Another unconstitutional Executive Order!

Stretch said:
There was nothing new for the "judge" to review according to law. He was just making the usual lefty political statement and ignoring the law. Also, this "judge" did not rule against the law as it stands. Trump will be following the law as it stands. He did and does not need "permission" from a dictatorial hack politician in a robe who strategically omitted a key phrase "to the extent to what is stated in the law" from his decision for Trump to enforce the law which is already in place. This hack had to invent a violation out of his own imagination calling it "pre-enforcement anxiety"...in other words, the frail little snowflakes are made nervous in San Francisco and Santa Clara.

The msm will not tell you this. They want you to think that this whole thing is some brand new idea concocted by Trump. It's already law which Trump is simply enforcing. It only seems new to the uneducated, skulls full of mush masses because Obama never bothered following the law.

Bottom line is the hack can't stop anything that hasn't happened and no law has been changed. It was originally passed Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
Here is where
you seem more like a 9th grade dropout meth addict.
 
Stretch said:
There was nothing new for the "judge" to review according to law. He was just making the usual lefty political statement and ignoring the law. Also, this "judge" did not rule against the law as it stands. Trump will be following the law as it stands. He did and does not need "permission" from a dictatorial hack politician in a robe who strategically omitted a key phrase "to the extent to what is stated in the law" from his decision for Trump to enforce the law which is already in place. This hack had to invent a violation out of his own imagination calling it "pre-enforcement anxiety"...in other words, the frail little snowflakes are made nervous in San Francisco and Santa Clara.

The msm will not tell you this. They want you to think that this whole thing is some brand new idea concocted by Trump. It's already law which Trump is simply enforcing. It only seems new to the uneducated, skulls full of mush masses because Obama never bothered following the law.

Bottom line is the hack can't stop anything that hasn't happened and no law has been changed. It was originally passed Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
:good4u:
 
anatta said:
campaign promises have no legal weight.
I do not think they even show intent -either way they clearly do not trump the XO itself
Click to expand...
He said what he would do, so when he does it you wanna bitch about him getting called on it, oYe VaY!!
 
Bill said:
He said what he would do, so when he does it you wanna bitch about him getting called on it, oYe VaY!!
Click to expand...

LOL. Getting "called on" something is for forum denizens, reporters and bloggers...not for judges attempting to change an existing law that went to effect 30 years ago by Bill Clinton (in this case).
 
Stretch said:
LOL. Getting "called on" something is for forum denizens, reporters and bloggers...not for judges attempting to change an existing law that went to effect 30 years ago by Bill Clinton (in this case).
Click to expand...
According to you, not the one that knows the law, you know, the one that actually matters....
hathi.gif
 
The dufus judge knows the law...that's why he didn't include anything stating that Trump couldn't do what's in the XO. :palm:
 
This was such a clear cut case and it never stood a chance. I seriously doubt the supreme court will even bother to hear the case.
 
Bill said:
He said what he would do, so when he does it you wanna bitch about him getting called on it, oYe VaY!!
Click to expand...

the courts put more weight on "intent" as a campaign promise -then the text?
It's typical Cali. courts at work.
 
anatta said:
the courts put more weight on "intent" as a campaign promise -then the text?
It's typical Cali. courts at work.
Click to expand...

I guess so when his order fulfills that campaign promise that he repeated & tweeted multiple times.....
 
Bill said:
I guess so when his order fulfills that campaign promise that he repeated & tweeted multiple times.....
Click to expand...

it seems to me that there is no sanctuary city penalties as of yet, so why the injunctive relief?
Also the judge brings up Medicade/ (etc>) payment which is surely jumping the gun..

I'm not sure if it's Constitutional -if it is it would have to be narrow witholdings directly related.
Ideally Congress should,put some contractual language in the grants also...but why is this playing out now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top