Sanctuary Cities Walking Back

Faced with the prospect of losing millions of dollars, sanctuary cities are finally starting to see the light. From FoxNews:

Several towns, cities and counties around the nation are caving to President Trump’s threat to pull funding, and abandoning their “sanctuary” pledges to shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.

Dayton, Ohio, dropped a policy that restricted the city’s cooperation with immigration officials pursuing illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors or felony property crimes, according to the Dayton Daily News. Police Chief Richard Biehl said federal authorities will no longer be impeded by the city when pursuing illegal immigrants being held by his department.

Other communities that have dropped policies of shielding illegal immigrant suspects from Immigration and Customs Enforcement include Miami-Dade and Dayton, are Saratoga, N.Y., Finney County, Kan., and Bedford, Penn., according to The Center for Immigration Studies, which keeps a list of sanctuary communities.

“We are reviewing policy changes at a multitude of other jurisdictions as well,” said Marguerite Telford, CIS’s director of communications, who said the organization is “being inundated” by officials on its sanctuary map who want to be taken off.

The mayor of Miami-Dade County, which was considered a sanctuary community, made headlines recently when he changed a policy that called for refusing to hold arrested immigrants for immigration officials unless they committed to reimbursing the county for the cost of detention.

Telling reporters that he did not want to imperil hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Mayor Carlos Gimenez ordered jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests.

The changes have come on the heels of President Trump’s executive order giving the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security the power to cut federal funding to communities that are deemed sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Trump also has authorized the DHS to publish a weekly list of sanctuary communities.

CIS, and other groups that favor strict immigration enforcement, laud Trump’s move.

“Are you really going to pick and choose what laws you’re going to enforce?” asked Telford. “If you want a change [in immigration policy], go to the legislature.”

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners February 10, 2017
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • yetanotherjohn

    Racist cities letting filthy lucre influence their moral stands.

    Not all will be so craven, especially in California, which will of course lead to a ninth circuit opinion that Trump can’t withhold funds, re-emboldening those that have caved.

    • jim_m

      Interestingly, Cali has asked for $100B of federal money for infrastructure repair.and development. Trump should stiff them until they comply on immigration.

      • Or find where all that money’s been going for the HSR boondoggle.

  • Brucehenry

    Any comment on Trump calling a duly appointed and Senate-confirmed federal judge a “so-called” judge? Or any opinion on whether the courts should agree that executive orders issued by His Tiny-Fingered Excellency should be “unreviewable”? Or his public statements (perhaps I should call them “ramblings”) intended to undermine confidence in the independence of the judiciary? Or the hasty issuance of such a ham-handed EO that interpreters who helped US troops in Iraq, and are in danger as a consequence, were left in legal limbo? Or a defense of an order that excludes from our country lawful green-card holders and those whose visas have already been approved? Or that leaves off people from countries from where terrorist plots HAVE been hatched?

    • jim_m

      Yeah, because obama never attacked the courts over their rulings while he was president. Wait, why in fact he was infamous for doing so!

      “Half the Supreme Court no longer goes to the State of the Union
      addresses given by this president because he has shown them such
      disrespect,”

      I guess that makes you either a complete dumbass, a lying sack of shit, or just a hypocritical jerk, but I am willing to cut you some slack and embrace the power of the word “and”.

      The reality is that you never come here anymore except to post outright lies.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        “I guess that makes you either a complete dumbass, a lying sack of shit,
        or just a hypocritical jerk, but I am willing to cut you some slack and
        embrace the power of the word “and”.”

        I can’t imagine why the frequency of his comment has decreased.

        • jim_m

          I suspect being called out for what he is would be one reason. His glaring incapacity to defend his positions would be the other.

        • Brucehenry

          Actually Jim’s vituperation doesn’t bother me much. I haven’t been here much lately because most of the posts have attracted a lot of over-the-top intimations of violence and discussions of “bodies stacked up like cordwood” and other pathetic boastful braggings that sound like the minutes of a 1934 SA meeting.

