Lion of the Blogosphere

Arizona v. United States (2012) and Trump

Arizona v. United States 567 U.S. ___ (2012) is a decision in which Roberts and Kennedy joined the liberal wing of the court and smacked down Arizona’s right to independently enforce federal immigration law. Kagan did not participate, so it was a 5-3 decision.

Although perceived as an anti-immigration-enforcement case, the legal reasoning of the case is really about how executive power with respect to immigration preempts anything the states want to do differently.

The background is that Arizona, tired of Obama refusing to enforce the immigration laws, and claiming that illegal immigrants were causing crime and using up government resources, took matters into its own hands and empowered its state law enforcement officers to enforce the federal immigration laws that Obama refused to enforce.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, slapped down the state of Arizona and said that executive branch of the federal government gets to decide what immigration laws are enforced and what immigration laws aren’t enforced, and if the President doesn’t want to enforce the laws, then the States aren’t allowed to override the President by enforcing them themselves.

Although not directly related to the Trump EO currently before the Ninth Circuit, the overall guiding philosophy of the decision is that the President can do whatever he wants with respect to immigration, and if that hurts that states, well too bad, so sad.

Arizona v. United States is, however, directly related to the issue of sanctuary cities. The Department of Justice, now led by Jeff Sessions, can sue the sanctuary cities the way the federal government previously sued Arizona, and demand that they stop the sanctuary nonsense because Trump’s EOs with respect to immigration preempt anything a city wants to do differently. The DOJ just has to cite Arizona v. United States and it should be a slam-dunk victory for the Trump administration. That is, if the courts are honest about following precedent.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 8, 2017 at EST pm

Posted in Immigration, Law

59 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. That is, if the courts are honest about following precedent.

    Ahahahahahaha hahahaha

    You’re funny.

    snorlaxwp

    February 8, 2017 at EST pm

  2. “That is, if the courts are honest about following precedent.”

    That’s the money quote.

    destructure

    February 8, 2017 at EST pm

  3. “the overall guiding philosophy of the decision is that the President can do whatever he wants with respect to immigration”

    No, the real overall guiding philosophy of the decision is that immigration restriction is “racist” and we shouldn’t enforce any immigration laws.

    Hermes

    February 8, 2017 at EST pm

    • This is correct.

      snorlaxwp

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

  4. If the SC ignores precedent, then that means the SC has clearly gone rogue. Not only the Trump admin, but other Republicans and even conservative justices will call the court out.

    It would be the ultimate Pyrrhic victory for the Left, giving Trump the political capital he needs to just defy the courts.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 8, 2017 at EST pm

    • It doesn’t work that way. The press and the civil service are on a war footing against him; you need at least one in your corner to be able to defy the courts. He doesn’t have strong enough alternative sources of power in Congress or the military, so a French-style new republic is also out of the question.

      snorlaxwp

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • @ snorlaxwp

        Trump just fired the acting AG, and several top officials in the State Department have left their posts. The message should be clear to the civil service.

        Most D.C. bureaucrats and contractors are carrying mortgages and fairly large credit card debts, as well as student loan debt in many cases. Just having high IQs doesn’t mean they don’t eat. Those without large inheritances will come around, which is a big chunk of them.

        Lowe

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • No you do not need the press or the civil service to tangle with the courts. The support of half the public and his own appointed members of the bureaucracy are plenty.

        Otis the Sweaty

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • The support of half the public and his own appointed members of the bureaucracy are plenty.

        His cabinet appointments can keep the professional Bureaucracy pinned down on the defensive. Perry at EPA and Cole at HHS have considerable leverage over the Liberal bureaucrats in their departments.

        His support with the military and Federal law enforcement – the agencies that still lean Republican – is broad enough that there will be no armed coup against him.

