions-stuck-in-sanctuary-city-quandary/article/2621661

 

PS: New Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch might be an advocate for state's rights vs. federal supremacy.

Gorsuch was described by Justin Marceau, a professor at the University of Strum College of Law,  as "a predictably socially conservative judge who tends to favor state power over federal power". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch#States.27_rights_and_federalism

 

 

[mrwebb8825]

22 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The states for the so-called "sanctuary cities" have until June 30th to show they are in compliance with federal Statute 1373 that prohibits local and state governments and agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection about "information regarding the immigration or citizenship status" of individuals

California is already in direct violation and therefore is not afforded the deadline that the others are and subject to immediate federal action.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/california-to-consider-laws-to-protect-immigrants-from-trump-policies.html?_r=0

25 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The irony is that if the state and city law enforcement don't ask about a person's immigration status, they have nothing to tell the federal government. Thus, complying with the statute. Sessions will have to prevail in court that such law enforcement authorities are compelled by federal law to ask. Or face arrest?

Most, if not all states have laws that make it mandatory to correctly identify all individuals arrested. Giving false information to police is also a crime in most, if not all states at the state level. Much like lying to the FBI or congress at the federal level.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that these laws have been in place long before Trump became president. The true story here is that a republican president is trying to get them enforced finally and democrat states are trying snub him.

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

But, marijuana played a bigger role in founding America than immigrants did:

In 1619, King James I decreed that the American colonists of Jamestown would need to step up efforts to do their fair share towards supporting England. The Virginia Company enacted the decree, asking Jamestown's land owners to grow and export 100 hemp plants to help support England's cause. Later the colonists would grow it to support its expansion in the Americas. George Washington grew hemp at Mount Vernon as one of his three primary crops. The use of hemp for rope and fabric later became ubiquitous throughout the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States. Medicinal preparations of cannabis became available in American pharmacies in the 1850s following an introduction to its use in Western medicine by William O'Shaughnessy a decade earlier in 1839.

"But marijuana played a bigger role in founding America than immigrants did."  Really, did the marijuana cultivate and harvest itself? Colonies without colonists? 

Actually, like the cultivation of hemp, immigration was  encouraged and promoted for most of colonial and USA history although naturalization status was denied to all non white people including Native Americans fromm 1790 to 1870. .  .

But both cases seem irrelevant to the sarcastic position you recently stated:

On 4/29/2017 at 7:23 AM, mrwebb8825 said:

Cops can't be trusted if they're enforcing ALL the laws.

 

So, if your rule applies to the police, why shouldn't it apply to the Feds?  And the answer is that the Feds, like local or state police, use discretion in enforcing the laws and take into account facts on the ground to establish their priorities. A kind of legal version of triage.

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Most, if not all states have laws that make it mandatory to correctly identify all individuals arrested.

First, there must be legitimate grounds for arresting anyone, ie., suspected or alleged violation of state and local laws. Arresting someone solely based on their suspected religion, nationality, race, etc. would be unconstitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Second, states and local authorities have broad discretion as to what constitutes identification. Typical ID is a driver's license or non-driver's license. Depending on the circumstance, the S&L law enforcement authorities have discretion to other methods of identification, ie., company issued photo ID. There is no federal standard such as a national ID card.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Srikcir
added Wikipedia link

[mrwebb8825]

35 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

First, there must be legitimate grounds for arresting anyone, ie., suspected or alleged violation of state and local laws. Arresting someone solely based on their suspected religion, nationality, race, etc. would be unconstitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Second, states and local authorities have broad discretion as to what constitutes identification. Typical ID is a driver's license or non-driver's license. Depending on the circumstance, the S&L law enforcement authorities have discretion to other methods of identification, ie., company issued photo ID. There is no federal standard such as a national ID card.

You keep going back to just randomly stopping people as your example to defend the states from turning over convicted people to the feds if they are illegals.

 

You should spend a little time watching a very popular American TV series called "Cops" and then tell me that they don't stop someone who may or may not have committed a crime that can be proven out on the street at the time of contact. 1 of the very 1st questions out of their mouths is asking for identification.

[Srikcir]

6 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

defend the states from turning over convicted people to the feds if they are illegals.

