Let's show appreciation and gratitude towards each other's contributions on the board.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 4
And here we go!
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1889800647631...BREAKING:
@AGPamBondi
announces the DOJ has filed charges against the State of New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul, AG Letitia James, and DMV Commissioner Mark Schroeder.
"New York has chosen to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens. It stops — it stops TODAY."US States have no authority to block federal agents with valid warrants from deporting criminals. Time for lots of Sanctuary jurisdiction leaders to lawyer up.
No. of Recommendations: 15
US States have no authority to block federal agents with valid warrants from deporting criminals. Time for lots of Sanctuary jurisdiction leaders to lawyer up.
Why would they need to lawyer up? These appear to be civil lawsuits, not criminal charges. These officials are being sued in their official capacity. Just like the Secretary of any given department is typically the name defendant in suits against the department. So in NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare lawsuit), Kathleen Sebelius didn't have any personal exposure - she was being sued in the capacity of her office, and so the Department's lawyers handled the matter.
These suits will be handled by the state AG offices or municipal attorneys. They're already lawyered.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why would they need to lawyer up?
It's an expression.
The good taxpayers of each of their domains will foot the bill.
No. of Recommendations: 8
It's an expression.
Oh, I know - but it's usually used when an individual is now in personal legal jeopardy and now has to go out and get lawyers they didn't have before.
The State of New York probably has thousands of lawsuits filed against it in any given month, as would the governor. Neither the State or the governor is going to "lawyer up" - the state Attorney General office will just handle these cases, just like any of the other cases.
No. of Recommendations: 9
BTW, although the NY suit isn't online yet, it is being reported as being substantially the same as the suit that was filed against Illinois last week, which can be found here:
https://assets.law360news.com/2294000/2294079/comp...It's a
very weaksauce complaint. I don't know if there's actually a good legal argument out there claiming why these local rules should be struck down, but this complaint is
not it. If DOJ doesn't bolster their case in subsequent filings, I don't think the states are going to be too worried about the actual litigation.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Pop! Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft
No. of Recommendations: 2
Either way. The sanctuary states get to go to court and argue why they should be allowed to (best case) passive aggressively stop federal agents from enforcing US federal law. The government can cite as background things like King County, WA denying the use of Boeing Field for migrant flights, for example (that was shot down by a judge already).
Either way, let them argue how Awesome It Is to let a guy that you just arrested for a crime against your citizens go rather than handing him over to ICE (which is enforcing a deportation order or federal arrest warrant). The feds can chime in that they're not going to not pursue the guy, and so that means going into his neighborhood to execute the warrant...potentially resulting in a bad outcomes.
Either way, the blue states can go to court for once and explain this stupidity.
No. of Recommendations: 14
The sanctuary states get to go to court and argue why they should be allowed to (best case) passive aggressively stop federal agents from enforcing US federal law.
That's not what they're doing, though. Or at least, nothing in that complaint actually alleges anything like that.
Here's the thumbnail summary of what the complaint alleges in the two main arguments:
1. Federal law bars local governments from preventing people from providing ICE with information on people's immigration status.
2. Illinois is not providing ICE with information on the custody or release date of prisoners.
3. Therefore, IL is violating the federal law.
- and -
4. Detainers are a request - not a demand - for local governments to hold prisoners after release so that ICE can pick them up.
5. Federal law requires, in certain circumstances, that ICE issue detainers for certain types of criminals.
6. Therefore, IL is violating federal law by not agreeing to exercise detainers.
You can see the obvious problems with both those arguments. The first points out correctly that federal law requires people to be able to provide ICE with certain types of information, but then claims IL is violating that law by not providing different types of information - not the information they're required to provide. The second argues that because ICE is required to make a request for detainer in some circumstances, IL is required to follow that detainer - even though following the detainer is not required for states. Just because ICE is required to ask doesn't mean a state is required to say yes.
I mean, it's just bad. It's the sort of lawsuit you file when your client has ordered you to go to court even though you've told them there's no actual case. There's enough handwaving to avoid being sanctioned for a frivolous case, but arguments are just legally weak - they're logically bad.
