There, the Obama appointee explains
that his ruling is about . . . nothing.
``That is, Orrick acknowledges that he is adopting the construction
of the E.O. urged by the Trump Justice Department, which maintains that
the order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already
existing law. Although that construction is completely consistent with
the E.O. as written, Judge Orrick implausibly describes it as
`implausible.' ''
I would interject at this point, Mr. Speaker, that upon hearing
President Trump's executive order requiring sanctuary cities such as
San Francisco, where their heart is so calloused on the side
figuratively facing people like Kate Steinle, innocent people who are
just trying to live freely their own lives, and is greatly softened on
the side of those criminals who have come into the United States
illegally who would tend to shoot lovely, law-abiding daughters like
Kate. So it seemed eminently reasonable what I had read was in the order. I
didn't read the whole order originally, but it made eminent sense, of
course, the President of the United States saying that he is authorized
by the Constitution in carrying out enforcement and by Congress in
carrying out enforcement, saying we are not sending Federal money to
sanctuary cities--to any cities--that are refusing to use the money for
the purpose for which it is intended. That makes eminent sense, because
if you are not going to follow Federal law, if it is made clear to the
whole world that you would rather see people like Kate Steinle shot and
killed dead so that you can have criminals committing the worst kinds
of violence on law-abiding citizens. That makes sense to these people
who are ruling in San Francisco.
Identified stereotypes
criminals committing the worst kinds of violence on law-abiding citizens
Keywords matched
sanctuary cities