          Plus many of the posts lately have been from the invertebrate Rodney, who bans me from his threads because he thinks it’s clever and because he won’t tolerate any opinions except those similar to those rattling around in his own lizard brain.

          • Ah, the sweet, sweet tears of the assclown who calls himself brucehenry…

          • Wild_Willie

            Obama calling out and embarrassing the SCOTUS at a State of the Union Address would be what to you??? ww

        • If he fell off the planet tomorrow, he would not be missed.

          • Brucehenry

            Not true, your mom would miss me.

          • jim_m

            We can get her a better rifle scope.

          • She being dead we can safely say this is another of your lies.

          • jim_m

            Noted that Bruce has decided that pot shots at family are perfectly fine.

            This will be fun.

          • His daughter already knows he’s a waste of food, water, and air.

          • jim_m

            Then why does she sleep with him?

          • I warned him he would not like nor prosper under the new rules…

            Same reason his sister/wife did: ropes and coercion.

          • Raaron

            She would then have to back the truck up and try again, I’m sure …

        • We believe you.

    • Retired military

      “independence of the judiciary”

      Any comments on 3 judges in the 9th Circus based in SF who cant seem to read and understand black letter law that anyone with a 6th grade education could understand?

      Any comments on Obama being the most overturned President in History on cases going to the Supreme Court?

      • Brucehenry

        Obama didn’t “halt” immigration from those countries. He increased vetting, and thereby incidentally SLOWED immigration, from Iraq for a six month period in 2011. This was in response to a specific incident and not a blanket, fear-based policy. If immigration was slowed or restricted from the other six countries on the list I am unaware of it.

        I have a feeling that there are differing opinions on what you are calling “black letter law” but that’s fine.

        Saying publicly that you disagree with a specific decision is one thing. Obama didn’t call the SCOTUS a “so-called” Supreme Court or impugn their integrity.

        • jim_m

          0bama halted immigration from Iraq for 4-6 months. Once again we see that you lie.

          And Trump’s policy is against the same failed states and declared state sponsors of terrorism that 0bama called out. You fake outrage is just that.

          • Brucehenry

            Read the Politifact link I added in an edit.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            The point is that you and others are claiming that this is a muslim ban. It is not. The ban is temporary, due to national security concerns, just as 0bama’s was. The Courts have no jurisdiction over determinations of national security risk, the issue of whether or not it is a specific concern or a general one is irrelevant and you know it, but you won’t admit it because you are a lying scumbag.

            The 7 nations were identified as a national security risk by 0bama. You now claim their is no risk because Trump calls them out. That makes you an unAmerican a-hole and a liar. They pose a distinct risk as there is no government we can work with to properly vet immigrants.

            There is no delusion on either side here. There is only your hatred of America and your desire to see Americans die as some idiotic revenge on Trump.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually others are claiming it is a “Muslim ban” but I haven’t said so. Although one may be forgiven for thinking so in light of Trump’s call for one during the campaign.

            The 7 nations ARE a security risk, to be sure, but that was not the claim made by RM, who said that Obama “banned travel” from all those countries, an assertion I have shown is incorrect. I have never claimed there is “no risk” and your strawman that I have is another one of your strawman lies. Yawn.

            The rest of it is just rant. Yawn again.

          • Scalia

            Although one may be forgiven for thinking so in light of Trump’s call for one during the campaign.

            No they may not be forgiven. With some 43 Muslim-majority nations not on any suspension list, the charge is an outright, deliberate slander.

        • Retired military

          “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

          That is directly from the statue. It is VERY plain. Also it is interesting that the 9th Circus didnt even bother to ask the lawyers any questions regarding this particular provision. Nor does it say that Judges can totally disregard this statue because of campaign statements.

          • Scalia

            Spot on. I provided the link above.

    • jim_m

      I will take it that because you know that 0bama restricted immigration from the same seven failed states, and you know that he did it because virtually no central government exists to assist in the vetting of immigrants and for that reason restricting immigration is necessary (whereas even nations where terrorists have come from have established governments who will work with US immigration to help us vet immigrants), that since 0bama took that action your very next comment is going to be a condemnation of 0bama as a racist bigot who promoted an unconstitutional policy in order to pander to hate-filled islamophobes.

