- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Blocks Trump Santuary city order
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:57 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:57 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
It's just a TRO
Do you understand what it takes to get a TRO? It is stated in the image of the last page. Likelihood of success on the merits (i.e., the plaintiffs will likely prevail) and irreparable harm of the order is allowed to stand during the pendency of the litigation.
Regardless, it is another Obama appointee completely shitting all over the separation of powers and the exercise of authority clearly within the purview of the Executive Branch.
3
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:57 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:At this stage these SOBs need SCOTUS to put them in their place.
The Associated Press?Verified account @AP
BREAKING: US judge blocks Trump order to cut off funding to cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities.
another "so called judge" strikes again.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:58 pm to NC_Tigah
I told ya'll this would get blocked 
But you didn't believe me.
But you didn't believe me.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:58 pm to Loserman
quote:
The same in reverse will happen here with the removal of funds which the courts have ZERO say about.
Courts don't have power of the purse or enforcement power.
However Courtd have the power to determine the constitutionality of another branch's actions. The argument here is that the Executive is overstepping their authority by imposing conditions on the funding. The correct source of those conditions would be Legislative.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:59 pm to GumboPot
quote:LINK
They are?
quote:
But then Trump gave GOP lawmakers an escape hatch, telling conservative journalists at a White House reception Monday evening that he would be comfortable delaying a fight over the wall until September.
That will be welcome news to Senate Republican leaders, who met for nearly an hour on Monday to go over their plight. They emerged “optimistic” about getting a deal with Democrats, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). And now, it might not require delivering Trump some bad news.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:59 pm to kingbob
quote:
If it is the former, the order is unconstitutional because absent times of war, the federal government has no power to deputize and cooerce local law enforcement
I've really not followed this much at all...but wouldn't it be easier for the administration to just cut federal police funding for cities that have declared themselves as sanctuary?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:59 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Ah. Ok. Just looked it up. The judge didn't rule on the constitutionality. Judge ordered a TRO until the case could be heard. This is nothing. All of us were duped by the OP.
Hence the reason I deleted another comment on page two.
Realized who the OP was and reread the article.
This OP does this shite all the damn time. I've called her out prior, but fell for it again. My fault.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:00 pm to udtiger
Yeah. I've argued many on both sides. In my experience, judges err towards issuing the TRO to keep things status quo until they can hear the entire case.
I do think fighting every executive order is great, though. And I hope the republicans do it too next time there is a democrat in office. It's about time we reigned in some of the powers that have been abused in the past. This, is not one of those times in my opinion...but I have no problem with a suit being filed. I just wish the judges weren't so politically biased.
I do think fighting every executive order is great, though. And I hope the republicans do it too next time there is a democrat in office. It's about time we reigned in some of the powers that have been abused in the past. This, is not one of those times in my opinion...but I have no problem with a suit being filed. I just wish the judges weren't so politically biased.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:00 pm to NIH
That is what Trump is trying to do. The issue of whether that authority resides with the Executive or the Legislature.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:01 pm to CorporateTiger
Seems like that would be something easy for a Republican congress to get on board with.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:02 pm to CommoDawg
Well that wasn't a bold prediction since apparently if you have enough money you can judge shop across the country for a judicial whore to do whatever you want.
Why do you want vermin to get handouts and protection?
Why do you want vermin to get handouts and protection?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:02 pm to NIH
I mean they should be able to fix this within the GOP, but tthey haven't been able to accomplish much so far.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:03 pm to NIH
quote:
Seems like that would be something easy for a Republican congress to get on board with.
4D chess on Trump's part to force GOP Congress to add sanctuary city provision in funding bills?
Republicans talk tough on illegal immigration and lets see that put to the test here.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:03 pm to udtiger
What if Trump just ignores the TRO?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:03 pm to tigerinDC09
Officials based in the anarchy that is the People's Republic of San Francisco strike again
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:03 pm to LSUcjb318
quote:
Once again I'm not the legal expert here but with withholding money is one thing but withholding money unless you do X and stating that in the edict might not be legal. I'm not sure if the drinking age thing here was in writing or just an understanding.
Whether something is legal or not doesn't even matter in this instance because the judiciary decides legality based on law/constitution. But as the constitution laid out the judiciary CAN'T ENFORCE or Fund law.
They don't have power of the purse or sword.
There isn't a fricking thing the courts can do to a President or Congress as long as they do not wish to follow the courts decision.
You may not like it but it is a fact of our Constitution and form of government.
The Judicial Branch is extremely weak without a President or Congress willing to enforce whatever the judiciary says.
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:04 pm to CorporateTiger
BTW, anyone catch Jeff Landry pandering hard to the mouth breathers in making this a public safety issue? I completely buy the spending argument re. illegals but hate when the right has to go off the rails in making this a "public safety" issue. The natives in NOLA are far more dangerous than the laborers that inhabit Kenner.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:04 pm to CommoDawg
quote:"You"?
But you didn't believe me.
These are anti-constitutionalist judges. Of course they are going to "block" Constitutional actions. That in no way makes the actions correct or desirable. SCOTUS needs to rein this BS in.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:04 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Republicans talk tough on illegal immigration and lets see that put to the test here.
You know what will happen.
Everyone does.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:05 pm to NIH
I've hated rhetoric of that style on this board too. You oppose illegal immigration and sanctuary cities without trying to turn every senseless crime in to a panic issue and political point.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News