        There Will Be No Deep State Coup Against Trump Because the Deep State is (R)

        https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/01/27/there-will-be-no-deep-state-coup-against-trump-because-the-deep-state-is-r/

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  5. Arizona v. United States is, however, directly related to the issue of sanctuary cities. The Department of Justice, now led by Jeff Sessions, can sue the sanctuary cities the way the federal government previously sued Arizona, and demand that they stop the sanctuary nonsense because Trump’s EOs with respect to immigration preempt anything a city wants to do differently. The DOJ just has to cite Arizona v. United States and it should be a slam-dunk victory for the Trump administration. That is, if the courts are honest about following precedent.

    I doubt this is correct.

    Sanctuary cities as far as I know are just refusing to allow their city police to help the federal government enforce immigration law. This is a different legal question. Can the federal government force city/state law enforcement to help enforce federal immigration law. I believe that the courts have generally ruled that the federal government cannot force the co-operation of city/state law enforcement. They can making funding dependent on co-operation, but generally that dependency has to be authorized by Congress.

    mikeca

    February 8, 2017 at EST pm

    • Yeah, we know, anything that is bad for immigrants is unconstitutional. This is old news.

      If the state has a guy who has a federal warrant out for him, they have to hand him over to the Feds. They don’t have to go out and find him, but if they pick him up they are required to hand him over. With immigration it’s the same thing. If the Feds say to send them an illegal that the city has picked up for jaywalking, the states/cities have to comply. If the court goes rogue and says that the states are allowed to flaunt Federal Law, the courts will become viewed as illegitimate by half of the country and Trump will have the leverage he needs to just start ignoring court orders.

      Honestly, this is one of those cases where us Trumpists are actually better off if the court rules against us. It’s only a matter if the courts are stupid enough to play into our hands.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • I’ve noticed a lot of people say “flaunt” when they mean to say “flout.”

        flout

        1.
        openly disregard (a rule, law, or convention).
        “the advertising code is being flouted”

        “Flaunting” federal law — as if they are showing off federal law — does not make any sense. 😛

        Fact Checker

        February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • +1 about the flaut misuse.

        Re sanctuary cities, there is no precise legal definition of this, so let’s stop arguing about it. I don’t think there is or ever has been any legal requirement for a NYC cop to report an illegal to ICE, even if the illegal told the cop he was illegal. In the real world, how would the cop know? It’s his job to arrest perps and tell people to get off the corner. Even a fanatic like me doesn’t think that cops should be in the immigration business.

        OTOH, in the Kate Steinle murder, “On March 26, 2015, at the request of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had turned Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities (Gothamette: which authorities?) for an outstanding drug warrant.[16] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. As a sanctuary city, however, which limits cooperation with ICE only to cases where active charges against the immigrant are identified, San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.[17] San Francisco officials transported Sanchez to San Francisco County Jail on March 26, 2015, to face a 20-year-old felony charge of selling and possessing marijuana after Sanchez completed his latest prison term in San Bernardino County for entering in the country without the proper documents.[18] He was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, and had no outstanding warrants or judicial warrants, as confirmed by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.[14]”

        I think that even mikeca, benighted as he is, can agree that this is an outrage. Do you?

        Regarding “city services” – that is, the city authorities won’t question you if you apply for them. But again, in reality, how many of these city services are really run by the city? In NY State, Medicaid is run by the state. Food Stamps, ditto. I guess illegals can get housing in NYC Housing Authority, but most of those residents are long termers, black and Hispanic, i.e., legal residents or citizens. By the time you apply for housing, there have been many opportunities to kick you out.

        So, as far as sanctuary cities are concerned, most of this is basically virtue signalling, and AG Sessions will destroy every bit of it, root and branch.

        And no more Kate Steinles.

        gothamette

        February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • The Francisco Sanchez case is totally crazy.

        Sanchez first illegally entered the US sometime before 1991. He was convicted on several drug charges and finally deported in 1994. In 1997 he was again convicted on drug charges and deported. In 1998 he was deported again, but was caught entering the US six days later and given a 5 year prison sentence. At the end of that he was again deported in 2003. He was again caught re-entering the US, sent to prison and deported in 2009. Three months later he was caught trying to re-enter again, and sentenced to prison again.