      Because if that isn’t your very next comment you are a lying hypocrite.

      • I hadn’t realized that:

        …you [brucehemorrhoid] are a lying hypocrite.

        was in question hereabouts.

    • LiberalNightmare

      “you lie sir”

      • Brucehenry

        I lie by asking the author if he has any comments about other, related questions?

        • jim_m

          You imply that there is something wrong because someone other than a democrat did these things, things which dems have done and you defended.

          obama spent 8 years undermining the SCOTUS, undermining the rule of law, undermining the police, undermining our immigration policy and yo never complained once. 0bama cozied up to the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, and you supported him as a “foreign policy genius”. So just STFU Bruce. You have no room to complain about behavior you have spent 8 years defending.

          • Brucehenry

            You are incapable of calm, reasoned, sensible, common-sense argument, so you rant and rave and post boilerplate nonsense. We get it. Boring.

          • jim_m

            I gave you a clear, concise description of why you original comment has met with such derision and contempt. Rather than address the substance of my comment you dismiss it.

            THis only shows that you 1) do not read opposing comments for content, and 2) cannot defend your ideas. I take it then that you understand your hypocrisy on this subject and you simply do not care that everyone here sees you as a contemptible scumbag who believes that your side should be allowed to trample the rights of everyone else and then should be kowtowed to when out of power. Here’s a hint: That’s not going to happen.

          • Brucehenry

            My comment has “met with derision and contempt” from you and your pet reptile. I don’t see any derision or contempt from anyone else, maybe disagreement.

            When you post something other than strawman bullshit I’ll get serious with you. Recitations of tired talking points from the halcyon days of yore when you had to defend Murrica from the sneaky uppity commie-in-chief, and assertions that I must defend things I never said, don’t count.

            LOL you even put in quotes my alleged claim that Obama was a “foreign policy genius.” You can comb through every comment I ever made on this blog or any other and not find that quote. LMFAO.

            You should sign off and revisit this thread tomorrow. You know how you get, Jim. As someone recently said, I’ll do you the kindness of letting you know when you’re publicly making an ass of yourself. It’s now, Jim.

          • jim_m

            You are among the most self unaware people I know of. And since you just demonstrated that you will fall for a really basic statistical ploy, you are hardly the person to claim that someone else is making a fool of themselves.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so Jim.

          • jim_m

            You just proved so again above (or below, depending on how you sort the comments)

          • We see you fail to notice that the author of this article and owner of this discussion topic has ignored you… This is known as being polite to a fault.

          • Scalia

            I was busy all day, so I couldn’t really do any replying. Bruce’s initial comments are off-topic, but it’s too late for me to complain about it. Given that, I’ve replied to a few of his posts. I’ll probably regret it.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I have to admit the pet reptile reference was pretty good. I think I may use that in another situation.

          • You don’t enjoy the explicit protection the site’s owner…

          • Tell it to the man in your mirror.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t cast a reflection in mirrors.

          • Wrong kind of undead.

          • jim_m

            I don’t know. I thought Bruce just admitted that he sucks.

          • Not blood…

      • In that case it would be “you lie, sirrah.”

    • Vagabond661
      • Brucehenry

        The article you linked to is about the nomination of Gorsuch and the lack of action on the Garland nomination from last year, nothing to do with immigration or sanctuary cities.

      • Brucehenry

        BTW you are incorrect that the 9th Circuit is “the most overturned court in the land.”

        http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

        • jim_m

          As with all time bound statistics you can get the result you want by changing the boundaries. I am sure that this concept is beyond your ability to comprehend, so let’s just agree that you are a fucking idiot if you cannot see that on it’s most important and controversial cases, the 9th circuit is reliably overturned and that this record goes well beyond just the past 5 years.

          Statistical games meant to fool the stupid, and it sucked Bruce right on in.

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently didn’t read the link. For one thing 2004 was 13 years ago, not 5. Also, the 9th circuit, like every other, has had about 1% of all the cases it heard overturned since 2004.

