Timothy Birdnow

The Federal Judiciary is completely out of control; here is a case in point.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals have overruled the Trump Administration's attempt to end Sanctuary City policies and have done so in the most egregiously activist way imaginable.

From the Washington Times: "The court, in grandiose language, cast itself as a defender against Mr. Trump’s bid at "tyranny.”

"If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken,” wrote Judge Ilana Rovner, who was named to the appeals court by President George H.W. Bush.

End excerpt.

The arrogance is absolutely astonishing.

Congress may fund these programs if it chooses, but the President is the executive, meaning he decides who will receive what unless directly ordered. And the President is the chief law enforcer, which means he has every right to take whatever necessary steps to ensure the law is obeyed, something sanctuary cities are in direct violation thereof.

This idiot judge doesn't understand that the Executive Branch is entrusted with determining policy, apparently, and especially policy regarding immigration and border control.

This happened up in Chicago, by the way; the home of Barack Hussein Obama. Is it any surprise?

I would like to remind everyone that Barack Obama withheld funding on any number of occasions. He Barack Obama witheld money for hospitals for states that refused to expand Medicare as part of his Obamacare health insurance scam. Obama also tried to withhold funding for schools when to force compliance with his transgendered bathroom edict. He also issued an order forcing the individual states to continue funding for Planned Parenthood in the final days of his administration. We heard nary a peep from the liberals who are now furious at this "violation of Federalism", a federalism they have always sought to overturn when they are in power.

There is no greater hypocrisy.

It should be pointed out that SCOTUS ruled in Dole v. S. Dakota it was constitutional for the Federal government to withhold highway funds from South Dakota for failing to enact a drinking age of 21. If funds can be used to coerce a national drinking age, why shouldn't it be legal for the federal government to withhold funding for open defiance of immigration laws?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.