Submitted by J Soden in comments
The radical left’s attack on Trump continues in a ruling by Judge William H. Orrick III of San Francisco against Trumps Executive Order authorizing enforcement of existing immigration law. The ruling is nothing more than a farce. Andrew McCarthy of National Review explains:
The ruling distorts the E.O. beyond recognition, accusing the president of usurping legislative authority despite the order’s express adherence to “existing law.” Moreover, undeterred by the inconvenience that the order has not been enforced, the activist court — better to say, the fantasist court — dreams up harms that might befall San Francisco and Santa Clara, the sanctuary jurisdictions behind the suit, if it were enforced. The court thus flouts the standing doctrine, which limits judicial authority to actual controversies involving concrete, non-speculative harms. 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.”
The remedy will be more court cases, wasting taxpayer dollars that stack up as free publicity for the Democrat Party.
McCarthy educates and illuminates even further:
The proper purpose of an executive order is to direct the operations of the executive branch within the proper bounds of the law. There is, therefore, nothing untoward about an E.O. that directs the president’s subordinates to take enforcement action within the confines of congressional statutes. In fact, it is welcome.
It is the president’s burden to set federal law-enforcement priorities. After years of Obama’s lax enforcement of immigration law and apathy regarding sanctuary jurisdictions, an E.O. openly manifesting an intent to execute the laws vigorously can have a salutary effect. And indeed, indications are that the cumulative effect of Trump’s more zealous approach to enforcement, of which the sanctuary-city E.O. is just one component, has been a significant reduction in the number of aliens seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.
I’ve read illegal crossings have been reduced by about 90%.
The radical loser left is creating a toxic atmosphere. The judge in question is an Obama appointee and an Obama campaign bundler. I expect now that the O man has completed his vacation (wasn’t he supposed to be writing a book?) that this kind of activity will ratchet up.
All of what you write may be true, but it’s my understanding that a president can’t cut spending that was approved by congress.
Pete you are exactly right which is one of the things that makes this lawsuit disingenuously and politically motivated. The EO specifically states funds will be withheld “except as mandated by law.” It also cites current code in the tax law
SF Mayor Lee and Police Chief Scott have said they will not comply. The city attorney (Dennis Herrera) attempted to claim that “it’s not the city’s job to do the federal government’s” job. If they win that argument in court they’ll open a real can of worms. What’s to stop business owners from becoming sanctuary businesses where people can get jobs that shield them from state taxes? Or where products are sold free of sales taxes? It isn’t a businesses “job” to collect, report, or pay sales taxes, state taxes, or even county taxes and city taxes for that matter.
This mindset, I can do whatever I want, destroys the glue, the rule of law, that keeps our nation civilized and free.
And, to make matters worse, apparently cities and states are colluding with the Mexican government and against our own laws and government:
It’s my opinion that the radicals that have taken over the leadership and power in the Democrat Party and on the progressive left are not acting in good faith or in compliance with our Constitution and leadership. This is subversive behavior that goes way beyond the pale. They are sidling up to treasonous behavior as a means of obtaining absolute control…tyranny!
Our government was set up as a government of the people and depends on adherence to the laws enacted by the people through their representatives. It depends on a specific process for changing law through a republican democratic process. Aggressive, activist lawsuits are outside that process.
I can understand how young people, whose teachers have failed them completely with respect to our form of government, can get behind some of these radical and extreme ideas and behavior. They have not been taught to understand or appreciate the founding principles that made America the envy of people all around the world and ensure their liberty and rights. Adults that join this subversive movement are the ones who are anti-American and anti-Constitution. I maintain that this is not about Trump…any leader who acted against the progressive agenda, even with the full support of the majority of Americans, would be treated the same way.
So, if the EO is unenforceable, who is showboating? … the judge … or The Donald?
The Judge is showboating. The President is doing the responsible thing. Sending official notice that noncompliance with established law will not be tolerated by a new administration.
The judge has only one motive…unscrupulous political agitation/activism.
Trust me … William H. Orrick, III, is a wealthy white boy right down to his socks. And all his actions are made to perpetuate his class, and the affluence thereof. I used to work at his law firm. He would eat worms and die before he would “politically agitate”.
If he says the EO is unenforceable, that’s what it is. And it’s The Donald who is blowing smoke up your knickers.
If it’s unenforcable why waste the people’s money “showboating?”
That’s stooooopid.
There are plenty of white rich Democrats in the Bay Area. This one has a history that suggests probable progressivism:
But I’m not surprised you tried to paint him as a nasty rich white guy (republican). Trouble is, you guys have more nasty rich white guys than you admit and the public is on to you.
An aside: We’re on to your feminist war on (mostly white) maleness also!