States are allowed to refrain from helping the federal government enforce federal law. That's not "passive aggressively stopping them" - it's the anti-commandeering doctrine, an important part of federalism that recognizes that the States are not instrumentalities of the federal government. They can't conflict with federal law (the Supremacy Clause), but the federal government doesn't get to make them enact or enforce federal laws.
No. of Recommendations: 1
States are allowed to refrain from helping the federal government enforce federal law. That's not "passive aggressively stopping them" - it's the anti-commandeering doctrine, an important part of federalism that recognizes that the States are not instrumentalities of the federal government. They can't conflict with federal law (the Supremacy Clause), but the federal government doesn't get to make them enact or enforce federal laws.
Cool. Then maybe the strategy is for the feds to lean into this and start "processing" more illegals in blue areas. Good for the goose and all that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They can't conflict with federal law (the Supremacy Clause), but the federal government doesn't get to make them enact or enforce federal laws. albaby
---------------
Perhaps, but even as the sanctuary states and cities are made to publicly articulate their "We don't have too" argument, the voters will see it for what it is. They want these criminal predators out of their neighborhoods and out of our country and can figure who is for it and who is against it. The fact we are paying vast sums to house and feed them just pours salt onto that wound. Keep it up dems, keep telling yourself you are winning hearts and minds.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Perhaps, but even as the sanctuary states and cities are made to publicly articulate their "We don't have too" argument, the voters will see it for what it is. They want these criminal predators out of their neighborhoods and out of our country and can figure who is for it and who is against it. The fact we are paying vast sums to house and feed them just pours salt onto that wound. Keep it up dems, keep telling yourself you are winning hearts and minds.
This.
There's such a thing as the Court of Public Opinion, and if these blue states want to loudly say they love sheltering criminals then more power to them.
No. of Recommendations: 14
"You can see the obvious problems with both those arguments. The first points out correctly that federal law requires people to be able to provide ICE with certain types of information, but then claims IL is violating that law by not providing different types of information - not the information they're required to provide. The second argues that because ICE is required to make a request for detainer in some circumstances, IL is required to follow that detainer - even though following the detainer is not required for states. Just because ICE is required to ask doesn't mean a state is required to say yes.
I mean, it's just bad. It's the sort of lawsuit you file when your client has ordered you to go to court even though you've told them there's no actual case. There's enough handwaving to avoid being sanctioned for a frivolous case, but arguments are just legally weak - they're logically bad.
States are allowed to refrain from helping the federal government enforce federal law. That's not "passive aggressively stopping them" - it's the anti-commandeering doctrine, an important part of federalism that recognizes that the States are not instrumentalities of the federal government. They can't conflict with federal law (the Supremacy Clause), but the federal government doesn't get to make them enact or enforce federal laws."
LOL
These lawsuits aren't designed to win in court. No court (even the nutty Supreme Court) will accept the arguments in them. Like you point out they are legally weak, but also illogical.
The lawsuits are designed to fire up the lawfully ignorant (like BHM and Dope). Make it look like the Trump administration is doing something. Now the talking heads on FOX will be able to drone on and on for a few days about these lawsuits and BHM and Dope will lap it all up.
These lawsuits won't accomplish anything except fool the ignorant.
No. of Recommendations: 13
"US States have no authority to block federal agents with valid warrants from deporting criminals."
Has Dope ever been able to accurately describe a liberal argument in his life? I cannot think of a single time he has ever done so. No matter how many times he fails and looks silly doing it, he continues to try.
Here is a clue for you Dope. There is no U.S. state that is blocking federal agent with valid warrants from deporting criminals. None. You made that up because you have a genetic defect that doesn't allow you to accurately state opposing viewpoints.
Now, there are quite a few U.S. states that are refusing to work with federal agents beyond what the law requires of them, but that isn't blocking anything. Federal agents can still arrest and deport criminals, it is just that local law enforcement won't help them beyond what the law says they have to do.
Now Dope will wave his hands and say that it is the same thing. He will ignore the difference between active and passive because of one of two reasons. One, he is too stupid to understand the difference between active and passive. Or two, he does know the difference, but also knows if he acknowledges the difference, it makes his statement false. He is either dumb or dishonest.
No. of Recommendations: 1
He is either dumb or dishonest.
Too harsh.
It's just the power of the cult and the right wing media.
