WWTBAM Bored

Of course, the judge, William Orrick, is from Northern California.

https://apnews.com/a0e35587fcfa42f6bb76 ... _medium=AP

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Of course, the judge, William Orrick, is from Northern California.

https://apnews.com/a0e35587fcfa42f6bb76 ... _medium=AP

Really? Explain to me in what manner Judge Orrick's ruling is legally mistaken. --Bob

Judge Orrick wrote:The president has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.

Isn't that what the Republican majority Supreme Court said when it overturned the part of the Affordable Care Act that reduced Medicaid funding to states that didn't accept Medicaid expansion? In that case, the Court struck down part of a bill passed by Congress. Here, Judge Orrick is blocking an executive order, but in your eyes he's making law.

Let me help you out here, flock. You can download the actual order from this page. So please explain to me in what respect Judge Orrick's 49-page order contravenes existing law. I'll wait.

While I'm waiting, you also can explain to me how private health insurance companies add value to the system. It seems fairly obvious that their advertising, underwriting, and administrative expenses, as well as their profits, don't add any value at all for consumers, but you seem to think I'm wrong about that for some reason you haven't yet articulated.

Please use your own words. --Bob

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake voted to confirm him so he can't be all bad.

jarnon wrote:

Judge Orrick wrote:The president has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.

Isn't that what the Republican majority Supreme Court said when it overturned the part of the Affordable Care Act that reduced Medicaid funding to states that didn't accept Medicaid expansion?

In fact, Judge Orrick's order quotes from the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision.

Why didn't Judge Orrick jump in to stop sanctuary cities from violating federal law?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10816/5-t ... on-bandler

While I'm waiting, you also can explain to me how private health insurance companies add value to the system. It seems fairly obvious that their advertising, underwriting, and administrative expenses, as well as their profits, don't add any value at all for consumers, but you seem to think I'm wrong about that for some reason you haven't yet articulated.

Bob, I have answered your question very specifically even WITHOUT you answering mine. I am sorry that you don't understand or accept it. That is your problem, and is no reason to be rude. Please do me the common courtesy of answering my question without evasion. If you can't or won't answer my question to you, do me a favor and stop being a petulant child about it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Why didn't Judge Orrick jump in to stop sanctuary cities from violating federal law?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10816/5-t ... on-bandler

Because no one has sued them to do so and federal judges don't provide advisory opinions on cases that aren't before them. When someone with standing brings such a lawsuit in federal court, then it will be proper for a judge to decide whether a local jurisdiction's actions are constitutional. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:While I'm waiting, you also can explain to me how private health insurance companies add value to the system. It seems fairly obvious that their advertising, underwriting, and administrative expenses, as well as their profits, don't add any value at all for consumers, but you seem to think I'm wrong about that for some reason you haven't yet articulated.

Bob, I have answered your question very specifically even WITHOUT you answering mine. I am sorry that you don't understand or accept it. That is your problem, and is no reason to be rude. Please do me the common courtesy of answering my question without evasion. If you can't or won't answer my question to you, do me a favor and stop being a petulant child about it.

No, you haven't. You used some old quote from Ronald Reagan that has nothing to do with the actual issue, much less the economic analysis. I'm still waiting for an actual answer from you on this issue. I expect to be waiting a very long time because the reality is that private health insurance in fact subtracts, rather than adds, value to the system. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Why didn't Judge Orrick jump in to stop sanctuary cities from violating federal law?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10816/5-t ... on-bandler

Contrary to this biased article, sanctuary cities do comply with federal law, specifically the 4th Amendment. Philadelphia turns over illegal alien criminals when ICE has a warrant. Prisoners in non-sanctuary cities who were detained with no warrant have sued the cities and won. And ICE agents are welcome to arrest any illegal alien they want, including local prisoners, at any time.

jarnon wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Why didn't Judge Orrick jump in to stop sanctuary cities from violating federal law?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10816/5-t ... on-bandler

Contrary to this biased article, sanctuary cities do comply with federal law, specifically the 4th Amendment. Philadelphia turns over illegal alien criminals when ICE has a warrant. Prisoners in non-sanctuary cities who were detained with no warrant have sued the cities and won. And ICE agents are welcome to arrest any illegal alien they want, including local prisoners, at any time.

I'll add that when making a detainer request, the federal government does not indemnify local jurisdictions from any damages they might have to pay because the extended detention violates the Constitution. --Bob

Judge Orrick's ruling in April was temporary, but now it's permanent.

Federal judge blocks Trump’s executive order on denying funding to sanctuary cities