Failing Trump administration. Sad!

No, not at all. They are under no obligation to perform that affirmative action.

The state does not enforce federal laws.
That’s what we have federal law enforcement agencies for.

It’s been extensively documented that the GOP caucus in the Senate went crazy with the filibuster during the Obama Administration, exceeding its use by either party in any earlier period. Reid and the majority finally said “enough” and only did what Bill Frist had threatened to do during the Bush years with much less provocation.
Of course, McConnell being all “Party before Country” as he tends to be* decided “hell, let’s just go for broke and not hold confirmation hearings for Garland, and then gut the filibuster for ALL nominees, why not?”

*in this and in the case of a unified calling-out of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, BTW. Fucking traitor.

So I guess a state can pick and choose what federal laws they will enforce and what federal laws they will ignore. I guess I understand that in principle but in practice it seems like a mess, and when it effects the criminal justice system, and it does in California, then we have a problem.

We also have within the state a separate set of enforcement principles as some counties work with the feds and others don’t.

Remember when being qualified mattered?

Again, the state does not enforce any federal laws, ever. Such things are outside their jurisdiction.

Sure, it’s up to them whether they want to do such things. In most cases, the reason local police don’t call ICE on folks, is not because they love illegal immigration. It’s because if word gets out that the local police call ICE, then folks who may have immigration status issues will stop talking to the cops, which will result in it being more difficult for the local police to enforce the laws that they are actually responsible for enforcing.

I honestly don’t get the restrictions to even bring something to the floor. I mean, if anyone could bring absolutely anything to the floor at any time, they’d never get anything done, but it seems like the majority leader has way too much power in this regard.

Timex (or any one interested) - what do you make of the California mayor who warned illegal immigrants of an incoming ICE raid? If you were the judge : is that legal? (The well established law is: states and cities cannot actively interfere with ICE /federal immigration functions, but they don’t have to help either). I am curious on which side of the line you think this is

Source /background https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/oakland-mayor-ice-warning.amp.html

Also curious if you think it’s a close case, regardless of your ruling

Mother is it okay if the Doctor examines my wee wee?

I think it’s entirely possible it was both not legal and the right thing to do.

I’m actually not sure whether her action was legal or not. It could be construed as interfering with the government’s enforcement of laws. If that’s the case, then the federal government should charge her.

Given how ICE has been acting lately, I think I’d warn anyone in their path too.

In the Bay Area at least it made her very popular. Also she did nothing wrong, she was not briefed about the raid she heard it from some decent folks within ICE itself who told her. She simply passed on that warning to the public and fellow Californians who could then avoid the raid. Win/win.

Interestingly soon after one ICE member had the courage to resign his position over the Trump regimes lies about the matter.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/13/593104213/ice-spokesman-quits-over-leaders-use-of-misleading-facts-to-discuss-calif-arrest

You mean, that he’s actually a lich?

Nah. Liches have actual power.

Maybe if you address the individual parts of The List reasonably instead of casting aspersions?

I’ve often thought that the minority should be able to bring some legislation up for a vote. Like for every N members they can bring up one bill per year. It’s perverse that there are so many measures that would pass but can’t succeed because they don’t have the support of the majority of the majority.

So much of our government is basically built on gentlemen’s agreements, cause we always behaved (prior to until very, very recently) like gentlemen. It’s clear that we’re going to need to spell out everything, which I fear is impossible, especially if the Dems retake the government, cause they’re going to have their hands full just cleaning up all the other goddamn messes.

It speaks volumes that this point isn’t acknowledged by folks on the right who use anti-immigration as a rallying call. They would rather cultivate their nationalist rabble than ensure the safety of people in this country. I wonder how they’d feel if we had the police checking whether people were up to date on their taxes during speeding stops. Because it’s the exact same thing.

That was the impression I got as well. She was playing to her constituency. It was more a matter of politics, campaigning, than any sort of meaningful interference with a federal agency.

-Tom

Right. I also think people who dont live here (by “here” I mean California and the Bay Area specifically) usually have a confused opinion on daily life and attitudes in the area. The majority of employees in the bay area are immigrants so anti immigrant sentiment is going to be met with a blank look at best. It would be a brave* local politician who sides with Trump on anything, let alone immigration where there seems to be almost universal agreement.

*and I mean that in the British use of the word, as in “bloody stupid”

It might not accomplish anything, but at minimum you could get votes for/against on the record.