        At the end of that prison sentence in 2015 the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department request Sanchez based on a 20 year old sale and possession of marijuana charge. The charge was dropped after he was delivered to SF. At this point, the SF police released him, because they had no outstanding warrant and they were ignoring the ICE request to turn him over so he could be deported again.

        This is totally insane. Why did the San Francisco Sheriff request Sanchez to face a 20 year old marijuana in the first place. It should have been obvious this charge was going to be dropped. Could anyone even find the evidence or witnesses anymore? The Sheriff has tried to blame ICE and federal prisons for this. The Mayor of SF claims the SF mayor claimed that the SF sanctuary city laws allowed the Sheriff to turn Sanchez over to ICE. Basically just a lot of finger pointing.

        mikeca

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • @mikeca,

        Are you actually trying to blame this debacle on ICE?

        “The Mayor of SF claims the SF mayor claimed that the SF sanctuary city laws allowed the Sheriff to turn Sanchez over to ICE. Basically just a lot of finger pointing.”

        I don’t understand this sentence. Too many mayors. Do you mean, the current mayor of SF claims that the previous SF mayor claimed….”??

        The real issue is the fact that they just couldn’t deport the bastard on the basis that he was here ILLEGALLY. Because of people like you, @mikeca. He shouldn’t have to have an outstanding warrant. He’s illegal. Kick his fucking ass out.

        I swear to God, I’ve never seen anything twistier and more twisted, than the mind of a liberal. It doesn’t matter a shit to you that illegals come here to murder Americans. No @mikeca, the only thing you care about is some procedural bullshit.

        gothamette

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • “Are you actually trying to blame this debacle on ICE?”

        No. There were editing mistakes in that sentence.

        The mayor of SF is blaming the Sheriff, claiming the SF sanctuary city law allows for turning people like Sanchez over to ICE.

        The sheriff is blaming ICE for not having an outstanding warrant for Sanchez at the time of his release.

        I think the sheriff totally screwed up requesting Sanchez when he was released from prison for a stupid 20 year old drug case. He should have known the drug case would just be dropped. Then ICE would have deport Sanchez and re-arrest him in a few weeks later when he tried to re-enter the US again.

        The sheriff then compounded his initial stupidity by releasing him when the drug case got dropped.

        I don’t live in SF county so I don’t get to vote for the SF sheriff, but I would be seriously looking at other candidates if I did.

        mikeca

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • mikeca,

        See, there is the rub: you can’t create a “sanctuary city law” that basically defies the Fed. It’s one thing for the Fed to punish you for refusing to do something. It’s quite another to have a “law” on the books that defies federal law.

        map

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • “It’s one thing for the Fed to punish you for refusing to do something. It’s quite another to have a “law” on the books that defies federal law.”

        Federal, state and local laws contradict each other all the time. Just look at all the marijuana laws.

        mikeca

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • Obama chose not to go after them, but people selling marijuana could be put in federal prison if Jeff Sessions wants to enforce those laws.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • The basic outrage here, mikeca, is that you have a bureaucratic SNAFU where things should be pretty f’ing clear. Everybody’s pointing a finger at everyone else, because everyone was terrified of doing something Not Done: expelling an illegal alien. And a repeat criminal one at that. Regardless of whatever mistake the sherriff made, this would not have happened had the sanctuary city policy been breathing down his neck.

        Smash the crap out of them.

        gothamette

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

    • I dont think Mike’s interpretation is correct.

      These cities are saying they are decriminalizing things that are Federal crimes. That is not allowed.

      Secondly, they are in court claiming that they are harmed by an immigration policy being proposed by the Federal government. But that issue was already decided in Arizona v. United States -its the purview of the Federal government. Its already a decided thing that 50 states cant construct their own immigration policy- thats what Holder argued in port.

      Lion o' the Turambar

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • argued in Court.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • Different sanctuary city laws say different things, but my understanding they generally just instruct local police to not check the immigration status of people they stop or arrest. The local police are not helping to enforce immigration law.