          • jim_m

            The ranking you flatulent dumbass, was for 2010-2015. It says so several times in the article. SO now you are lying about something that is extraordinarily easy to fat check. Either you are a completely dishonest ass or you are a complete moron and cannot read with even the comprehension normally attributed to people with the 6th grade education you have.

            Yes, the 9th did not have the highest rate for any individual term but they do not say whether it has the highest average rate. Nor do they admit the fact that this is an issue that goes back to Nixon.

          • jim_m

            An interesting note: They took an average for 2010-2015 but they checked the data going all the way back to 2004. What does that tell us? We can infer that it means that the 9th DOES have the highest average rate of overturned verdicts. Otherwise why wouldn’t they give us the data for the whole time?

          • Brucehenry

            “We also found that the 9th circuit never had the highest reversal rate in any individual term between 2004-15.”

            And also:

            “In 2014, for instance, the 2nd Circuit had a reversal rate of 100%, which sounds pretty bad until you find out that the Supreme Court only heard one case from the 2nd Circuit that entire season.”

            The fact that conservatives have been complaining about something since the Nixon administration is unsurprising and proves nothing. The assertion that the 9th Circuit IS, CURRENTLY, the “most overturned court in the land” is incorrect no matter how much spittle you spray.

          • jim_m

            You just gave a tour de force performance on how to misinterpret statistics. You should be proud of yourself. Very few people could look as stupid as you do and still be completely unaware of the fact.

          • Brucehenry

            Says Jim after his performance here today lol.

          • jim_m

            Since your judgement is based on your incapacity to recognize that you don’t know jack about statistics or how they can be manipulated I will elect to ignore the barb as one that is inelegantly thrown by a wounded and churlish moron.

          • Brucehenry

            How very Rodneyesque, lacking only a misspelled Latinate phrase to give it that certain je ne sais quoi. LOL.

          • jim_m

            I take it that you didn’t understand the words. Do you need me to dumb it down to your 3rd grade reading skills?

          • Brucehenry

            Duh no purty sher I git it

          • Scalia

            We also found that the 9th circuit never had the highest reversal rate in any individual term between 2004-15.

            This is misleading. The fact that the 9th didn’t have the highest reversal in any individual term does not imply that its overall rate during the same time frame wasn’t the highest. For example, an article produced by the American Bar Association which seeks to defend the Ninth Circuit (9C) analyzed the rate of reversal for all federal circuit courts (see graph below). From 1999 to 2008, the ABA found that of the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 80% were reversed. The only other circuit court with a higher rate was the Federal Circuit (FC) with an 83.3% reversal rate. If you’re not aware, the Federal Circuit deals primarily with patent law. So, of the “standard” federal circuit courts, the 9C led the pack in reversal percentage.

            Regardless, even those who defend the 9C acknowledge that it has a higher than average reversal rate. On a grading scale the ABA gave the 9C a C-minus—it’s lowest grade excepting the FC.

          • Scalia
          • jim_m

            Even more concerning is that the 9th circuit has more than double the number of decisions being reviewed compared to the next circuit and 3x to 10x more cases reviewed than the rest. Yes, they are the largest circuit and hear the most cases, but the rate of review is alarming and the rate of overturn suggests that a court, whose opinions are routinely reviewed by the higher court, is learning nothing about the law from this experience. That final piece tells us that they are driven by ideology and not by the law. Were they driven by the law they would self correct this aberrant behavior over time.

        • Vagabond661

          I defer final appraisal of the link to Scalia and/or pennywit, but when i did a random check of the “Circuit Scorecard”, the 9th was the most overturned consistently.

          • Brucehenry

            Admittedly Politifact isn’t right 100% of the time, lol.

          • Go with the evidence you yourself find and can document.

          • Scalia

            Your link to my column is relevant in that it underscores how results-oriented approaches to law are illegitimate. We have judges seeking to remake the law in their image. One cannot shrug at an outrageous decision that ignores the rule of law in order to satisfy a political agenda. That’s why textualism is critical if we are to avoid the political grandstanding liberals exhibit when they don black robes.

