"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Obama Donor Judge William Orrick: No Sanctuary For American Victims
The Constitution and the laws passed
by Congress define one person who determines and execututes U.S. immigration
policy and U.S. District Judge William Orrick is not it. Yet there is Judge
Orrick once again imposing his will on the expressed will of the American
people through their elected representatives by issuing a permanent ban on President Trump’s executive order
defunding sanctuary cities:
A federal judge in
California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from
sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.
U.S. District Court
Judge William Orrick issued the ruling Monday in lawsuits brought by San
Francisco and Santa Clara counties. According to the judge, Trump can’t set new
conditions on spending approved by Congress.
Judge William Orrick and Barack
But is he setting new conditions or
enforcing existing conditions and existing law? Feferal funds, particularly
federal law enforcement grants, are given out on the assumption, if not the
expressed intent, that recipienys are goin to use that money enforcing federal
law. They are not provided out of the goodness of taxpayer hearts.
As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chairman
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has observed,, activist judges deeply involved in politics are likely more loyal to
their ideology than to the Constitution, doing great harm to the country and
the American people:
“Judges who take the
law into their own hands, who make up constitutional ‘rights’ in order to
strike down laws they oppose, undermine the people’s right to have their values
shape public policy and define the culture.”
Certainly President Trump and his
Department of Justice are well within their authority in directing executive
branch departments to enforce federal laws and programs they administer:
spokesman Devin O’Malley said the judge got it wrong and was intruding on Mr.
Trump’s own powers.
“The district court
exceeded its authority today when it barred the president from instructing his
cabinet members to enforce existing law,” Mr. O’Malley said in a statement.
“The Justice Department will vindicate the president’s lawful authority to
direct the executive branch.”
Judge Orrick, a key Obama donor
appointed by him, has demonstrated such politically motivated activism before,
having put a temporary hold on President Trump’s attempts to defund sanctuary
cities in April, demonstrating a double standard when President Obama tried to
withhold funds from North Carolina suring the transgender restroom kerfuffle.
The fine points of Federal Judge
William Orrick’s ruling blocking the withholding of federal funds from
sanctuary cities must have been lost on the families of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. and Kate Steinle, American citizens
murdered by illegal aliens harbored and coddled by the sanctuary cities of Los
Angeles and San Francisco, respectively. No doubt they failed to grasp the
legal logic which says cities are free to violate federal law while wrapping
themselves in the U.S. Constitution.
The notion advance by Judge Orrick
that the Trump administration’s attempt to defund sanctuary cities is
unconstitutional because it amounts to changing the rules at halftime is
nonsense, both historically and legally. The federal government has long threatened
to withhold federal funds to enforce federal policy over states rights from the
federal speed limit to transgendered bathrooms. As the New York Times noted, President Obama threatened to cut
off federal funds to North Carolina over its transgendered bathroom law:
administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for
billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials
Cutting off any federal
money — or even simply threatening to do so — would put major new pressure on
North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local protections for gay
and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can
Orrick ruled that the Trump
administration cannot set new conditions on federal funding approved by
Congress. He had no objection to Obama’s proposed defunding of unrelated
matters in North Carolina. Implicit in accepting federal funding, one would
think, would be the condition of obeying the laws of the United States which
sanctuary city officials are sworn to uphold. The laws of the United States
give the President control of immigration policy and the Constitution gives the
President control of foreign policy and border security.
Harboring — Subsection
1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in
reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains
in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from
detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien
in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Now it may be argued that the DOJ
would be better off legally prosecuting sanctuary city mayors rather than
trying to withhold federal funds from their cities, but one is not exclusive of
the other. Sanctuary city mayors are in clear violation of federal statute so
for Judge Orrick to argue that withholding federal funds from those violating
federal law is unconstitutional is, again, nonsense.
Sanctuary city officials could very
well be prosecuted for breaking the law and recklessly endangering their
citizens by harboring and shielding from scrutiny illegal aliens among whose
number may include assorted Islamic State agents, sympathizers and potential
lone wolf recruits, along with assorted criminals, like the one charged with
the murder of Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San
Francisco. They are accomplices in crime.
That is the suggestion of Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal. Jindal made the case on recently on Boston Herald Radio:
“Absolutely, I would
hold them as an accomplice. Make them criminally culpable,” the Republican
presidential candidate said when asked if he’d arrest mayors of sanctuary
cities . “I’d also make them civilly liable so that families, victim’s families
could sue. Especially if the prosecutor isn’t taking action or the mayor’s not
changing their ways, I’d allow the families to go to court as well to recover
Again, neither Judge Orrick or any
others who legislate from the bench had no problem with the Obama
administration’s “guidance” to schools that sex discrimination now included
sexual identity and that those that didn’t provide transgendered restrooms put their federal
funding at risk. Judge Orrick may well be the poster child for politicization
of the federal bench and the classic adage, follow the money. As Fox News Insider points out:
Federal Judge William
Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s order to withhold federal
funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of
dollars for President Barack Obama….
The same judge issued a
restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover
videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby
We have seen this judicial overreach
before, in the ruling against by Friend of Obama, Judge Derrick Watson of
Hawaii, who graduated from the same Harvard Law School class as President Obama. Judge Watson also ignored federal statute in his
ruling on Trump’s travel ban from certain Muslim countries. The application by
Judge Watson of the Establishment Clause to Trump’s travel ban, this is from
some Alice In Wonderland law book. If the travel ban violates the Establishment
Clause, why hasn’t 8 U.S. Code 1182 been struck down by Judge Watson or any
other liberal judge? Oklahoma Attorney Robert Barnes, interviewed on Sirius XM
radio, says Judge Watson is clearly wrong in extending the Establish
Clause to non-citizen foreigners:
“His basis for doing so
was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of
association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,” Barnes
continued. “Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that
people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within
the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The
Constitution doesn’t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at
any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here
who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner’s rights, or you had some
physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in
Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle
“The Hawaii judge’s
decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because
he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are
Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises
from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and
visit the country,” he said.
“As long as there is
somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from
coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the
world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation
of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.
“So it’s an
extraordinarily broad order. Its legal doctrine has no limits. If you keep
extending this, it means people from around the world have a special right to
access the United States, visit the United States, emigrate to the United
States, get visas to the United States. There wouldn’t be any limit, and the
president would never be able to control our own borders. It would be up solely
to the whim of a federal judge who effectively delegated it, in this case, to a
Muslim imam in Hawaii,” he contended.
Two activist judges personally and
politically close to Obama have ignored federal statute to promote an
ideological agenda Obama and liberal mayors of sanctuary cities embrace. These
cases may soon be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. Thankfully, Judge Neil
Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist with no discernible political agenda, now
sits on a Supreme Court that may soon have a chance to restore adherence to
federal law and, yes, the Constitution.