        As far as I know there are no court decisions that say the federal government can force local police to enforce immigration law or any other federal law.

        mikeca

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  6. Post from DKos about Cotton’s immigration reduction bill:

    “When did our party start caring more about cheap foreign labor coming in than about

    our own citizens. Let them run the experiment. If it fails, trump fails. But pc identity

    politics Dems so off the rails on the wrong shit. ”

    This is a good wedge issue for us.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • I just wish Trump would understand that. The crime/national security side of loose immigration clearly resonates with him more personally, but it’s the economic case that is truly potent on a political level. The Rust Belt didn’t swing GOP for the first time in 30 years because they were scared of getting knifed in the street by a guy named Muhammad.

      Richard

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • The Rust Belt swung Trump mostly for economic reasons but Sailer has argued persuasively that “The White Death” was a factor. A good deal of this is home made opioids and good old alcohol, but don’t forget the contribution of the Mexican drug cartels.

        gothamette

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  7. On DKos they are going Gaga for Warren.

    I had never even considered Warren a candidate. The Dems can’t be this stupid, can they? She has everything bad about Hillary with none of Hillary’s few good qualities.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • Warren is so shrill. She could never win a national election. I can’t stand her politics, but I give her credit: she is a terrific writer and has written brilliantly about bankruptcy in particular.

      Two in the Bush

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • @ Two in the Bush

        This is right. Warren reminds everyone of their least favorite aunt, or some teacher who harangued them in school.

        She doesn’t project strength. She uses the word “fanny,” to describe people’s butts, like your grandmother probably does. She projects the energy of a bossy old woman.

        Nobody can see her as the commander of the military. Hilary was only halfway believable in that role because she seemed like she might stab you in the neck if you didn’t do as she said. Warren doesn’t seem subtly crazy like that. She would lose against any Republican who isn’t a total cuck.

        Lowe

        February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • That’s good news. With Elizabeth Warren as the voice of the Democratic party, and Keith “Jews Were Slavers” Mitchell at DNC, Trump won’t even have to campaign. That is if he makes it through this term. The media are really out to get him.

      I actually used to like a few things that Warren said back when the banks collapsed. Sailer liked her too.

      But then she went all BLM and we parted ways.

      gothamette

      February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  8. Illegal immigrants are too important to both chamber of commerce/plutocrat republicans and democratic demographic replacement plans for Trump and the American people to win this one…unless it becomes a hot war. People mocked the “Minute Men” and those other Tea Party types who did border patrol, but the truth is a law is only respected if it can be enforced, and enforcement sometimes involves “force.” Since the Left believes enforcement is wrong, the only way this can really be resolved is with some kind of conflict erupting between the Left and Right on the scale of a Civil War. For those who think this is fear-mongering or overreaction, if you look at what happened at Berkeley recently with Milo, I think it’s safe to say a powder keg has already been lit and the battle lines have been drawn. The Left wants to burn things, consumed by nihilism, and the right wants to build or at least preserve things. A house divided cannot stand, especially when one half of the family is pouring gasoline on the carpet in the living room and lighting a match. I’m not advocating violence, just pointing out that it’s already happening, and is probably going to get much, much worse.

    Joey Junger

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • @ Joey Junger

      Young men burning garbage cans and punching people a lot doesn’t much resemble a civil war. You’ll have a leg to stand on if the CA state gov’t defies Trump, and federal troops are sent. Till then, no.

      Also Trump just got his whole cabinet confirmed. I’m sure you noticed. He is still winning. It’s a too early to pick up your ball and go home.

      Lowe

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

  9. Lion, what happens if the courts rule against Trump?

    Genuinely not sure what happens here.
    If Trump defies them, can they impeach him?

    jjbees

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • Who is “they”? Only the House can impeach the president and they “can” impeach him at any time for any thing.

      CamelCaseRob

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • Who will impeach him? The Republican majorities in both houses? Very few of their constituents want that.

      People on the right want justice, law, and order. Trump is their champion, and this is known in D.C. Congress will not impeach him.

      Lowe

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

  10. The law is a meaningless facade; it’s just words.

    All lawyers do is produce a voluminous amount of words for outrageous fees while other insanely paid lawyers can argue in even more words why those words don’t mean what they’re supposed to mean.