            Note, not every liberal is pleased with this decision. No less than Alan Dershowitz opined:
            https://youtu.be/JVm9-jaihuM

          • Scalia

            Dershowitz along with others elaborate below. This is the kind of lunacy we get when we jettison sound, logical principles when reading the law. In that light, your link has everything to do with calling into question the legitimacy of such decisions.
            https://youtu.be/8zsPmVhiWQw

        • Raaron

          You are pretending politifact is a valid source of anything at all? How … cute.

    • Scalia

      I’ve been busy all day, so I haven’t had time to engage in any of the back-and-forth. Regardless the subject that I “focus on,” your comments are off-topic. But given that of the 61 comments (as of this post) logged, only two relate to the topic (the first two), it’s a little late for me to put the cow back into the barn.

      Although I’ll probably regret it, I ask you on what basis are you appealing to the law when your political allies flout the law every day with respect to sanctuary cities? Are sanctuary cities compliant with the law or not? Why is it that you’ve deliberately avoided that topic to appeal to what you consider unlawful acts by the president? If you believe that politicians who declare their towns, cities, counties, etc., sanctuary havens are acting illegally, what should be done about it?

      Like it or not, the president (any president) has broad latitude to protect the country. As RM reproduced below, according to the U.S. Code:

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

      Regardless one’s views of the president’s remarks, there is nothing illegal about his expressing an opinion. On the other hand, liberals are openly defying the law with respect to immigration. If you don’t respect the rule of law, you have no moral right to complain that others carry the same disrespect.

      There are legitimate criticisms which can be leveled at the president over lawful green card holders, etc., but it rings hollow when it comes from people who couldn’t care less what our immigration laws are.

      Perhaps you should have led by expressing approval that some sanctuary cities are finally complying with the law. That would have made your off-topic questions a little more credible.

      • Brucehenry

        Well, Scalia, thank you for replying.

        As you may (or lol, maybe not!) have noticed, I made no comment pro or con about sanctuary cities, and the point of my initial comment was to ask if you thought this news about them was the most important immigration-related news of recent weeks.

        Also thanks to you and RM for the quotes of the relevant statute that supporters of Trump’s EO are relying on. I certainly can admit it appears to be as RM described it — black letter law. But lawyers and judges have surprised me before. Since this will wind up at the Supreme Court sooner or later, I guess non-lawyers like me will find out if there is some other legal reasoning which will carry the day in permanently overturning this order.

        Still though, pardon me for saying that some of my questions were unanswered (and forgive me if they are, as you say, off-topic). What do you think of Trump calling a Bush-appointed and Senate-confirmed federal judge a “so-called judge”? Do you agree with Trump’s lawyer that this EO or any other EO is “unreviewable”? You have only obliquely referred to the ham-handedness of the order — do you want to make any criticism of its author Steve Bannon er um I mean President Trump? Or to comment on the political implications of this order which doesn’t apply to, oh say, Saudi Arabia, from whence came 14 9/11 hijackers, but does apply to Iraq, from whence came none?

        In any event, again, thanks for taking the time to reply substantively, if a little snarkily, lol. Refreshing after an afternoon bout with Hothead Jim and his toady.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Congratulations, Bruce! You’ve managed to hijack the thread. Then, when the author of the post graciously takes the time to respond to your off-topic comments, you completely ignore the on-point questions he poses to you.
          Well done. An 18 year old in his mother’s basement couldn’t have done better [no offense to your mother].

          • Brucehenry

            My reply was that I took no position on sanctuary cities and was asking about other immigration-related news. I don’t see why that would be considered “hijacking” since Wizbang has always had a tradition of wide-ranging commentary.

            Scalia in his reply assumes that I take positions that I have not taken. While my comment history here shows I am a liberal it doesn’t mean I agree with everything every other liberal says or does. My original comment and my reply to Scalia’s reply are consistent — is this really the most important facet of all the immigration-related news of the past couple of weeks?

            And if, as you and he insist, my original comment was off-topic, well, at least it generated some discussion. Sorry if it can be considered hijacking.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So, you’ve no position on sanctuary cities, the subject of this post. Thanks for the clarification.

