Boston, Somerville, Cambridge not among first communities feds try to squeeze over sanctuary status

The Times reports the Justice Department has singled out nine jurisdictions - including the entire state of Connecticut - as the first places to possibly lose federal grants over their refusal to let local law enforcement hand over whatever information ICE wants.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Connecticutt?

By on

The NYT article says it's the State of California.

And...drum roll...I blame Obama

From the linked article:
"The Justice Department sent letters to officials in New York City, Philadelphia, California and other places that were singled out last year* by the agency’s inspector general for regulations that interfere with the ability of police or sheriffs to communicate with federal immigration authorities about the status of prisoners in their custody."
* https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/1607.pdf

Obviously the current administration is just continuing the work of administering the laws from the previous administration.

"Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions warned that recipients of federal law enforcement grants were required to comply with a 1996 law that bars the local authorities from forcing officials to withhold information from federal immigration authorities about people’s immigration status."

1996. That was a year when President Clinton was the president. So, it was passed with his signature, I guess.

OK, so the whole 'Trump' thing gets destroyed by reading the Times article. All he's doing is enforcing the laws as passed in the past and enforcing the wishes of previous administrations.

I don't see a whole lot of Constitutional Crisis BS here. But then again, I'm not a Sixth Circuit justice.

Yawn

Quality is more important than quantity when trying to make a point.

Ever hear of parsimony?

Yannow...

I wasn't going to bother, because old thread is old, but hey, why not...

First, get some sleep. You need it, your reasoning ability is snot. Shot, I mean shot.
All of my above comment was derived from the article AG linked to in the Times. The PDF was linked in the article.

So, quality depends on the quality of the Times, which can be questionable, granted.

Tenth amendment

Case law says that 45 won't win here. Even Scalia would not have granted this as legal.

Watch for the Ninth Circuit to smack this jackbooted nonsense down hard.

The Ninth Circut

By on

Regardless of how you feel about this particular case/circumstance is a joke. 62% of their rulings are overturned by the SC. They are the definition of a kangaroo court.

Conservative talking points are so facile, i.e., wrong

By on

No, 62% of the Ninth Circuit's opinions are not overturned by the Supreme Court. The vast majority of the circuit's decisions, like 11,000 or so a year, do not go to the Supreme Court - just like the vast majority of decisions in every other federal circuit.

In fact, of the Ninth Circuit's decisions that do go to the Supreme Court, 79% of its decisions are overturned. Gasp! Get the smellin' salts, Mabel! But, but, but: In 2015, the Supreme Court heard just 11 - count 'em, 11 - cases from the 9th circuit - out of more than 11,000 cases for which Ninth Circuit judges issued rulings. I'll leave it to you to figure out what percentage of Ninth Circuit decisions that means the Supreme Court actually overturned.

But, wait, it gets even better: The Supreme Court overturns 70% of all the cases it does hear from all the federal circuits. And the circuit with the highest percentage of overturned cases is the Sixth, which covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee - way up there at 85%.

Source.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

IANAL, so I feel free to say whatever the hell I want, but I'll try to base it on stuff that I read on, you know, law type blogs and stuff. Ergo, links ipsa loquitur.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2017/02/the-sixth-circuit-is-the-...
"If there is a valuable reversal stat, it might be the "full reversal rate measure" * proposed by Philadelphia lawyers John S. Summers and Michael J. Newman of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller. Summers and Newman base their reversal metric on cases where the Supreme Court examines circuit splits.
That analysis can give a more accurate estimate of which circuits are closer to the Supreme Court's thought. Under that method, looking at the past seven terms, the Sixth is only the second most reversed circuit. The first? Yep, it's the Ninth, for what it's worth."
* http://www.hangley.com/practice-areas/litigation/supreme-court-project

But, as with most statistics, the proof is in the pudding... http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2013/06/ninth-battling-to-regain-...

"In December, the ABA Journal stated that the Sixth Circuit had surpassed the infamous Ninth as the most reversed court, with an 81.6 percent reversal rate since the fall of 2005. The Ninth Circuit, which held the second-place spot, was reversed in "only" 78.1 percent of cases."
"Though the Sixth Circuit is sporting a 100 percent reversal rate, that only comes on two decisions, according to the May 31 edition of SCOTUSblog's ever-useful stat pack. The Ninth, meanwhile, has an 86 percent reversal rate on 7 decisions handed down so far in the current term.
In the ten days since, the Ninth Circuit has twice more been reversed..."

On the other hand, sometimes a clown car is a clown car:

"Earlier in the term, the Supreme Court summarily reversed a decision in which the 6th Circuit had issued a writ of habeas corpus to an Ohio defendant convicted of murder. The Supreme Court unanimously said that “because it is not clear that the Ohio Supreme Court erred at all, much less erred so transparently that no fair-minded jurist could agree with that court’s decision, the 6thCircuit’s judgment must be reversed.
Last June, the justices found another 6th Circuit case to reverse summarily, and this time it used unusually impatient language.
“It was plain and repetitive error for the 6th Circuit to rely on its own precedents in granting [a convicted murderer] habeas relief,” the high court said in Parker v. Matthews. The court added that the 6th Circuit’s decision was “a textbook example of what the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) proscribes: ‘using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.’ ”
The summary reversal in Parker was a “smackdown” and a “clear rebuke” to the 6th Circuit, Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan H. Adler wrote in the Volokh Conspiracy."

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has...

Lies, damn lies and statistics. So, Politifact is basically wrong, or right, depending...

Interesting stats, but ...

By on

That's not what the original poster is saying, any more than Sean Hannity, who started the whole thing, was saying. They are saying that the vast majority of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned and that, therefore, the Ninth Circuit is illegitimate (plus, you know, Hawaii isn't really America, so it shouldn't be allowed to decide America cases).

In fact, the vast majority of Ninth Circuit decisions are never even reviewed, let alone overturned. There's a dramatic difference between 79% of 11,000 cases being overturned and 79% of 11 cases being overturned. If you look at the Politifact post, they even cite one circuit which had 100% of its cases overturned one year - all two of them.

So the fact that the Ninth Circuit sometimes may have more of its cases that make it to the Supreme Court overturned than other circuits is interesting, as you note, but it's hardly anywhere near the claims of illegitimacy and un-Americanness the frothing right seems to think they are. So, yeah, lies, damned lies and statistics.

No

Anon was a little bit sloppy, but the point stands. I believe he was talking about the percentage of cases that 'go to the Supreme Court'. Hell, how can it be overturned if it doesn't? As you stated.

So, my 'lies and statistics' post stands. It could be the Sixth, or the Ninth, depending on the metric you choose to use for the measurement. Oh, it probably also depends on the time frame, like Michael Mann's hockey stick.

"If you look at the Politifact post, they even cite one circuit which had 100% of its cases overturned one year - all two of them. "

Ya, the findlaw site said the same thing:

"Though the Sixth Circuit is sporting a 100 percent reversal rate, that only comes on two decisions, according to the May 31 edition of SCOTUSblog's ever-useful stat pack. The Ninth, meanwhile, has an 86 percent reversal rate on 7 decisions handed down so far in the current term.
In the ten days since, the Ninth Circuit has twice more been reversed..."

" but it's hardly anywhere near the claims of illegitimacy and un-Americanness the frothing right seems to think they are."
With the reversal rate between the Sixth and the Ninth, maybe you don't have to be a member of the 'frothing right' as you so eloquently put it to think something's a bit squirrelley (sp) in their thinking.

Judge Kahala

He's on an island
In the Pacific
And everything about him
is terrific
Harvard JD, lovely family, and
judicial stay on The Ban.

I'm so old I can remember

By on

I'm so old I can remember when the tenth amendment was racist.

While you're dusting off that constitution of yours, you might want to read Article 1, Section 8.

Illegal?

By on

There seems to be plenty of precedent to uphold Trumps plan.

Doesn't the fed withhold fed highway money unless states abide by this or that?

It's one of the reason we have the seat belt law, or the speed limits...to satisfy the fed requirement and be able to get fed highway funds....

Cherrypick much?

You seem to forget that google is easy to use here - that case was over 5% of highway funds being withheld - since it was not 100% or a burdensome amount, the court ruled that 5% was an INCENTIVE not a COERCIVE punishment.

The current situation fails that test.

Read the case for yourself - easy enough to look it up,

Also check out the cases from the late 90s.

Um...

I believe they're talking about $29-39 million for law enforcement withholding.

"The current situation fails that test."

Nope. Get some rest, dear.

Wrong

Just wrong. Read the opinion in question.

Two test are failed: coercion and ambiguity.

Then read the opinions on 10th amendment cases from the late 90s, which are even more relevant (i.e. the Fed cannot compel states to do the fed's work)

Oh, but you'd rather copy and past irrelevant nonsense out of context.

Don't let the door hit your arse ...

**The current situation fails

By on

**The current situation fails that test.**

I don't think so. We are not withholding 100% of funds.

And, you are not a judge, a new judge can find differently.

The truth is that the government has used "incentives" through the years, this is just one more.

They are not making the city/towns/state do their work, they are entering into a mutually beneficial agreement. Reciprocal agreements have been part of the Fed/State/City relationship forever.

You are stating how you wish things were.....instead of how they are.

"Case law says that 45 won't win here."

"Case law says that 45 won't win here."

Heh. If I'm not mistaken, Maxine Waters was calling for 'the impeachment of 45"
[clip starts]
WATERS: "Impeach 45."
CROWD (chanting): "Impeach 45."
WATERS: "Impeach 45."
[clip ends]
So, it looks like you have someone on your level of sound reasoning.

"Watch for the Ninth Circuit to smack this jackbooted nonsense down hard."

Why? It was Clinton's law and Obama's list.

Try to keep up with current events, dear.

Anymore non sequiturs?

You seem to think that avoiding engagement with actual arguments and evidence refutes things.

Schematic of your recent posts:

It's very cold on Neptune today, and Neptune is a globe ...

(twenty seven irrelevant links)
(long rambling irrelevant paragraph)
(bizarre anecdotal tautlogy)

Therefore ... THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

Precedent? Highway laws and federal money...?

By on

There seems to be plenty of precedent to uphold Trumps plan.

Doesn't the fed withhold fed highway money unless states abide by this or that?

It's one of the reason we have the seat belt law, or the speed limits...to satisfy the fed requirement and be able to get fed highway funds....

RTFO

Please look up and read the opinion on that case (South Dakota v. Dole) before you cite it.

That case also established criteria under which decisions about 10th Amendment cases could be made - criteria that the present situation fails.

Google is your friend.

The feds have been bringing

By on

The feds have been bringing states to heel with threats of withholding various funds for decades. Old news. I'd say it's about time this sort of bullying should stop, but first we'd have to go back in time and undue all the strong-arm actions that liberals loved so much.

Title Nine

Google is your friend.

I think there will be a few changes on the college circuit, Title IX wise...

Nope

The key difference: the federal government can make laws that supercede state laws (Loving v Virginia, duhhhh), but the federal government CANNOT require states to do its work for them in terms of things that fall squarely within the federal sphere (such as federal gun control laws or immigration enforcement).

Go read the New York case about gun control dear - if you are capable of looking that up and not getting all ... uh ... derailed at the thought of guns and all that.

But I won't bother explaining things that you clearly are unable to understand.