    It’s not about following the “law” which is just a bunch of words it’s just about being paid to argue for one agenda over another and calling it “justice.”

    fakeemail

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • @ fake email

      You are correct. Lawyers are modern day witch doctors. You pay one an obscene amount of money to do voodoo to protect you against a curse another one put on you, and the big witch doctor in the dress tells you who has the better juju.

      Lowe

      February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  11. So in this case, Scalia, Thomas and Alito apparently voted in favor of the states being able to do what they want. While the rest, unsurprisingly, voted with the Feds. Of course, Ginsburg/Soto/Breyer vote straight Prog politics, not caring one little bit about “the law.” Those three, and of course Kagan as well, will vote exactly the opposite now and say that the states have rights on immigration that the Feds cannot touch, because they are shameless Progs.

    Kennedy and Roberts, though, have more of a tendency to vote in favor of Federal power (esp Kennedy).

    What will be interesting is if Thomas/Alito stick to their guns on states rights. In which case, you get everybody voting against Trump except for Kennedy and Roberts, and Trump loses 6-2, and America effectively becomes a nation without immigration laws.

    peterike

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • No, the conservatives on the court understand that federal immigration law duly passed by Congress and signed by the Executive is a legitimate expression of the will of the people and that enforcing such laws does not thwart the will of the people. If the Executive chooses not carry out his responsibilities, such as enforcing existing federal law, it is not wrong for states to do so. The states are not superseding federal law in this instance.

      In the current instance the states are flouting federal law so the conservatives on the court will have no problem remaining consistent if they rule against the states.

      Andrew E.

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

      • Well explained, thank you.

        peterike

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • “No, the conservatives on the court understand that federal immigration law duly passed by Congress and signed by the Executive is a legitimate expression of the will of the people ….”

        The 1965 Immigration Act wasn’t the will of the people. The people were asleep then, living in Paradise, and they gave away the keys to the kingdom to Kenney & Celler.

        gothamette

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  12. A libertanist analysis echoes MG’s point that if Trump argues national security, he wins.

    Robert

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

  13. The courts may not be honest, but they should be afraid of the consequences of dishonesty. Many will support Trump if he ignores them, up to and including the SCOTUS.

    Lowe

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

  14. Do we have to worry about Gorsuch?

    I think so. He has apparently already criticized Trump regarding this first court fiasco, right?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318565-could-court-pick-gorsuch-be-a-crypto-liberal-conservatives

    Damnit.

    Social justice church? Loved by his students at a liberal law school, who think he is a great pick?

    Dan

    February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • He may just be saying that in order to sound independent.

      OR, as I said in the previous post, both conservative and liberal judges alike take the independence of the judiciary seriously. “…don’t forget that the federal judiciary is an independent branch of government, and that all federal judges, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, agree that the judiciary is independent and they desire to maintain the power of their branch of government. Any attempt at bullying judges with insults is going to hurt him by turning conservative judges against him.”

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 9, 2017 at EST am

    • That church sounds like cause for concern. I was under the impression he was ACNA. Guess not.

      Two in the Bush

      February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • I agree. Someone who goes to a church like that is a problem. Presidents have made a lot of boneheaded appointments to the Supreme Court. And it’s starting to look like this may be one of them. I would have thought Trump (or at least his people) would have done ore due diligence on this guy.

        destructure

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • Once again, read what I wrote yesterday: “the federal judiciary is an independent branch of government, and that all federal judges, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, agree that the judiciary is independent and they desire to maintain the power of their branch of government. Any attempt at bullying judges with insults is going to hurt him by turning conservative judges against him.”

        Problem is Trump being Trump: works well with prole voters, works well against the mainstream media, does not work well with judges.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • @ LotB

        The problem is whether those statements about “social justice” and “advocacy” about his church are genuine, not whether Trump might have ruffled the feathers of some uptight people. Adults should be able to brush off Trump’s crass style of rhetoric. Especially adult men.

