A Reagan-appointed judge today declared a law penalizing sanctuary cities unconstitutional. The judge also said efforts by Jeff Sessions to impose immigration-related conditions on federal law enforcement grants are also unconstitutional.
The ruling was issued only for Chicago at the moment, but the judge says it’s intended for the entire nation.
It’s not a penalty. It’s a tax.
Totally constitutional.
Tell it to the judge.
I never get tired of the penalty-tax line, despite reading it across the forum dozens upon dozens of times.
Trump needs a new AG.
Do you think another AG wouldn’t have suffered the same fate in regards to this law that Sessions did?
If he used the same approach, I’d expect the results to be the same.
What approach would you suggest he use?
The approach that gets you where you intend to arrive.
How do you expect to arrive at your goal if your goal is unconstitutional?
The Supreme court ruled on a gambling law and their interpretation is being applied to this instance making using a section of the law…unconstitutional.
Tell it to 9 Judges as in SCOTUS who will overturn the activist Judges ruling.
Don’t be a sore loser.
Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser. 
Here I thought you guys favored states rights and local control but support a heavy handed federal government.
The underlying precedent is from Printz and anti-commandeering principle vis the 10th.
Who knew abiding by the 10th amendment is activism.
You must be lost.
I can’t wait until Gorsuch is called an activist judge by the right.
This has got to create quite the conundrum for Trump. Does he:
A) Tweet about what a loser this so called judge is, or
B) Tweet about how unfair it is that he picked an AG that is not fulfilling his every desire?