          • Brucehenry

            The broader subject is immigration.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’m beginning to understand JimM’s attitude towards you. You’ll say anything, no matter how stupid, if you think it will somehow help you win an online argument.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, again, I only meant to question why, of all the immigration-related news of the past couple of weeks, Scalia focused on this. It seems to me that it is hardly the first thing one thinks of when one thinks of recent news on the matter, and yes, raising the (allegedly off-topic) questions I raised was meant as a sort of rebuke.

            By the way I don’t think one ever “wins” an online argument. If there was ever a mind changed on the Internet I’m unaware of it.

          • jim_m

            You have obviously never participated in debate team.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL no and I didn’t try out for the Chess team or join the A/V club either.

          • Which you should note did not prevent him from jumping in…

    • Raaron

      So are they allowed to call a legally elected president the things they call him? Or is it only democrats and liberals that should be protected thusly?

      • Brucehenry

        What, are random citizens allowed to call people names? Um, yes.

        The question is not whether Trump is “allowed” to say the idiotic things he says. Of course he is. The question is whether it is SEEMLY and appropriate for a president to imply that this judge may be illegitimate. He’s not a “so-called” judge, he was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

        • jim_m

          Please Mr Hypocrite. 0bama insulted and attempted to undermine the SCOTUS and you defended that. Your faux outrage is just that. You are only upset that someone is doing exactly what 0bama did. You are only concerned that the tactics your side used are now being used against you and you find that to be unfair. Suck it up.

          • Brucehenry

            Russian stooge JIm has spoken. Whataboutism at it’s ridiculous finest:

          • jim_m

            Unlike your example, I am not saying that what Trump OR 0bama are doing is wrong. I fact I believe that both of them are acting in ways that are today considered within the common use of politics. The difference is that YOU are trying to claim that it is wrong only when Trump does it.

            You example is when one side claims that both actions are wrong and there for the other side is a hypocrite. I am saying than neither side is wrong and therefore you are a hypocrite. There is a subtle difference which I am certain is lost upon you. I am not trying to draw a moral equivalence between two wrong acts. I am pointing out that you are in fact doing so.

          • jim_m

            While you are typing your response to the above, let’s keep playing by the precedent you set below with Rodney’s mother.

            Bruce: How many abortions did you take your underage daughter for in your attempts to conceal you incestuous relationship?

            Your rules.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah well sure Jim a “your mama” joke means the gloves are off, and nothing is off limits from now on. You just keep up this line, it will earn you all kinds of respect from your fellows here.

          • jim_m

            You have been especially sensitive to attacks on your family before. We have touched that line with each other previously and agreed to not got there.

            It seems that you are OK with going there now. Unless, that is, you choose to clarify your position.

          • Brucehenry

            I hereby apologize for the “your mom” joke. Insensitive of me. Moderators should feel free to delete it if they wish. You are correct that I shouldn’t have gone there.

          • jim_m

            And I will not go there either. I have edited the above insult.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh sure Jim, when you say Obama “insulted and undermined” SCOTUS you’re not saying he did anything WRONG. And when you say that he “attacked the courts for their rulings” and was “infamous for doing so” you’re not suggesting he was “wrong,” just politics as usual.

            I don’t have a lot of education but I’m pretty sure “infamous” implies a value judgment, lol.

          • Brucehenry

            Since nearly all your comments over the years are either strawmen or Whataboutism I’ll just leave this here:

        • Raaron

          So is it equally improper when democrat elected officials do it? And you know they did/do it all the time yet somehow I never see you complain.

          • Brucehenry

            And I’ve never seen you before at all. Keep lurking, whoever you are, and maybe you’ll think of something clever to say eventually.

          • jim_m

            Bruce, you could simply address the glaring double standard in your positions or you could continue looking like an unprincipled jackass.

          • Raaron

            Dodging the question. How about answering it? Is it equally improper when democrat politicians do it?

