Posted by Curt on 26 April, 2017 at 10:48 am. 3 comments already!



A ruling from a federal district judge invalidating President Trump’s attempt to restrict federal money for sanctuary cities is a policy setback for his Administration. But it is also a huge political gift.

There is nothing the Republican base — and the bulk of Republican elected officials — hate more than what they view as liberal judges run amok. It’s the epitome — to Republicans — of liberals trying to institute their will on a populace without ever letting people vote or have their opinions heard.

Trump, sensing political opportunity, quickly pounced, with a trio of tweets Wednesday morning blasting the decision.

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

3:20 AM – 26 Apr 2017

Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the “ban” case and now the “sanctuary” case is brought in …

3:30 AM – 26 Apr 2017

…the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this “judge shopping!” Messy system.

3:38 AM – 26 Apr 2017

(Worth noting: The judge in question, William H. Orrick is a district judge and not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If his ruling is appealed — and it will be — the 9th Circuit would hear that appeal.)

Trump’s tweets came after a scathing statement from the White House late Tuesday night. “Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation,” read the statement in part. “This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping.”

You can expect much more where that came from out of Trump and the White House today. And, unlike some of his positions, Trump will likely get considerable backing from Republicans in Congress on this court ruling.

Remember that the legal question here — can a president attach strings and conditions to federally allocated money for cities and states? — is a rather technical and complicated one. What that means is that the average person won’t engage with the Constitutional questions it raises but rather see it through their own partisan lens.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x