Your use of "convicted" is a new thread (unless it's a correction) as previously you stated "arrested." As you surely know, being arrested is not synonymous with being convicted with regards to the US judicial system.

My reference addressed the issue of proper identification.

[mrwebb8825]

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Your use of "convicted" is a new thread (unless it's a correction) as previously you stated "arrested." As you surely know, being arrested is not synonymous with being convicted with regards to the US judicial system.

My reference addressed the issue of proper identification.

and all those being "arrested" must provide proof of identification. Citizens have ID in some form or another. When you are arrested and can NOT provide proof of your identification, you are hauled down to the station and held until positive ID can be made.

 

Like I suggested, watch the show.

[Credo]

9 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

and all those being "arrested" must provide proof of identification. Citizens have ID in some form or another. When you are arrested and can NOT provide proof of your identification, you are hauled down to the station and held until positive ID can be made.

 

Like I suggested, watch the show.

Citizens do not necessarily have some form of identification.   The US has no national identification system or card.   Many, many people do not have a Driver's License or a passport.    

 

 

[Srikcir]

15 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

all those being "arrested" must provide proof of identification

What is your citation(s) wherein a person must prove his identity upon arrest which you state is not related to a "stop & search" action - that the police had a legal probable cause for the arrest?

 

Simply being detained without legal (ie., constitutional) probable (ie., criminal violation) cause does not give police the right to arrest any person for failure to identify oneself. There are many court rulings on this matter such as Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000); Brinegar v. United States – 338 U.S. 160 (1949). The commonality of these rulings is that absent reasonable suspicion of criminality, the police can not simply stop people and ask for their names.

 

The police following a legal (ie., constitutional) arrest do have the right to request your basic identity information. While a suspect can choose not to respond, one might be also charged with obstruction. But the short of it is that a verbal response that complies with the request should suffice the request.

 

If the police otherwise upon response have any issue of identity, it's the responsibility of the police. The police have the right after a legal arrest upon lack or adequacy of response to investigate your identity, ie., take fingerprints, DNA, property search, witness interviews, etc. The downside for the suspect maybe temporary incarceration up to 72 hours before any adjudication. On the upside the prosecution must prove that you are the actual offender who committed the crime in question. Failure for the prosecution to prove your identity should result in release.

[mrwebb8825]

On 5/1/2017 at 7:31 AM, Srikcir said:

What is your citation(s) wherein a person must prove his identity upon arrest which you state is not related to a "stop & search" action - that the police had a legal probable cause for the arrest?

 

Simply being detained without legal (ie., constitutional) probable (ie., criminal violation) cause does not give police the right to arrest any person for failure to identify oneself. There are many court rulings on this matter such as Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000); Brinegar v. United States – 338 U.S. 160 (1949). The commonality of these rulings is that absent reasonable suspicion of criminality, the police can not simply stop people and ask for their names.

 

The police following a legal (ie., constitutional) arrest do have the right to request your basic identity information. While a suspect can choose not to respond, one might be also charged with obstruction. But the short of it is that a verbal response that complies with the request should suffice the request.

 

If the police otherwise upon response have any issue of identity, it's the responsibility of the police. The police have the right after a legal arrest upon lack or adequacy of response to investigate your identity, ie., take fingerprints, DNA, property search, witness interviews, etc. The downside for the suspect maybe temporary incarceration up to 72 hours before any adjudication. On the upside the prosecution must prove that you are the actual offender who committed the crime in question. Failure for the prosecution to prove your identity should result in release.

watch the show: these are the people which you've obviously never met, that you're blindly defending

    

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

watch the show: these are the people which you've obviously never met, that you're blindly defending

    

Great idea to watch an 8 minute episode  of a reality tv show to establish the validity of law enforcement policy. Come to think of it, you probably learned this approach from the current President.

[mrwebb8825]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Great idea to watch an 8 minute episode  of a reality tv show to establish the validity of law enforcement policy. Come to think of it, you probably learned this approach from the current President.

You have a very short attention span - it's a whole series in which you can see that EVERY person stopped and questioned by the police produce ID and the ones that tried to hide it were threatened with charges of obstruction.