Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
OF COURSE: Liberal Judge Appointed by Obama Blocks Trump's Sanctuary City Order
Enforcing immigration laws isn't high on the liberal priority list. Projecting false realities based on the delusional is. So it came as no surprise that a California judge from Santa Clara blocked Trump's order on Sanctuary Cities. That order being: if you're harboring illegals, we won't give you federal dollars. Simple. Well, cities like San Francisco (the sanctuary city flag ship), were none too pleased.
Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people's immigration status, he said.
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.
Readler argued the Trump administration was using a “bully pulpit” to "encourage communities and states to comply with the law.”
At the outset, let me state I'm a writer, not an attorney. I'm going to let the judges and lawyers hash this out, but with my English Major eyes, I noticed something "problematic." It's the last sentence in the above pull quote that has my mouth and eyebrows working in tandem to form a frowny face. How does one use a bully pulpit to encourage communities and states to comply with the law? If you're not complying with the law, you're breaking the law, no? It's not a matter of bullying or not bullying. It's the federal government's responsibility to ensure the security of its citizenry. Here's the preamble, which you may have been asked to memorize whilst you were a young pupil full of unrealistic dreams like there being just two genders:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Again, not a lawyer, but I consider basic border security as "providing for the common defense" and the "promotion of general welfare." Which means if San Francisco decides not to enforce the law of the country of which they're a part, the government can withhold cash.
Put it another way: San Francisco is a petulant child who wants to hold frat parties on the weekends. The federal government says: "If you hold frat parties on the weekends, we'll withhold your allowance." San Francisco invites Sigma Sigma Screw You every Saturday night for a rave. And now the federal government parents are carrying out on their promise to not award allowance. San Francisco is suing for it.
Someone is going to accuse me of oversimplifying that. Please, educate me. Address me as if I'm a college snowflake who no understands the lawz and stuffs.
Here's an additional comment from Judge Orick:
"Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves."
Not a lawyer here, but "immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves" doesn't sound like legal jargon. Again, someone who's more legally equipped, please educate my dumb dumb brain. Because I'm not understanding how San Francisco breaking federal immigration law is "choosing an enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves."
Also, why have federal immigration laws if cities can pick and choose which they'll obey or disobey without repercussions?
Now, the judge. Context matters, and according to Heavy.com (among others) his honor Judge William Orrick III bundled hundreds of thousands for Obama, who also appointed him to the court. Dis gun be smoking, y'all.
Also, Orrick worked with the Obama Administration in fighting Arizona's bill on enforcing immigration. So he doesn't like anti-illegal immigration anything.
The Department of Justice ultimately filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona because of this bill. Orrick, who worked at the Justice Department at the time, was involved in coordinating the Obama administration’s argument against SB 1070, according to the Washington Examiner.
And here's my favorite Orrick moment:
In 2015, Judge William Orrick issued a temporary restraining order against a pro-life group that had been releasing undercover videos about Planned Parenthood.
At the time, The Center for Medical Progress had been putting out highly-edited videos that they claimed showed Planned Parenthood had been illegally selling fetal tissue. Orrick issued a restraining order, saying that he reached this decision due to concerns over the safety of the leaders of the National Abortion Federation.
Which means Judge William Orrick III is a MAJOR liberal of the left-leaning crazy variety, popping out of Ben and Jerry's socialist ice creams in an all organic granola shop (or else), near you. Context, kids. It's a thing.
We'll see how Team Trump responds...
Here's a change of pace:
JOIN THE MUG CLUB AND GET ACCESS TO NEW CONSERVATIVE MEDIA VIA CRTV! ORDER YOUR MUG CLUB MEMBERSHIP NOW!