On the specific ruling, I don't have an opinion yet on whether it is right or wrong. You two seem convinced it is wrong. I am asking for details on why it is wrong.

 

I do find it ironic that right wingers are arguing so strongly on this issue for the Federal government over state and local government.

 

Like I said if this ruling is held I will be happy because it sets precedence on other topics I am more passionate about. But if anything liberals should not be happy.

On the specific ruling, I don't have an opinion yet on whether it is right or wrong. You two seem convinced it is wrong. I am asking for details on why it is wrong.

 

I do find it ironic that right wingers are arguing so strongly on this issue for the Federal government over state and local government.

 

You're the one that said there was a conflict. I asked you to point out the conflict.

This is what the Left does.

 

It amazes me how a Federal judge can rule against a Federal law. Obviously an attempt to legislate from the bench.

 

I'd recommend Marbury vs. Madison.

You're the one that said there was a conflict. I asked you to point out the conflict.

 

I said there was a conflict? I don't think so and it doesn't matter.

 

Can you provide information and help me understand why you believe the judge's ruling is wrong? As stated above, I have no opinion on this yet. I need more information.

The bottom line is if this ruling is legit then States need to sue the Federal Government across the board. The Fed has been bribing and blackmailing states with funding for decades on a whole host of issues.

 

All they have to do is say no to the money and they don't have to deal with the strings. When it comes to immigration that is under federal jurisdiction and the states have no right to try to circumvent that.

Bottom line is states do not set immigration policy. If they can't exclude law breaking states from receiving federal funds then the officials who are breaking federal law should be charged with felonies and thrown out of office. Republicans are too soft. The offenders would have been in jail yesterday if it were up to me.

I'd recommend Marbury vs. Madison.

 

Please point out where current immigration law is unconstitutional.

I said there was a conflict? I don't think so and it doesn't matter.

 

Can you provide information and help me understand why you believe the judge's ruling is wrong? As stated above, I have no opinion on this yet. I need more information.

 

Sanctuary cities refuse to enforce current immigration laws on the books.

Please point out where current immigration law is unconstitutional.

 

What does the order say?

What does the order say?

 

You can read, same as I. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I was just doing some reading now that I have some time and read a piece that said the judge in this case cited a number of conservative case opinions as guiding precedents, including opinions written by Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts. Another precedent used was a Supreme Court decision striking down a provision of the Affordable Care Act.

You can read, same as I. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

You're the one expressing an opinion. I'm curious what causes you to feel that way.

POTUS says he will attempt to break up the 9th Circuit.

The Supreme Court reversed 79 percent of the 9th Circuit’s cases from 2010-2015.

The Supreme Court reversed 79 percent of the 9th Circuit’s cases from 2010-2015.

 

That is not as far out of line with other Circuits as it may look standing alone. In fact, 3 of those years the 9th was not the most overturned circuit.