            Edit: I realize that here is where you will say democrats do nothin comparable and I’m sure even if I at work and unable to answer immediately there will be plenty here willing to disabuse you of that notion.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, sure. No, not exactly, it’s not “equally” improper. As head of the executive branch, a president should be careful to respect the system of checks and balances. Legislators, on the other hand, are expected to behave in a more blatantly partisan manner. As guys like Steve King and Joe Wilson and Trey Gowdy did the last eight years.

            That’s not to say a president cannot express an opinion on the rightness or wrongness of a court decision, but that he should do so in a manner that doesn’t call into question the integrity of a particular judge. In other words he should criticize the dicision itself, not the duly appointed and confirmed judge who issued it, unless there is evidence of some improper influence on that judge.

          • Raaron

            I note you couldn’t find a single democrat example … and failed to mention Obama’s antics at the state of he union for example.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m pretty sure you have lots of Democrat examples in mind. Again, not the same when a legislator criticizes a president and when a president criticizes a judge.

            As for Obama’s “antics” he criticized the Citizens United decision and didn’t imply it was reached by a “so-called” court.

          • jim_m

            Except that 0bama(like all of the left) has completely dishonestly characterize the Citizens United ruling claiming that it was allowing unfettered corporate giving to political campaigns, when it was truly about the ability of government to muzzle political speech and specifically about Hillary’s desire to criminalize criticism of her personally.

            “I can’t ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme Court like that,” said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas law school.

            The left has dishonestly said that the SCOTUS overturned prior jurisprudence when the reality is that it was the left that was demanding the overturning of the law and silencing dissent against the administration.

            “It was rude, an act of intimidation of one branch of government by another,” said Randy E. Barnett, a professor at Georgetown Law Center. They charged that Obama mischaracterized the decision and was looking for a way around a constitutional ruling based on the First Amendment.

            FDR also delivered even sharper criticism of the court. Seems that you only object to criticism of the court when it goes against your agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            Typical Jim-ism. Everyone on “the left” has to answer for what everyone ELSE on “the left” has ever said or done.

            And more Whataboutism, too. We shouldn’t criticize Trump for questioning the integrity of a duly sworn judge because FDR was out of line in 1935.

          • jim_m

            Nope. Once again making you play by your own rules. You demand that conservatives denounce every misstep and misstatement by another conservative. We are making you play by your own rules.

          • Brucehenry

            Please point out the “demands” I have made on this thread.

  • pennywit

    Color me unimpressed. It seems to me that if you believe in something like being a “sanctuary city,” then you should put a little money and muscle behind your words.

    • They thought their virtue signalling would get them support from the left, and leave the money coming in unchanged.

      What can I say? They didn’t realize Trump isn’t a ‘business as usual’ politician. Results actually matter to him, and it doesn’t much bother him to strip funding from a city that’s being obstinate about following the laws.

      It’s really kind of strange having a President who thinks that results are more important than how good the idea sounds on paper.

  • Sky__Captain

    In one of his many attempts at thread-hijacking in the comments, a certain unnamed poser stated “The broader subject is immigration.”

    Not exactly – only ILLEGAL immigration is involved in this whole “sanctuary city” nonsense. And that is the point of Scalia’s post.
    IIRC, Sonny Bono responded once to a question about illegal immigration, “What’s to say? It’s illegal.”
    To bring the up question of immigration as a whole is to dodge the real issue – that those people are breaking US law, and those municipalities supporting that crime are also breaking US law.

    I, for one, am quite satisfied that some of these municipalities are seeing the legal path, I am simply sorry that it took actual financial threats to get them to do it.

  • Wild_Willie

    Bruce Henry again shows his ability to debate with the big boys. So many democratic leaders and President Obama said many nasty things about the SCOTUS judges concerning Citizens United. Terrible things. But he is ‘so mad’ at President Trump now? He is and will remain a joke. He has been for years. ww

    • Sky__Captain

      Given Bruce’s attitudes, lack of intelligence , and poor debating skills, I have often wondered why his presence is tolerated.

      I figure it’s comic relief, a bad example, or a warning to others.
      Of course, I could be convinced to embrace the healing power of “and”.