        Hopefully Gorsuch is only expressing solidarity with his fellow judges, and with the Democrats, to make his confirmation easier. It’s not a good sign though, if he actually does let a lady preacher lecture him about liberal causes. That is super beta, and would suggest he lacks the constitution to dispense with leftist nonsense, down the road.

        Attacking Mexican judge Curiel didn’t hurt Trump enough to prevent his election (if it did at all). I doubt similar behavior will hurt him with solid Republican or centrist voters, or their representatives in Congress. It might even help solidify his support, because it shows he is consistent, and in some measure flawed, and therefore relatable. Ultimately the people and Congress are stronger cards to hold, than the judiciary. I think that branch will fall in line, because the alternative is a fight that they will not win.

        Lowe

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • Problem is Trump being Trump: works well with prole voters, works well against the mainstream media, does not work well with judges.”

        This isn’t about Trump being Trump. This is about Gorsuch being a cuck.

        destructure

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

    • John Yoo, of all people, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times attacking Trump for going too far on executive authority (though he did say the travel ban was OK legally). People that seemed very right-wing during the Bush and Obama years might not fit in well with the Trump era and the issues his administration raises up as points of contention.

      Richard

      February 9, 2017 at EST pm

    • The Episcopal Church is 100% down the line liberal/left. It’s inconceivable how any type of conservative could sit through a sermon at that church.

      Lewis Medlock

      February 10, 2017 at EST pm

  15. Cities (to extent they are creatures of the state) have the right to ignore federal laws and not cooperate with the Feds.

    The Feds then of course have the right to make federal funding contingent on state and city cooperation.

    Jimi

    February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  16. Oh no…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/09/trump-expresses-openness-to-new-bipartisan-immigration-bill-senators-say/

    According to the West Virginia Democrat, when Trump noted that there is no current immigration legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill, another senator in attendance, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), mentioned the 2013 bill.

    Alexander also noted that the 2013 bill had passed with 68 votes, Manchin recalled.

    “Well, that sounds like something good and you all agreed, 68? What happened to it?” Trump said, according to Manchin.

    “I’ll tell you exactly what happened, Mr. President,” Manchin said he told Trump. “It went to the House and [Majority Leader] Eric Cantor gets defeated. They’re crying ‘Amnesty, amnesty, amnesty’ and [House Speaker] John Boehner could not bring it back up on the floor and get a vote — that’s exactly what happened.”

    At that point, Trump said, “I want to see it,” Manchin said. “So he was very anxious to see it. He says, ‘I know what amnesty is.’ And I said, ‘Sir, I don’t think you’re going to find this [is] amnesty at all.’”

    A spokesman for Alexander said in an email that the senator “thinks it is appropriate to allow the President to characterize his own position. But the Senator did suggest that it is important to fix our immigration system and that the President is in a unique position to help do that.”

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who also attended the lunch, confirmed that the group “talked a little bit about immigration reform.”

    “I think he’s looking to try to find some way to broker deals where we can get things done,” Cornyn said of Trump.

    snorlaxwp

    February 9, 2017 at EST pm

    • The only good thing about that story is that Trump doesn’t know anything about the bill. Can Bannon, Sessions and Miller set him straight?

      Richard

      February 9, 2017 at EST pm

      • The problem is he doesn’t just have good influences, but the toxic influences of Pence and Priebus.

        snorlaxwp

        February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  17. Well looks like the lawless 9th Circuit didn’t enforce Trump’s ban. Meanwhile, the vermin flood into the nation, but at least this may set up a real showdown.

    peterike

    February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  18. Lion,

    Since this article of mine discusses proles may I get a front page link to it?

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/how-comte-overthrew-marx-part-ii/

    The Undiscovered Jew

    February 9, 2017 at EST pm

  19. The Constitution will be the destruction of this country. This monstrosity can be interpreted in any way judges want.

    Precedence is really stupid too. One guy makes a decision and it has to be followed forever?

    First, the courts state we can’t have free association among ourselves and now the Left is pushing that we can’t keep foreigners out, which means the destruction of the country.

    ttgy

    February 9, 2017 at EST pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: