Federal Judge Rules: AG Sessions Can’t Withhold Federal Money From Sanctuary Cities | John Hawkins’ Right Wing News


Federal Judge Rules: AG Sessions Can’t Withhold Federal Money From Sanctuary Cities

Black robe legislators need to go home. Seriously, they’re making life so much harder than it needs to be because they have their own agenda that they want implemented, but the government simply isn’t doing what they want.

It seems to me to be a logical step to pull funding from people who ignore the laws set forth by a lawfully elected government, right? It’s like a father cancelling the credit card he gave his kid when he found out they were spending all the money on booze and pizza, not textbooks and pencils. If a teacher stepped in and said “You can’t cancel that kid’s card because I said so,” you would absolutely ignore them, wouldn’t you?

×

101 Things All Young Adults Should Know

by Sir John Hawkins

John Hawkins’s book 101 Things All Young Adults Should Know is filled with lessons that newly minted adults need in order to get the most out of life. Gleaned from a lifetime of trial, error, and writing it down, Hawkins provides advice everyone can benefit from in short, digestible chapters.

Buy Now

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber granted Chicago’s request to issue a temporary and nationwide injunction against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has threatened to withhold federal funding from cities who harbor and provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

This means that the Justice Department cannot deny federal money to sanctuary cities until the lawsuit with Chicago is completely resolved. The Judge also wrote that he believes that Chicago has a real chance of winning this battle which aims to prove that Sessions overstepped his boundaries as AG with the requirements.

Wait, so you’re trying to tell me that the Attorney General of the United States can’t tell states that they need to adhere to federal law, or else he will pull money to which they are not entitled anyway? What? Perhaps I’m just some country bumpkin who is a little old-fashioned in my way of thinking, but I thought there were supposed to be consequences when laws are broken? If that’s not the case, then can we just go out and rape, rob and steal, do whatever we want, and then when someone tries to hold us accountable, we complain about them over-stepping their boundaries?

I’m just asking because it seems to me that legal relativity is an extremely slippery slope and for liberals who demand that laws be followed in the case of abortions, (Roe v Wade) it’s even trickier. I mean, anyone can come up with a pseudo-moral argument for any law they broke and expect someone to let them off easy, right? What’s to stop people from walking into your house and taking your stuff because they were heartbroken that they had so little while you had so much?

Sierra Marlee