mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
The President vs. the Mayors
The Sanctuary City Fights Aren’t Going Away
Features Icon
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Consider the source of the ruling (the Clinton Archipelago), which is stuffed with super-liberal judges.

  • Beauceron

    Actually, it will go away.
    Blue states/cities will either have leftist judges annul any administration efforts, or simply ignore them with no other consequence than a few threats.
    I think one thing has become clear to me over the last few months: conservatives have no fight in them. The Left, on the other hand, loves to fight. Literally, if they feel they need to.
    In the end, I very much doubt Trump will be re-elected, so we’ll just go back to a Dem administration that encourages mass and illegal immigration.
    So of course it will go away.

  • Jim__L

    So… we could end up with a court ruling that strikes down all unfunded or partially funded federal mandates?


    As for sanctuary cities, Trump could just call out the National Guard. Those units aren’t under state control anymore, are they. Unless the Democrats want to fight that one, too. =D

    First the nuclear option to get Gorsuch on the court (which will likely mean a conservative to replace the ever more corpselike RBG), now court rulings tying the Fed’s hands on withholding federal funds from states… This is a fascinating time.

  • Fat_Man

    “A Federal Judge Issues a Mostly Meaningless Ruling Against a Mostly Meaningless Executive Order” by David French on April 25, 2017

    “The bottom line? Trump isn’t blocked from enforcing existing law. He’s only blocked from engaging in illegal acts that the DOJ promised the court that it wasn’t considering. In other words, move along. There’s not much to see here.

    “A Ruling about Nothing” by Andrew C. McCarthy on April 26, 2017

    “Although he vents for 49 pages, Judge William H. Orrick III gives away the game early, on page 4. There, the Obama appointee explains that his ruling is about . . . nothing.

    That is, Orrick acknowledges that he is adopting the construction of the E.O. urged by the Trump Justice Department, which maintains that the order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law. Although that construction is completely consistent with the E.O. as written, Judge Orrick implausibly describes it as “implausible.” Since Orrick ultimately agrees with the Trump Justice Department, and since no enforcement action has been taken based on the E.O., why not just dismiss the case?”

    “There appear to be two reasons. The first is Orrick’s patent desire to embarrass the White House, which rolled out the E.O. with great fanfare.”

    “Orrick’s second reason for issuing his Ruling About Nothing is to rationalize what is essentially an advisory opinion. … Given that courts are supposed to refrain from issuing advisory opinions, the Constitution is actually more aggrieved by Orrick than by Trump.”

    “Such niceties matter only if you’re practicing law, though. Judge Orrick is practicing politics.”

    • Andrew Allison

      What seems to be going on is that the liberal judges Obama appointed don’t actually care about the law, they just want to embarrass the President and delay implementation as long as possible by making these clearly unconstitutional judgments wend their way to the Supreme Court, where they be vacated.

      • Fat_Man

        Don’t bet on the Supreme Court. Crazy Tony Kennedy will side with the 4 democrats to trash Trump. kennedy is a drama queen, not a judge.

        • FriendlyGoat

          That would be GREAT news. Did you get it straight from “Tony” that he is going to do this on anything that matters?
          You know, business cases, voting rights, separation of religion and state?

          • Fat_Man

            No Goat.

  • Andrew Allison
  • charlesrwilliams

    Trump attempts to do with executive orders what Obama accomplished through low level political appointees. The answer to the lack of cooperation on the part of states and cities is to increase and prioritize enforcement actions in these places. The administration can also target for prosecution a few well chosen individuals for illegally aiding illegals. And then increasing resources dedicated to border control in these places would also help.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service